Buy Text-Link-Ads here
Recent Comments

    follow OlbyWatch on Twitter

    In

    John Gibson Welcomes Back the Infamous, Deplorable Keith Olbermann

    tonyome wrote: <a href="http://twitchy.com/2014/07/28/voxs-laughable-praise-of-keith-olber... [more](11)

    In

    Welcome Back, Olby!

    syvyn11 wrote: <a href="http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/keith-olbermann-reviving-worst... [more](9)

    In

    Former Obama Support/Donor Releases Song Supporting Romney/Ryan: "We'll Take It Back Again" by Kyle Tucker

    syvyn11 wrote: @philly I don't see that happening. ESPN has turned hyper left in recent... [more](64)

    In

    Blue-Blog-a-Palooza: Ann Romney Edition!

    djthereplay wrote: By mkdawuss on August 29, 2012 6:17 PM Will John Gibson be having a "Red-B... [more](4)

    In

    No Joy in Kosville...Mighty Olby Has Struck Out

    djwolf76 wrote: "But the FOX-GOP relationship (which is far more distinguished and prevalen... [more](23)

    KO Mini Blog



    What's in the Olbermann Flood Feed?
    Subscribe to Olbermann Flood Feed:
    RSS/XML

    KO Countdown Clock


    Warning: mktime() [function.mktime]: It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EST/-5.0/no DST' instead in /home/owatch/www/www.olbermannwatch.com/docs/countdown.php on line 5
    KO's new contract with MSNBC ends in...
    0 days 0 hours 0 minutes

    OlbermannWatch.com "My Faves" Set

    OlbermannWatch.com Favorited Photos from other Flickr Users

    Got OlbyPhotos? See some on Flickr? DO NOT email us. Send us a FlickrMail instead. Include a link to the photo. If we like the photo you will see it displayed in the Olby Flickr Flood above.

    New to Flickr? Sign up for a FREE Flickr account!


    Got some OlbyVideo? See some on YouTube? DO NOT email us. Send us a YouTube Messages instead. Include a link to the video. If we like the video you will see it displayed in our favorites list in our YouTube page.

    New to YouTube? Sign up for a FREE YouTube account!

    Red Meat Blog
    Keith Olbermann Quotes
    Countdown Staff Writers

    If they're not on Keith's payroll...

    ...they should be...

    Crooks & Liars
    Daily Kos
    Eschaton
    Huffington Post
    Media Matters for America
    MyDD
    News Corpse
    No Quarter
    Raw Story
    Talking Points Memo
    Think Progress
    TVNewser
    Keith Lovers

    MSNBC's Countdown
    Bloggerman
    MSNBC Transcripts
    MSNBC Group at MSN

    Drinking with Keith Olbermann
    Either Relevant or True
    KeithOlbermann.org
    Keith Olbermann is Evil
    Olbermann Nation
    Olbermann.org
    Thank You, Keith Olbermann

    Don't Be Such A Douche
    Eyes on Fox
    Liberal Talk Radio
    Oliver Willis
    Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O'Reilly

    Anonymous Rat
    For This Relief Much Thanks
    Watching Olbermann Watch

    Keith Olbermann Fanlisting Site I
    Keith Olbermann Fanlisting Site II
    Keith Olbermann Links
    Olberfans
    Sports Center Altar
    Nothing for Everyone

    Democratic Underground KO Forum
    Television Without Pity KO Forum
    Loony KO Forum (old)
    Loony KO Forum (new)
    Olberfans Forum (old)
    Olberfans Forum (new)
    Keith Watchers

    186k per second
    Ace of Spades HQ
    Cable Gamer
    Dean's World
    Doug Ross@Journal
    Extreme Mortman
    Fire Keith Olbermann
    Hot Air
    Inside Cable News
    Instapundit
    Jawa Report
    Johnny Dollar's Place
    Just One Minute
    Little Green Footballs
    Mark Levin
    Media Research Center
    Moonbattery.com
    Moorelies
    National Review Media Blog
    Narcissistic Views
    Newsbusters
    Pat Campbell Show
    Radio Equalizer
    Rathergate
    Riehl World View
    Sister Toldjah
    Toys in the Attic
    Webloggin
    The Dark Side of Keith Olbermann
    World According to Carl

    Thanks for the blogroll link!

    Age of Treason
    Bane Rants
    The Blue Site
    Cabal of Doom-De Oppresso Libre
    Chuckoblog
    Conservative Blog Therapy
    Conservathink
    Country Store
    Does Anyone Agree?
    The Drunkablog!
    Eclipse Ramblings
    If I were President of USA
    I'll Lay Down My Glasses
    Instrumental Rationality
    JasonPye.com
    Kevin Dayhoff
    Last Train Out Of Hell
    Leaning Straight Up
    Limestone Roof
    Mein BlogoVault
    NostraBlogAss
    Peacerose Journal
    The Politics of CP
    Public Secrets: from the files of the Irishspy
    Rat Chat
    Return of the Conservatives
    The Right Place
    Rhymes with Right
    seanrobins.com
    Six Meat Buffet
    Sports and Stuff
    Stout Republican
    Stuck On Stupid
    Things I H8
    TruthGuys
    Verum Serum
    WildWeasel

    Friends of OlbyWatch

    Aaron Barnhart
    Eric Deggans
    Jason Clarke
    Ron Coleman
    Victria Zdrok
    Keith Resources

    Google News: Keith Olbermann
    Feedster: Keith Olbermann
    Technorati: Keith Olbermann
    Wikipedia: Keith Olbermann
    Wikipedia: Countdown
    Wikiality: Keith Olbermann
    Keith Olbermann Quotes on Jossip
    Keith Olbermann Photos
    NNDB Olbermann Page
    IMDB Olbermann Page
    Countdown Guest Listing & Transcripts
    Olbermann Watch FAQ
    List of Politics on Countdown (by party)
    Mark Levin's Keith Overbite Page
    Keith Olbermann's Diary at Daily Kos
    Olbermann Watch in the News

    Houston Chronicle
    Playboy
    The Journal News
    National Review
    San Antonio Express
    The Hollywood Reporter
    The Journal News
    Los Angeles Times
    American Journalism Review
    Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
    St. Petersburg Times
    Kansas City Star
    New York Post/Page Six
    Washington Post
    Associated Press
    PBS
    New York Daily News
    Online Journalism Review
    The Washingon Post
    Hartford Courant
    WTWP-AM
    The New York Observer
    The Washington Post


    Countdown with Keith Olbermann
    Great Moments in Broadcast Journalism
    Great Thanks Hall of Fame
    Keith Olbermann
    MSM KO Bandwagon
    Olbermann
    Olbermann Watch Channel on You Tube
    Olbermann Watch Debate
    Olbermann Watch Image Gallery
    Olbermann Watch Polling Service
    OlbermannWatch
    OlbyWatch Link Roundup
    TVNewser "Journalism"

    July 2013
    September 2012
    August 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009
    August 2009
    July 2009
    June 2009
    May 2009
    April 2009
    March 2009
    February 2009
    January 2009
    December 2008
    November 2008
    October 2008
    September 2008
    August 2008
    July 2008
    June 2008
    May 2008
    April 2008
    March 2008
    February 2008
    January 2008
    December 2007
    November 2007
    October 2007
    September 2007
    August 2007
    July 2007
    June 2007
    May 2007
    April 2007
    March 2007
    February 2007
    January 2007
    December 2006
    November 2006
    October 2006
    September 2006
    August 2006
    July 2006
    June 2006
    May 2006
    April 2006
    March 2006
    February 2006
    January 2006
    December 2005
    November 2005
    October 2005
    September 2005
    August 2005
    June 2005
    May 2005
    April 2005
    March 2005
    February 2005
    January 2005
    December 2004
    November 2004

    Google

    Olbermann Watch Masthead

    Managing Editor

    Robert Cox
    olby at olbywatch dot com

    Contributors

    Mark Koldys
    Johnny Dollar's Place

    Brandon Coates
    OlbyWatch

    Chris Matthews' Leg
    Chris Matthews' Leg

    Howard Mortman
    Extreme Mortman

    Trajan 75
    Think Progress Watch

    Konservo
    Konservo

    Doug Krile
    The Krile Files

    Teddy Schatz
    OlbyWatch

    David Lunde
    Lundesigns

    Alex Yuriev
    Zubrcom

    Red Meat
    OlbyWatch



    Technorati Links to OlbyWatchLinks to OlbermannWatch.com

    Technorati Links to OlbyWatch Blog posts tagged with "Olbermann"

    Combined Feed
    (OlbyWatch + KO Mini-blog)

    Who Links To Me


    Mailing List RSS Feed
    Google Groups
    Subscribe to Olbermann Watch Mailing List
    Email:
    Visit this group



    XML
    Add to Google
    Add to My Yahoo!
    Subscribe with Bloglines
    Subscribe in NewsGator Online

    Add to My AOL
    Subscribe with Pluck RSS reader
    R|Mail
    Simpify!
    Add to Technorati Favorites!

    Subscribe in myEarthlink
    Feed Button Help


    Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004


    October 22, 2007
    Countdown with Keith Olbermann - October 22, 2007

    "COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN" (8:00 P.M.-9:00 P.M. ET)

    Host: Keith Olbermann

    Topics/Guests:

    • THE FEAR CARD: Richard Wolffe, MSLSD
    • GO-GO-GONZALES: John McKay
    • GOP POLITICS: Craig Crawford
    • HARRY POTTER IS ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT: Sure he is

    Keith Oralmann barked the opening spiel: It's the "fear card": money "the fund the deaths of Americans", the Veep "comes out of his cave", Valerie Plame (again), Gonzales (again), GOP debate, wildfires, and more. It's blue Monday at Olbermann Watch.

    Bathtub Boy

    #5: The "third world war" [Ding!]. Cheney the "dark Lord" "rattling sabres". Will Democrats "rubber stamp" funding request? The Wolffe Man simpered that they're throwing in the towel. Olby referenced the "terrorpublicans" (that's so stupid it gets a [Ding!]). Of course he lifted it from elsewhere (Blue Blog Source: Daily Kos). Valerie Plame's identity was revealed by "aides to both Bush and Cheney". Um, her name was revealed by an aide to Colin Powell. That part of the story is censored on OlbyPlanet. Regurgitated video of VP, plus plug for her on The Hour of Spin tomorrow. Gonzo again; a fired US Attorney thinks AG could be prosecuted. News. Other fired US Attorneys disagree. Not news.

    #4: GOP Presidential politics. The "far right [Ding!] of the far rights [Ding!]". OlbyLogic analyzes the debate: criticizing Hillary is bad politics because it helps her. Olbermann's Brain chortled, sniggered, and cackled. Great thanks.

    #3: California fires via taped report; Keithy Great Thanksed the tape. #2: Ellen and her dog, Kid Rock . #1: The politics of Harry Potter. We would have preferred the psychology of an allegedly grown man who obsesses over baseball cards and kiddie books. Not that it mattered much, as the highly intellectual discussion was cut off prematurely when somebody at MSLSD mercifully pulled the plug, leaving the last minute or two with nothing but color bars and an audio test tone.

    In the Media Matters Minute it was another trifecta: every victim was an (R) or a Fox employee. Glenn Beck (Blue Blog Source: Hillary Clinton's Media Matters), National Review (Blue Blog Source: Think Progress), and Bill O'Reilly. Hold it, stop the tivo! What's this? Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly?!? Hey did we call it, or what?!!

    Oh, Fat Ass also crowed about "beating" O'Reilly (actually an O'Reilly rerun) in a phony inflated demo that MSNBC itself doesn't even use. Merkle lost in the true numbers. We'll leave it up to you whether to count this as Another Olbermann Lie.

    OLBY

    Dogs That Did Not Bark:

    Michael Murphy. Of course if he had put underwear on someone's head or gunned down a few civilians Edward R Olbermoronn would have flogged the story for days. Instead, nothing. Disgraceful.

    MisterMeter

    Olbermann's book The book that bears Olbermann's name is #10,478 on amazon, while "Culture Warrior" is #1,581. (It's that 2-for-$25 sale!) Barnes & Noble has the OlbyTome sinking to #55,522; O'Reilly's book is #2,404 there, and is one of the top five books of 2006 per Publishers Weekly. On Friday the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann bordered on pulling off a coup. Yeah he lost horrendously to Mr Bill, almost, nearly, not quite finishing first in the coveted, pivotal, much-beloved, critical, all-important "key demo". Hold it, O'Reilly wasn't on Friday; they reran an old show. Oh well. Tonight's MisterMeter reading: 5 [ELEVATED]


    Posted by johnny dollar | Permalink | Comments (359) | | View blog reactions

    359 Comments

    Paranoid fuckin' BUSHWIPES!!!!

    Why do people on the Left, and Keith loves to do this, call talking about terror plots "fear-mongering", and then say the US is creating more terrorists by attacking them. Either there is a threat from terrorists or there isn't.

    Kinda like he moos when Leftists are called traitors but he invents "terrorpublican."

    He is Archbishop Gumby.

    Pretty easy to "beat" a rerun huh Keithy? I think he was probably scoping out new pre-teen girlfriends when he was hosting that "Potter" event. After all, his gf is what? 23 now? She's aging out rapidly.

    He invents terrorpublican like we invent "Olbytard". Two can play that game. Speaking of terror, did The Orange One mention UBL's latest message?

    His honey is getting too old. He'll be looking around for a newer version soon.

    I think the most interesting part of the show was the test pattern that ran for about a minute before Abrams came on air.

    Keith should be the next pope.

    Posted by: Bill O'lielly at October 22, 2007 10:05 PM

    You bet O'licky. He like little kids too! So he'd fit right in! LMAO

    Moron Paranoid Peolsi Licker's.

    What's the over and under's on how many wins the DemoCRAP'S get this week against Bush...LMAO

    The Dems definitely got another big black eye from the idiot 9/11 libnut truthers who invaded Bill Maher's show. Another gift to the GOP. We should "Great, Thanks" you moonbats for that.

    Hey here's tonight's countdown.
    Bush is evil
    Dick Cheney is evil.
    Iran is good.
    Republicans are bad.
    There's no terrorists.

    I see a massive upswing in attacks on O'Reilly now that his new book is out. Keith will not be able to stand its bestselling status. I so want to see a Republican win in 2008 just to see Chris Matthews and Keithy's faces on TV, because you know that's who this lefty TV channel will trot out for the coverage.

    Mister Plame and Valerie lied
    Written statements are bonafide
    On talk shows she'll go
    Like some two-bit ho
    For TV she had her roots dyed

    Why is Obly obsessed with children's literature. Because the Left is obsessed with indoctrinating children to their doctrine.

    Double knot spy Valerie Plame
    Outing her led to the get Scooter game
    The brain's in a morass
    But what a piece of ass
    No accomplishment led to her fame

    > He invents terrorpublican like we invent "Olbytard".

    No he didn't invent it. He lifted it from DailyKos.

    > Speaking of terror, did The Orange One mention UBL's latest message?

    Of course not.

    Wow, Olbermann beat an O'Reilly re-run among Tvio audiences. Imagin, people who Tvio programs would not Tvio an O'Reilly re-run. Olbermann's mission truly is accomplished.
    Olbermann doesn't care about a fellow New Yorker who won the meddle of honor. Why would Olbermann want any of his zombies to think that he might support an American hero.
    Olbermann also doesn't care that his good friend Osama Bin Laden is begging Sunis in Iraq not to kill his terroists. Olbermann wants Osama to stay the course.

    I am suprised Olbermann didn't try to promote "Rendition" since the movie is in 9th place behind the 3-D re-run of "A Nightmare Before Christmas". I guess he is too busy reading his "Harry Potter" books to get out an see a movie.

    He doesn't have to "see" anything, as he does everything in his life based on what he feels.

    If he "felt" Rendition was doing well then he'd report that it was. If he felt it was a good enough movie to encourage more terror attacks and to hurt our military then he'd report that too.

    If he felt Michael Murphy (the American hero) died while shooting innocent civilians then he'd report that also. If he felt that Murphy died for an honorable cause fighting for his country, you can be damn sure he'd never report it.

    Facts do not matter when it comes to this sleezeball, only whatever dirt he can get on any American.

    "If he feels it will be damaging enough to hurt our soldiers and our country then he will report it."

    What I have to ask is this? Why in the world would somebody the olbyboy loves want to build a memorial for the Woodstock lowlife's who destroyed our country more than any other enemy that has attacked us, as the trickling down from that society is just getting worse, and to ask taxpayers to supplement the cost?

    I was at that debacle, and as it was going on I thought it was a gathering place for all the dregs of society to converge, and believe to this day that it was the beginning of the end for America.

    Lowlife's, dopers, pigs, cowards, and every loser imaginable all slopping around in the mud "pretending" that there was something even bigger going on than a concert.

    People shitting and pissing on their blankets, grabbing naked pig girls and screwing anything that had two legs, and I mean ANYTHING as these slobs couldn't command an audience if they were giving millions away.

    The most disgusting display of human filth I have ever witnessed, and olbyboy's great democratic candidate Hillary has proposed this idea.

    One day was all I needed to get out of there knowing that I wasted a five hour trip to see pigs shitting on pigs. The music sucked, the message was even worse, and yet somehow there is actually a candidate that wants to memoralize it!

    This day in history was the "missing link" I believe to be the downfall of America. Honoring the losers is just what we need right now while we have men dying for this bitch, just like they were "honored" back then while men were dying too.

    Let's hear you libnut anti-Americans spinning your spin as to how Woodstock was the beginning of greatness for America.

    Osama bin Laden must be smiling from ear to ear knowing that there's a chance that HIS candidate could win...

    Jesus, a comment from a guy who's been pissed off for almost 40 years because he couldn't even get laid at WOODSTOCK.

    Osama bin Laden's candidate? Do you people come out of the womb this stupid, or have you all suffered severe and repeated head trauma?

    What bathes in mud, snorts whenever music is played, smells like a used diaper, sleeps in its own shit and piss, eats off the ground, and doesn't shave?

    Answer: the girls fast eddie seems to think are worth getting laid for.

    Apparently getting laid at Woodstock was some kind "score" for ms.eddie. Been laid since, or are the "good old days" something you want to treasure forever?

    These are the same muddy, smelly, snorting, filthy, disgusting, and hairy women who wouldn't touch your ass with a 10 foot pole at the biggest drug-and-sex-fest of the previous century, right? Look, dude, sorry you couldn't score at the easiest venue imaginable, but it's been over 40 years. You need to put it behind you.

    It is very telling that The Medal of Honor ceremony was not covered by Keith Olbermann. Just like the democrats, Keith Olbermann cannot hide how he is against the troops in all they do. Only when there are allegations of torture, abuse, or some other wrong done by the troops does this "journalist" cover it.

    Why? Well we all know why...but Olbermann could at least take 30 seconds out of his important program to cover the sacrifice of Michael Murphy, honored for his courage and devotion to his fellows.

    Not on COUNTDOWN.....Olbermann is an anti-American leftist.

    I would really like to hear the defense of the Olbermann apologists or the representatives of the left explain the lack of coverage....Please be honest now! I am ready to be educated!

    blindrat?
    Loin?
    Whiney Mikey?
    mental midget?
    wannawipe?

    Wolverine was at Woodstock? I realize you are disgusted by it now, but at the time I must suppose you prioritized it over enlistment in the Vietnam war. Interesting.

    Here's another dumbfuck bumpkin who dallied with the hippie counter-culture when it provided a support system for keeping oneself out of harms way, and for forming real opinions regarding one's political decisions and their inherent responsibilities:

    "Fox Brings on Country Singer Charlie Daniels as an Expert on FISA" (http://www.newshounds.us/2007/10/17/fox_brings_on_country_singer_charlie_daniels_as_an_expert_on_fisa.php).

    Back in the day I saw Charlie a few times, I remember word for word his anthem:

    "People say I'm no good, and crazy as a loon,

    'cause I get stoned in the morning; get drunk in the afternoon...."


    ...and how about the anti-war walkin'-blues-style Guthrie rip-off "Uneasy Rider"? Probably got fat-ass Chuck laid by a few hippie-chicks, at a time when someone who hold's forth with the jingoistic bullshit he does today should have been putting his ass on the line for the country he pretends to love.

    You all-hat-no-saddle rednecks are all the same.

    Sorry cee, but the dead horse named Valerie Plame hasn't been beaten to death yet.

    I would really like to hear the defense of the Olbermann apologists or the representatives of the left explain the lack of coverage....Please be honest now! I am ready to be educated!

    blindrat?
    Loin?
    Whiney Mikey?
    mental midget?
    wannawipe?


    Posted by: cee at October 23, 2007 8:42 AM


    I'll answer your question, Phari-cee, when you answer mine of long standing:

    Why aren't you in Iraq or Afghanistan, lending you purported medical expertise to the effort to save the lives and limbs of heroes like Murphy, to save the lives of the your side's "White mens' burdens" who live in those countries, and to participate in and sacrifice for your fetish/president's all-important crusade?

    SLOB-
    The most uniformed musician for FISA has become the spokesman for the left. Maybe you should read up on Springsteen's ignorant comments regarding illegal wire taps (now legal) and being stripped of habeus corpus.

    Again- the democrats pandering to the dumb and uniformed.

    "I'll answer your question, Phari-cee, when you answer mine of long standing"


    ###
    I have answered this question at least two times previously, Sir Loin of Milquetoast. First, I do not deem it appropriate or necessary to delve into very personal issues on a public forum that involve whether I can presently serve in the military.

    Secondly, I have stated rather logically that I, as well as you and any poster, could post anything here that could benefit my argument that you could not verify, including somekind of claim of service or other claim. If it is not verifiable I tend to think it is not cogent to the discussion.

    Thirdly, I have answered you question with a question regarding the psychic contradiction of an anti-war activist supporting and even encouraging others to continue the activity of war. I have logically shown that you should be doing everything in your power to prevent people like me from serving so that the war machine is not fed and supported. You, however, seem to shirk this line of inquisition like most of your pathetic anti-war leftists.

    Lastly, to feed into your poorly chosen avenue of debate that involves, "Chickenhawk outing," would only give the perception that I think it is a valid argument. It is not. Just as you choose not to take my bait on many occasions, Loin, I choose not to take this flacid worm that only shows how vapid your pseudo-pacifism position has become. The reality that you want to create that only those who serve or have served are valid holders of opinion regarding such matters is illogical and not applicable to most previous conflicts. Just off the top of my head I know the three biggest conflicts faced by our nation in the past, WWII, WWI and The Civil War, are excellent examples of conflicts our nation became involved with because of the decsions of men who never had the personal reality of combat or injury.

    So, I once again answered your question. Now, you can either defend Olbermann's editorial decision, agree with me about Olbermann's editorial decision, or choose to not comment at all. I will accept any of the three responses without comment.

    "Thirdly, I have answered you question with a question regarding the psychic contradiction of an anti-war activist supporting and even encouraging others to continue the activity of war."


    ...and Phari-cee, I have explained numerous times that we simply do not relish the idea of wasting our time arguing in good faith with people who are demonstrably disingenuous hypocrites who do not face the obligations of their own rhetoric. The best course when engage in such debates is to expose the hypocrisy and moral cowardice of our opponents.

    ... and I am urging you to engage in the "war machine" in such a way that would save lives and mend ghastly wounds of both military personel and the innocent civilians that you all claim are the humanitarian reason for all of this.

    Well, I have a question for you neocons: I hope one of you intellectual giants can answer it.

    What are "Christian values"? You use the term...you should know what it means, eh?

    blindrat you obviously watched Bill Mahre. Got any original thoughts you came up with on your own?

    SLOB,

    What war were you supposed to have been fighting in? If the answer is "none", how did you get so fucking lucky?

    blindrat,

    What are your values? What are you for? Surely an intellectual giant like yourself can answer. But I don't expect one. No leftist dingbat on OW has ever done so.

    So, Rico and Ouch don't know what it means...anyone?

    blindrat,

    Since I am not a Christian, I do not presume to speak for them. but what's stopping you from telling all of us what your values are?

    I would never waste any time watching Olbermann live, after I learned by several painful lessons that he is not worth wasting time. So, I use my PVR, and watch it later. I fast forward to the "Worst Person Of The World" segment, have my one chuckle at its total predictability (did he EVER not have Bill O'Reilley in one of the three rankings???), and then delete the rest.

    However, last night this king of all pompous asses provided an extra laugh: he boasted about beating O'Reilley and had the nerve to advise BO to get used to it.

    Congratulations, Keith! You beat a rerun.

    There is an old saying that even a stupid farmer sometimes can grow big potatoes. Enjoy yours, fried, mashed or baked. Everybody is entitled to a feast once every two months.

    Two sources for Christian values are given by Christ....

    The positive values are summed up in The Shema....

    "'The most important one,' answered Jesus, 'is this: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.'" MARK 12:29-31

    So the greatest "Christian Value" is having only One Lord, Jehovah, and to love Him completely and to love your neighbor as you would love yourself (the golden rule).

    There are also values that demand the Christian NOT do certain things....sins, that are pronounced by Christ.....

    "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' " MARK 7:20-23

    Please note the inclusion of sexual immorality (you know, blindrat....we have discussed sodomy, adultery and fornication before and this gospel passage clearly shows Christ taught that these were indeed sins), along with the others....gossip, lying (slander), arrogance, etc.

    So this is it...."Christian Values." From the only source we have on what Christ taught.

    Olbermann, the most ridiculous and laughable buffoons routinely refers to Rush Limbaugh as "comedian".

    Last night there was no mention of Rush, comedian or otherwise. I expected Olbermann to come and ridicule the $2 million Rush raised on E-Bay for children of wounded and dead service people. I also expected him to ridicule the fact that the "COMEDIAN" matched that amount penny for penny from his own pocket. And I also expected him to justify Harry Reid's miserable horning in for the credit, without adding a single cent from his ill-gotten real estate fortune.

    But mostly I expected Mr. Olbermann to outdo the "COMEDIAN" by donating more than Rush to this worthwhile cause. After all he takes great pride in outdoing an O'Reilley rerun.

    YEAH, RIGHT!!! These leftists want to bring the troops home only for the simple reason so that they can spit on them like their parents did on Viet Nam veterans in the 70's.

    cee,

    Doesn't sound like any of the "Chistian values" that the Republican candidates are talking about...

    Please be specific blindrat. What did the republican candidates discuss in reference to "Christian Values." Sources would be nice.

    For example...is torture a Christian value?

    you are torturing us with your drivel, rat.

    That was funny and true.

    Grammie

    SLOB,

    What war were you supposed to have been fighting in? If the answer is "none", how did you get so fucking lucky?


    Posted by: Rico at October 23, 2007 10:01 AM


    Whoa there, buddy; I'm not one of the jingos hollering that this imaginary "War on Terror" is the challenge of our generation.

    I was 13 when we left Vietnam, and I registered for the draft at 18. While none of our little wars between then and now has alarmed me to the degree that this one does; but none of them lasted very long or took much out of our troops or military readiness, either.

    The onus is not on me to serve (even if I were of age); its on those who love the war. My calling is to end it and its like.

    Poste by Joker:

    "Bush is evil
    Dick Cheney is evil.
    Iran is good.
    Republicans are bad.
    There's no terrorists."

    END QUOTE

    You left off a big one Joker:

    Bush is a liar.

    None of the loons will offer a defense of Olbermann's failure to at least mention the Medal of Honor recipient. Olbermann says he is a "journalist". He is a pitiful "journalist" if he is one at all. Responsive answers please.

    Posted by Dead Already, Mr. O'Lielly, sad sack of shit:

    "I hope the fucker dies soon fuck Glenn Beck.

    The devastating fires continue to ravage southern California. At least one person has been killed, dozens have been injured, and hundreds of thousands have been evacuated from their homes, including a quarter-million people in San Diego alone.

    Overwhelmed firefighters said they lacked the resources to save many houses.

    “We have more houses burning than we have people and engine companies to fight them,” San Diego Fire Captain Lisa Blake said. “A lot of people are going to lose their homes today.”

    And to hear CNN’s Glenn Beck tell it, that’s all right, because those people aren’t any good anyway.

    On the October 22 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, host Glenn Beck stated, “I think there is a handful of people who hate America. Unfortunately for them, a lot of them are losing their homes in a forest fire today.”

    I wonder what kind of psychosis leads a person to look at the California wildfires and think about the political ideologies of those who are suffering.

    I guess that’s what makes Glenn Beck special."

    END QUOTE

    Dear Pussy,

    Do something about it. Get a gun and go look for Beck and shoot him. Quit your damned fucking whining you little bitch and back up your big talk and wishfull thinking you little chicken shit.

    Posted by SLOB:

    "I was 13 when we left Vietnam, and I registered for the draft at 18. While none of our little wars between then and now has alarmed me to the degree that this one does; but none of them lasted very long or took much out of our troops or military readiness, either. "

    END QUOTE

    You are a fucking liar. There was no draft when you were 18 you lying piece of shit and they didn't have to start registering for the draft until the 90's.

    You are a fucking liar. There was no draft when you were 18 you lying piece of shit and they didn't have to start registering for the draft until the 90's.

    Posted by: Phony Soldier at October 23, 2007 12:14 PM


    How stupid are you? Were you born in America?

    http://codes.ohio.gov/oac/3333-1-19

    The onus is not on me to serve (even if I were of age); its on those who love the war. My calling is to end it and its like.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 23, 2007 11:38 AM

    More Olby logic from SLOB.

    I want fires faught, is the onus on me to become a fire fighter?

    I want criminals arrested, is the onus on me to become a police officer?

    You want the war ended, isn't the onus on you to join the terroist in fighting our troops. Osama Bin Laden seems to think
    so.

    "Some of you have been lax in one duty, which is to unite your ranks," bin Laden said in the audiotape. "Beware of division ... Muslims are waiting for you to gather under a single banner to champion righteousness. Be keen to oblige with this duty."

    As usual, no specific quotes from blindrat...just ad hominem attacks with
    tired leftist propaganda. Why do I even try? Demogoguery is the only arrow in blindrat's quiver.

    Phony Soldier, you should check your facts first rather then have to apologize (I sometimes have flights of fancy) later.

    According to SLOB, he was corn in 170. Carter reinstated the draft in 1980 and all 19 and 20 year old men were required to register.

    I have a son who was born in 1970 and I remember his registering. That prompted me to research it.

    This is the first time I have ever responded to you b/c I don't respond to those who purport to me from my side of the aisle and can't string together two sentences without using profanity and obscenities except to criticize them. In fact I rarely read them b/c they make my eyes glaze over.

    Phony Soldier, Laura Bush, Ted Nugent, Redneck Proud, how many distinct people you are or are not, repulse me.

    Do you print out your comments here and send them to your Mom so she can pass them around to her friends at her bridge games and hen parties with pride?

    Grammie

    "I want fires faught, is the onus on me to become a fire fighter?

    I want criminals arrested, is the onus on me to become a police officer?"

    Well, Factor, if your local firemen are being forced to work triple shifts, missing weekends and scheduled vacations because of fires being set by pypomaniacs elected to government positions that you support - then yes.

    If you are in favor of tax-supported arson for some crazy-ass, magical rationale, then it is incumbent upon you to help contain the damage done by these policies. Otherwise you are a moral coward and an irresponsible citizen.


    ....but please; you free-market fundies don't believe in ANY tax-supported civic functions, so don't try to muddy the water with lip-service about policemen and firemen.

    ...I mean for Christssakes, Factor! Are fires in your neighborhood considered by you and your neighbors to represent the "greatest threat that America has ever faced", as Bush has labeled his phoney war? If so, you damn well should help out. Chickenhawk.

    SLOB,

    What war were you supposed to have been fighting in? If the answer is "none", how did you get so fucking lucky?


    Posted by: Rico at October 23, 2007 10:01 AM


    Whoa there, buddy; I'm not one of the jingos hollering that this imaginary "War on Terror" is the challenge of our generation.

    I was 13 when we left Vietnam, and I registered for the draft at 18. While none of our little wars between then and now has alarmed me to the degree that this one does; but none of them lasted very long or took much out of our troops or military readiness, either.

    The onus is not on me to serve (even if I were of age); its on those who love the war. My calling is to end it and its like.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 23, 2007 11:38 AM


    LIAR! If you were 13 when we left Viet-nam there was no draft when you were 18.

    Damn, how old are you people? There was no draft, but I was legally compelled to register for selective service, as I believe you all should have been

    Yodell, I repeat my advice to Phony Soldier. Check your facts first.

    When the draft registration was reinstiated by Carter in 1980 it required all 19 and 20 year old men to register in 1980, in other words those born in 1969 and 1970.

    In effect any male born in 1969 or later had to register for the draft.

    Believe me SLOB and I are polar opposites in our political views. That does not mean that he should be branded a liar rather than politically misguided. Is their an icon for half smiling?

    Grammie

    Sadly, Loin wants to be a hippie and wanted to join the ranks of the drug induced losers.

    Fighting for his country?! Come on, he hasn't made ONE POST in defense of his country yet. Not one.

    Put it down, there's a thousand of them and now he's making accusations that I dodged the draft while he's lying about enlisting.

    Sorry Loin, but I did enlist when I was 18, but being that I had a double hernia which I got from boxing they would not accept me. As a matter of fact it was right after the pigfest known as Woodstock that was the deciding factor that made me enlist.

    When I saw all these losers celebrating their rights NOT TO FIGHT for their country I knew I HAD to join.

    You are no different from them. If you would have been of age there's no doubt you would have flew to Canada faster then a rabbit running from a fox.

    Your calling is to end all wars no matter who is right or wrong, as you can't stand the fact that there are men doing what you could never even dream of: putting their lives on the line for their country.

    Well loin, you were there at Woodstock, believe me you were there, and your heroes were all represented for the whole nation to see...cowards, losers, druggies, slobs (your moniker) and the biggest collection of anti-Americans ever assembled in one big shithole.

    You must have been proud!

    Wrong on all counts. firstly, where did I lie about enlisting?

    Secondly, I am no defender of running off to Canada - I think one objecting to a particular farce of a war should take a principled stand and face the music.

    ...and yeah, there're a lot of double hernia's, palynoidal cysts, myopia, etc. going around today's Vietnam-era chickenhawks...don't feel too bad.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 23, 2007 12:49 PM

    SLOB's agument is destroyed so he resorts to name calling. Typical liberal.

    SLOB still didn't enlighten us as to why he is not fighting with the terrorists in Iraq. The surest way to get our troops out of Iraq is to aid the terrorists so the victory is not achieved. SLOB is just another keyboard warrior unwilling to fight the oppressive United States military.

    Yer a fuggin idiot, Factor.

    "SLOB still didn't enlighten us as to why he is not fighting with the terrorists in Iraq. The surest way to get our troops out of Iraq is to aid the terrorists so the victory is not achieved."


    Hey Bumblefuck; I thought Victory itself was the only way to get our troops home? Isn't that what your fetish/president has been mumbling all this time?

    Wrong on all counts. firstly, where did I lie about enlisting?

    posted by slob

    You may not have lied, but, you sure do avoid the topic like the plaque....

    I thought Victory itself was the only way to get our troops home?
    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 23, 2007 1:57 PM

    No defeat is also a way to bring the troops home.
    Since you friends in congress can't seem expedite defeat by cutting funds and your friends in Iraq can seem to expedite defeat by terrorists attacks anymore, defeat needs reinforcements. Enlist now SLOB.

    Sir Loin, keep up the good work my son, and may the eyes of Allah be with you.

    Sticking to ones belief's about not fighting us is what I have been preaching for years now.

    Take down that bastard of a country you call home, and do it repeatedly my son, and your enemies will soon succumb to your ideals!

    The beauty in how you can hide in plain sight as one of my own cells, but going under the notion that you are an American is truly deceitful and brilliant!

    Treachery at its finest, my little nomad, and when judgment day comes you will be the first Allah calls to give his life for your noble belief's!

    Fight on my son, as the rights of all of us are in your hands. Do not trust these so called "americans" with their honoring of the Michael Murphy's of their evil war, as these men do nothing but impede what you and I have set out to do years ago.

    Soon there will be no more Murphy's or his kind, and then we both can enjoy the fruits of our labor by basking in the sun reaping in its rays, as we watch these infidels serve us like they should.

    Keep up the good fight Sir Loin, and your rewards will be many

    SLOB, I am shocked that you would base YOUR actions on MY fetish/president's thoughts and actions especially since you consider him to be moronic; fascist; a personal coward (chickenhawk); tyrannical; nepotic (it is a word); war monger; war profiteer; child abuser etc, etc etc.

    I can well understand and agree that you are repelled at joining the terrorists b/c of your patriotism.

    There is, however, another way that you could put YOUR money where your mouth is. You could enlist and use your trusty rebar or all the munitions you get to carry, to frag the worst officers and cause disruption and dissension in our troops.

    What are the worst things that could happen to you? You don't hasten the withdrawal by much or at all; you die in the war at the hands of the terrorists; you are killed while fragging; or you will spend the rest of your life in the brig.

    I gave you the perfect out to your ruling elite not bringing the troops home.

    What say you?

    Grammie the Chickenhawk.

    "No defeat is also a way to bring the troops home."


    ###
    Well put, Factor. May I also add that Loin has repeatedly said he anticipates no possible way a democratic Iraq will occur with the continuing civil war and cultural differences Bush overlooked. So logic concludes Loin's demand for more people to enter for his predicted meat-grinder is even more morally reprehensable.

    This is the problem with Loin's ChickenHawk argument...it is both illogical AND morally vapid....I try to dissuade him from returning to it time and again, yet he keeps it up.

    I'm stupid and a diversion. Those who support education better be teachers, or they are 'illiteratehawks.' Those who support national health care better be doctors, or they are 'illnesshawks.' The messenger isn't the message. Move on.

    I think that more than one of us got enough of SLOB and his phony moral superiority at the same time.

    Mother Chickenhawk

    Factor, Phari-cee, Anon,


    When you're driving others into war, the threat is monolithic, imminent, existential, and unprecedented. When told that you should probably walk the walk yourselves, you cast it as something as mundane as day-to-day police protection, elementary school teaching, and fire/EMS readiness. How nice to be so detached from your own exisstential criteria.

    Enlist, you pussies. Make honest war-mongers out of yourselves.

    Make honest war-mongers out of yourselves.


    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 23, 2007 2:56 PM

    So anyone who joins the military is a war-monger?

    Loin,

    When you're calling the war a fraudulant and immoral creation of the MIC/corporatist class which uses the lives of civilians and their killers only as the catalyst to generate even more increasing wealth. When this wealth is used to further increase domestic and international political influence of the small, elitist aristocracy, you cast it as something deserving of more lives and capital only to make a rhetorical point on a website. You seem guilty of being detached from the ideal humanist you present yourself as, the great crusader to make a society that is egalitarian, just and fair in place of that which feeds off of conflict. The very conflict you say needs pathetic ChickenHawks like me to maintain.

    That must've hurt, Phari-cee. You're too old for Twister.

    Left hand yellow...Sir Loin of Milquetoast.....Your lack of faith in American liberty makes you wholly inadequate to

    1. demand it be defended with deadly force or

    2. even be thankful to those who did and do defend it with deadly force.

    Be real, Loin....become a pacifist and at least stop living a contradiction.

    SLOB, you are casting around for any defense you can find.

    Surely you don't believe that the firefighters and police on 911 in New York were driven into their actions by Firehawks and Policehawks?

    Your argument boils down to only those who have experienced something, have volunteered to experience it or could experience it by happenstance is entitled to advocate one position or another without being a moral pig. How convenient that you limit this moral outrage to those that are essentially different from you or have different opinions from you.

    How dare you speak up about abortion? You don't have the right to b/c you were never pregnant nor could you ever be,

    Tell us where you have put your life on the line to counteract these monstrous flocks of Chickenhawks. If you haven't done that how dare you criticize them?

    SLOB, it is a phony argument. Bobo went on a tear quite a while back asking over and over why didn't we Chickenhawks volunteer to dig every grave for our fallen.

    I answered that for myself I would enlist only after he elisted to dig the graves for every man, woman and child killed by terrorists.

    There is no difference in the arguments, SLOB. My challenge to Bobo was every bit as illogical and meaningless as his original rants (sorry, can't help myself).

    Mother Chickenhawk

    "I want to apologize first of all to my colleagues, many of whom I have offended, to the president. his family, to the troops that may have found (offense) in my remarks as were suggested in the motion that we just voted on, and I do apologize. ... With this apology I will become as insignificant as I should be and we can return to the issues that do divide us but that we can resolve," Stark said to applause.

    After his mea culpa, Stark walked walked off the floor to the Democratic side of the chamber and for at least five minutes stood sobbing while fellow Democrats gathered around him. Reporters close to the Speaker's Lobby were not able to hear why he was crying.

    Take a lesson from your boy Stark libs. Go cry in the corner.

    I wonder why many Democrats sided with the Republicans to condemn the "Betray Us" ad, but only 5 sided with the Republicans to condemn Stark's despicable comment.

    Ok. Here we go. Loons. Ready. Set. GO!

    I wonder if Stark will get "Worst Person" nods tonight. Not for his moronic comment from last week, but for apologizing to the military and Chimpy McHitlerburton. I'm not sure that is approved behavior in Krazy Keithy's Looneyland.

    I've claimed to be a pacifist, Phari-cee, although I know some and respect their principled and consistant positions.

    I am onlu demanding that you take a little responsibility.

    As for "American Liberty"; what do you know about it? How many times on this board have you expressed trepidation regarding the "whim of the mob"? You have never addressed my repeated argument that the American government is the slave and responsibility of the citizens of this country, and that its decisions are our decisions and must be backed by action or opposed with active dissent.

    You and your friends here are cheerleading parasites - sycophants who's contract with those pretending to be the source of political power exchanges uncritical rhetorical support for promises that you will be asked to sacrifice nothing.

    "Surely you don't believe that the firefighters and police on 911 in New York were driven into their actions by Firehawks and Policehawks?"

    Absolutely not, Grammie - as usual you are several squares behind the game, and your points are confused and vacuous.

    The first, second, and third responders to that disaster acted heroically , and I'll bet that Dr. Phari-cee, who I believe lives in the environs of NYC, was nowhere to be seen.

    American Liberty is an individual enterprise, dear Loin. The corporate structures in both the private and public enterprises are the necessary evils needed to protect private liberty. It is my opinion that both government institutions and private institutions are needed. That's as simple as it gets, dear Loin.

    There is no "slave" that is the government organization or the private organization. Both coequal institutions are comprised of people governed by agreed upon rules (laws) that limit their reach so as not to infringe on the liberty of the individual.
    The private organization has the added influence of the free market and competition to govern it while the public entity can thwart such an influence with simple inertia.

    When an ideology is so radical as to virtualy pronounce the death penalty on a private institution (economic, social or religious) as it lauds the public (government) or vice versa, that then leads to the diminishment of personal liberty, it is wrong. Your ideology is radical and leads to such results, Loin, and hence my conclusion. The American founder's system inherently recognizes the right of, and need of the existence of the various private and public institutions while insuring personal liberty. Variance from that ideal is an ideology that wants to change that working system and, IMHO, is not American.

    If deadly force towards an entity stated as in opposition to personal liberty is needed, (as is the case with fundamentalist terrorist islam) your pacifist position is useless, practically speaking. However, if you are willing to give up your personal liberty for your nonviolence stance, like Ghandi, I would have the utmost respect for you, Loin. You have yet to exhibit such a couragous position. Hence my moniker....Milquetoast.

    SLOB's argument with CJ, who is a real soldier (you can e-mail him from A Soldier's Perspective") is no different than his argument to any Chickenhawk, except he can't demand that CJ enlist. Other than that, what is the difference? I have never heard of a newly enlisted soldier kicking the asses of his family and friends of enlistment age who do not protest the war or beat them up for not signing up along with him/her. You haveto sign up yourself, SLOB, to be able to insult Cee for not signing up.

    Just a few days ago, SLOB seemed to imply that the death/injuries of soldiers who have been enlisted under less stringent standards are not very noble because the army is now "stupider" (his words).

    Well I do live in NYC (Queens about 5 to 7 miles from ground zero), and was horrified by what I was seeing! That night I got in touch with my good friend of over 30 years who was a captain in the fire dept. and asked him to get me down there to help.

    He left ground zero just to pick me up, as he was on 24 hour duty with no end in sight, and he got me through all the security, and what I saw up close would have made even you (maybe) change your views on being a pacifist.

    A complete skeleton without an ounce of skin on it, as clean as if it was taken out of some biology class, yet perfectly embedded in its collar bone was the serial number of the policeman who had worked that day.

    A hand without any arm attached to it still holding a cell phone. People splattered all over pavements who had jumped to their deaths (too many to count).

    Two people whose bodies were as one, as the flames welded their bodies together making it impossible to distinguish what sex they were or where their bodies started and ended.

    I helped out there for over a week taking time out only to sleep a few hours in some cots that were set up nearby, and eating whatever the local store owners could muster up for us.

    So Loin please don't ever attempt to spread your "theories" of what a good America is all about, as I know first hand, and believe me the good America I know was not spouting rhetorical bullshit about how any war we are in is wrong.

    To a man that day, we were all united that all these fucking terrorists must be taken out, either by hook or by crook no matter where they are.

    You Loin, are not any American I saw there those days, and for sure maybe, just maybe, you'd think twice the next time you rip our country and our president if you actually had to experience the absolute carnage that was done on 9/11.

    When president Bush came down there that day, I was not far from where he spoke, and I can tell you that his words were not spoken for political gain, but were the words of someone who was as united as we were to get these fucks.

    Yeah, I'm biased towards the president maybe more than most, and sadly it seems that almost 70% of America has forgotten that day, but I can assure you that every man woman and child who were there in some aspect are not part of that 70%.

    Sickening to say the least what I've been seeing on these posts by you and your kind...

    "Paranoid fuckin' BUSHWIPES!!!!" [Ding!]
    "your fetish/president" [Ding!]
    "neocons" [Ding!]
    "imaginary 'War on Terror'" [Ding!]
    "phoney war" [Ding!]
    "free-market fundies" [Ding!]
    "chickenhawks" [Ding!]
    "Enlist" [Ding!]
    "sycophants" [Ding!]

    Hey anon, what exactly did I say that was so depressing? I read back and see humor (note the Twister reference), a love for our cherished Constitution and great respect for the mission of Liberty our great troops are accomplishing in Iraq....a nation held hostage by totalitarian terrorists.

    If my worldview is so repressive and depressing, anonymous, please state specifically what bothers you so. I think you either misunderstand my words or, worse, have a similar worldview as Sir Loin of Milquetoast's and wish to radically change the best system of corporate governance mankind has ever been able to fashion.

    Yes wise one Anonymous, tell them all! Tell them that to fight for their freedom is a cowardly act, and must not be addressed!

    Death to the infidels who believe in free speech and the pursuit of liberty! This is the only thing that has prevented me from coming ashore and not carrying out my devine plan.

    Anonymous, you are my brother, and the many others like you on this site, so please spread the word that ALL Americans should have the same spirit as you. That all Americans should rid themselves of values, and stop giving billions of aid to help uncaring countries.

    To hell with other countries as with your understandings of what must be done we must all unite in the overthrowing of this democratic society and give all to our cause.

    Death to all who disagree with you anonymous, and most certainly to the people of America who wish to fight for it!!!

    Aaaaayee!!

    Yodell, I repeat my advice to Phony Soldier. Check your facts first.

    When the draft registration was reinstiated by Carter in 1980 it required all 19 and 20 year old men to register in 1980, in other words those born in 1969 and 1970.

    In effect any male born in 1969 or later had to register for the draft.

    Believe me SLOB and I are polar opposites in our political views. That does not mean that he should be branded a liar rather than politically misguided. Is their an icon for half smiling?

    Grammie

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at October 23, 2007 1:22 PM

    After some thought you are correct.I apoligize to SLOB for calling him a LIAR that was very thoughtless and childish of me.Again I am sorry SLOB.

    I collect baseball cards because it's one of the few things that connects me to my late grandmother.

    I read Harry Potter because I like it, and it's better than 95% of the drivel that is in "adult" fiction.

    Don't like it - DON'T READ IT. And stop mocking people who do, jerks.

    Just a few days ago, SLOB seemed to imply that the death/injuries of soldiers who have been enlisted under less stringent standards are not very noble because the army is now "stupider" (his words).

    Posted by: Sharon at October 23, 2007 6:05 PM


    Kiss my ass you stinking cunt, I said no such thing!

    I did say that one canot escape the conclusion that the military must be intrinsically stupider since the Bush administration has lowered the standards in regard to IQ, mental health, and scholastic achievement on numerous occassions, but the "death/injuries" devaluation is wholly your own projection. You are as vile as they come.

    "When an ideology is so radical as to virtualy pronounce the death penalty on a private institution (economic, social or religious) as it lauds the public (government) or vice versa, that then leads to the diminishment of personal liberty, it is wrong."


    Well then you seem to know something of which our founders were unaware. As I have informed you on many occasions, even proto-laissez-faire capitalist Alexander Hamilton recognized that corporations are "dangerous beasts" that must be "chained" to the people's will.

    For years corporations existed at the pleasure of the people's government - forced to explicitly apply for charters geared to limited purposes and watched like hawks. When their stated purpose was complete - or if they strayed fro their charter - they were disolved.

    Henry Clay observed in 1832, “The call for free trade is as unavailing as the cry of a spoiled child, in its nurse's arms…It never has existed; it never will exist.”

    In an 1864 letter to his friend Col. William Elkins, Lincoln wrote: “I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety than ever before, even in the midst of war.”


    So don't give me your Ayn Rand/Grover Norquist bullshit - the divine right of corporations to live forever and to get as big and diverse as they want is alien and anathema to the US constitution, and has crept into our way of life only since the Civil War. The Decalration of Independence was written as much against the King's pet corporations as it was against him.

    BACKGROUND: (TO BLINDRAT)

    So, the reason why the military has been able to meet its recruitment numbers was to add lowlifes and those with pre-existing mental conditions (different people than those who later suffer from PTSD). This all means that Bush is supporting the enemy...

    Maybe if you visit soldiers in Walter Reed, you should ask for a background check to see if they are worthy of your sympathy.
    Posted by: Sharon at October 12, 2007 1:10 PM

    I don't understand your position here, Sharon. Are you claiming that the Bush administration has NOT lowered recruitment standards? If that is what you are saying you are easily proven in the wrong - this is explicitly what they have done, in regard to scholastic achievement, criminal records, and other critera.

    It is spurious to suggest that following a policy change like this we will not have a statistically stupider and less trustworthy military. Simply refusing to discuss the matter will not make it irrelevant
    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 13, 2007 11:10 AM

    MAYBE YOU SHOULD BE A LITTLE MORE CLEAR IN YOUR "RESPECT" FOR THE MILITARY. NO, YOU DIDN'T DIRECTLY STATE THEY ARE NOT AS WORTHY. BUT WHAT DID YOU SAY?

    Kiss my ass you stinking cunt,

    Save that kind of talk for your wife.

    Fuck you, bitch. You are one of the stupidest piece of crap on this site load of rightards, and your pretenses to Christian piety make you repugnant.

    Oh I see, Sharon, because a couple of days ago you slipped in a gratuitous dig that I was not honoring our wounded troops appropriately - which I ignored when returning to the original discussion, you feel free to attribute your insinuation to my own words.

    You are not only a stinking, bloodthirsty cunt, your are a decietful and intellectually dishonest one.

    Fuck you, bitch. You are one of the stupidest piece of crap on this site load of rightards, and your pretenses to Christian piety make you repugnant.
    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 23, 2007 9:50 PM

    Oh hit a nerve. Go for the juggler. I converted to atheism. Now what do you say?

    You are also wrong about socialized health care making for a healthier population, at least when it comes to Britain.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=488004&in_page_id=1774&ct=5

    Half of Britons will be obese by 2050, landmark study warns

    "If current trends continue, by 2050 about 60 per cent of men, 50 per cent of women and 25 per cent of children in the UK will be clinically obese - so fat that their health is in danger. At present around a quarter of adults are obese.

    The effects of this on the nation's health will be devastating. The report expects type 2 diabetes to rise by 70 per cent, strokes to go up by 30 per cent and a 20 per cent rise in coronary disease.

    The rates of certain cancers will also go up.

    The associated chronic health problems will cost an extra £45.5billion a year, more than half the amount of money that goes into the entire NHS at the moment."

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=488004&in_page_id=1774&ct=5

    "go for the juggler"? Ha Ha !


    How about the mime? or the balloon animal guy? What a silly fucking dope.

    How can I be intellectually dishonest and a dope, stupidest on the site at the same time?

    I pick ... The balloon animal guy! Now there is some fodder for you!

    Oh I see, Sharon, because a couple of days ago you slipped in a gratuitous dig that I was not honoring our wounded troops appropriately - which I ignored when returning to the original discussion,

    THE COMMENT WAS TO BLINDRAT. You interjected with your comment about "stupider" and "untrustworthy."

    Standards have been lowered. That doesn't mean that a person can't be a good soldier, or a trustworthy one. When you make a comment such as you did, maybe you had better be prepared to explain it in a way that shows you respect their service. Maybe there are other ways to make your point about Bush than to belittle some poor guy who maybe won't attain the status of Colonel (or got a DUI), but who was willing to give life and limb for his country. I'll take the hits from you on their behalf. You should really omit the "bitch" "cunt" aspects of you tirades. It doesn't do much for your support of women. Stick to "stupidest.'" It is more gentlemanly.

    SLOB, you have behaved despicably and shamefully.

    I am embarrassed that I have engaged you in the past.

    Hey, Grammie!

    I guess I could accept that SLOB was not discounting death/injuries to members of the military who enlisted under less stringent standards, and that he merely ignored the obvious implication of the comment to Blindrat that ALL service members, regardless of standards, should be honored. I wonder if he could accept that Rush Limbaugh was not referring to all soldiers who opposed the war as "phony soldiers" but only those like McGrath who truly were "phony soldiers"?

    SLOB is sounding a little more unhinged than usual today, and that is saying a lot. I can only reach one conclusion from this: the surge must be working.


    SLOB,

    How will you die? Will you hang yourself when Hillary gets her ass kicked by whatevery mediocre Republican manages to land the nomination? Or will you perhaps die in a blaze of glory, hijacking a jet airliner and crashing it into a skyscraper?

    I'll be watching..........................

    Sharon, SLOB's approach to things such as that did not trigger my comments. He has a distinct point of view.

    It was his unprovoked absolutely unmanly vicious attack on you.

    I know he goes on kicks sometimes but I was surprised at this tonight.

    I don't know why b/c he attacked me in a similar way, although he could squeak out an argument that I provoked it, when he first began posting at OW.

    Grammie

    I wonder, Why, if you notice the anger of SLOB, who I believe would actually harm someone physically (if you take him at his word) because he doesn't like what someone says. I guess that makes it okay because he is not a Christian.

    Chicken Blogger, no matter SLOB's behavior he at least uses his identity here for good or ill.

    Wimpy widdle Chicken Blogger strikes again.

    Grammie

    Sharon,

    There is no doubt that SLOB is ready to kill somebody. He is at the last stage of "pre-jihad", or at least the leftist version of same. Certainly SLOB is the poster boy for my assertion that rage is the heart and soul of modern leftism. Fortunately he is still talking the talk, not walking the walk. But who knows what tomorrow brings?

    Here is my view on SLOB's response, Grammie. He views me as weak and intellectually inferior. When I call him on something using his own words, he blows up. It has happened before. When I say it doesn't matter to me what SLOB says, I mean it.

    Sharon, you just gave SLOB the unkindest blow for him.

    Grammie

    Rico,

    If I wanted to bother, I could find a few examples to support your hypotheses.

    Sharon, you just gave SLOB the unkindest blow for him.

    Grammie
    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at October 23, 2007 11:02 PM


    I doubt it, Grammie. He appears to enjoy the banter with you. I don't recall exactly what the last discussion was with you but I remember the word "vacuous" in reference to your statement. You get "vacuous," I get "stupidest piece of crap on this site load of rightards." There is a distinction : )

    We all are embarrassed that we have engaged you in the past old woman.

    Posted by: at October 23, 2007 10:36 PM

    Who's "we?" Just curious.....

    LOL, RK.

    Torture is wrong, anon. Calling someone a pathetic, senile old woman is okay, though, especially someone who has stated that she is a disabled widow. Go to nursing homes often to brighten people up? Janet is an incredibly bright woman with a lifetime of experience who is not wasting away feeling sorry for herself, but engaging in political discussion. That is not carrying anyone's water, but "That's the fact Jack!"

    Are you going to ignore the rest of the post?

    "In an interview with the editors of the NY Daily News, Senator Clinton apparently suggested that when faced with the so-called "ticking time bomb" scenario, the use of techniques that may constitute torture would be okay -- so long as whoever is president approved them and reported their use to Congress, even secretly."

    http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:G2M6d4Lwd7MJ:www.isthatlegal.org/archives/2006/10/torture_necessi.html+hillary+clinton+torture&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

    Here's your GOP nominee all you good Christians will be supporting for president:

    Giuliani Hired Catholic Priest Accused Of Molesting Children

    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=3753385&page=1


    Posted by: Why don't you think at October 23, 2007 11:30 PM

    Hillary is married to a man accused of rape.

    Bush does not espouse all of my views as I doubt any candidate completely espouses yours. Grammie has stated in the past that she has thrown her support behind every president elected, that she respects the office of the presidency.

    Giuliani Hired Catholic Priest Accused Of Molesting Children

    I don't know if the allegations of abuse are true or not, but the following can be proven:

    "According to New York property records, Placa also co-owns, with another priest, a waterfront apartment in lower Manhattan in Battery Park City, valued at more than $500,000"

    With that fact and the allegations, the priest needs to go.

    First, Why, my husband and I had a collection of Robert Johnson in the form of cassette tapes. With moving and now DVD's, I don't know if we still have it. I am going to look later for it.

    Anon: Grammie has stated her background here several times. She doesn't live in a nursing home but is an independent woman who doesn't need my pathetic help. My mother (who is 67, I think about the same age as Janet) would never touch a computer. Neither would my mother-in-law, who is 68.

    Sharon,

    It is time for the Catholic Church to bite the bullet. That means dropping the celibacy requirement for the priesthood. In the modern world, too few normal people want the job anymore. They let in anybody now as long as they don't want to "get girls". Have you heard about the "velvet mafia" of gay seminarians. Why would the Church prefer gay guys who can't control their urges in secret to normal hetero males who want to serve their God and marry, too? Of course, I have no dog in this fight myself.

    Monday--the White House--President Bush gave Lt. Murphy's family the Medal of Honor their son won i n Afghanistan-postumosly. Yet--not aword about the first MoH in Afghanistan --yet not a word on the most hated man at Espn--low rated show ? What a disgrace.What a pile of shit Olberman is. Yet the baseball card collecting putz has all the time in tghe world for Harry Potter bs? And the left tells us they support our troops?That is a lie.

    I guess you were with the Dixie Chicks, Why, when they complained about the lyrics

    "And you'll be sorry that you messed with
    The U.S. of A.
    cause we'll put a boot in your ass
    Its the American way" (Toby Keith)

    OOPS, I meant CD's.

    BOBO,

    I knew I would make some temporary allies with that one. You see, I am an original, and I cannot be catagorized. Don't worry, you will be hating me again real soon.

    Peace!

    BOBO,

    Just by coincidence, I love to play the blues on my Strat.

    Rico,

    I understand your argument about celibacy, but as you are not Catholic, you are not viewing the priesthood in the proper way (as many Catholics don't). First, it is possible to someday allow for married priests (unlike women priests, whole other theological discussion); there is precedent for it. The Church has decided that at this point int time, it is better for a priest to remain unmarried. (Look at the divorce rate for instance, of the population). A priest who is properly formed (I am familiar with the stories of the "velvet mafia") gives up something good for a higher calling. He receives special graces (this is where the laughter comes in for non-believers) to help him overcome temptation. A good priest is so busy helping the parishoners that downright fatigue makes it easier (not easy) to overcome temptation. Priests like the friend of Giuliani who have $500,000 homes? What? I don't want to get into too much religion here. There is just too much to say and it is not the right forum.

    They let in anybody now as long as they don't want to "get girls".

    Abhorrent, but that is changing.

    Again coward "Why does he stink" ignores the fact that BJ Clinton is an accused rapist and his wife Hillary had his accuser threatened. Another left wing coward ingnors the crimes of his own party.

    The graces that I was referring to are also given to married couples. You are given special graces to fulfill your vocation, whether it is married life, priestly life or religious life (orders). The Church has some bad history; I am not denying that.

    Why would the Church prefer gay guys who can't control their urges in secret to normal hetero males who want to serve their God and marry, too?

    IT DOESN'T! No one seemed to be able to answer the question as to why 80% of the sexual abuse victims were boys.

    I go to the traditional Latin Mass that is celebrated by members of the FSSP. They will not ordain homosexuals.

    I wasn't finished with what I wanted to say. A little one got up crying. A well-formed priest gives up the good of marriage. Maybe I am fortunate, but I have met many priests who would have made good family men, but they choose a more difficult path, in my opinion. I have heard some priests say that married life is more difficult than priestly life.

    Sorry Sharon,

    But I can answer the question. 80% of the sexual abuse victims were boys because the Church is letting in too many fruits into the priesthood. Duh!

    Rico,

    That is obvious to me, but when I said the same (with not as much style), I was attacked.

    It is called political correctness.

    How will you die? Will you hang yourself when Hillary gets her ass kicked by whatevery mediocre Republican manages to land the nomination? Or will you perhaps die in a blaze of glory, hijacking a jet airliner and crashing it into a skyscraper?

    I'll be watching..........................

    Posted by: Rico at October 23, 2007 10:47 PM


    Probably shot by police or paramilitaries while carrying a sign, Rico..

    ....possibly police or paramilitaries directed by the administration of Hillary Clinton.

    "When an ideology is so radical as to virtualy pronounce the death penalty on a private institution (economic, social or religious) as it lauds the public (government) or vice versa, that then leads to the diminishment of personal liberty, it is wrong."


    Well then, Phari-cee, you seem to know something of which our founders were unaware. As I have informed you on many occasions, even proto-laissez-faire capitalist Alexander Hamilton recognized that corporations are "dangerous beasts" that must be "chained" to the people's will.

    For years corporations existed at the pleasure of the people's government - forced to explicitly apply for charters geared to limited purposes and watched like hawks. When their stated purpose was complete - or if they strayed from their charter - they were disolved without a second thought.

    Henry Clay observed in 1832, “The call for free trade is as unavailing as the cry of a spoiled child, in its nurse's arms…It never has existed; it never will exist.”

    In an 1864 letter to his friend Col. William Elkins, Abraham Lincoln wrote: “I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety than ever before, even in the midst of war.”


    So don't give me your Ayn Rand/Grover Norquist bullshit - the divine right of corporations to live forever and to get as big and diverse as they want is alien and anathema to the US constitution, and has crept into our way of life only since the Civil War. The Decalration of Independence was written as much against the King's pet corporations as it was against him. Does the Boston Tea Party ring a bell?

    I read it the first time, Loin....Once again you ignore 89% of my post, most notably the portion regarding viewing the concept of "American Liberty" accurately....it is personal...individual ONLY....never corporate, and the government formed by The US Constitution is the entity that needs the most guarding with regards to its evolution into the beast that removes American Liberty.

    Hence, my accurate view that public institutions (government) are a powerful enemy of personal freedom as much as any private entity can be (including a business collective, corporation)....

    You seem to forget that idea and only like to mention the evils wrought by private enterprise....we differ on this point and I look forward to continuing this ideological discussion when I have more free time.

    And mental midget....go back to the sandbox, will you please? You know as much about "Christian Values" as HRC knows about ethical campaign finance practices.

    How'd you get to work today, Phari-cee? Did you walk barefoot through fields and streams; or did you drive your car on a maintained public thoroughfare?

    Have you ever called 911 or the police for assistance? Or do you retain personal bodyguards for the protection of your family and your giant house?

    Do you have investments? If so, do you resent the SEC overseeing the handling of your money?

    I could go on all day with examples of how your liberties are being so trampled. A complex society without public corporate action would not only be idiotic, it would be impossible to maintain. However, when such power is held privately, and the holders allowed inroads on the essential public sectors - that is what scared Lincoln more than the possible dissolution of the Union.

    "Hence, my accurate view that public institutions (government) are a powerful enemy of personal freedom as much as any private entity can be (including a business collective, corporation)...."

    ...but here we may have reached agreement - in the form of you giving ground to my unrelenting assaults. Of course this is true; it was the reason the Declaration of Independence was written, and why so much care was put into assembling a multi-layered ballance of power between seperate branches of government each concerned with different constituencies. The widely popular Bill of Rights was also drafted with the expressed goal of defending individual liberty from encroachment by a rogue administration, judiciary, or legislature.

    But frontier Libertarianism is a fetish, Phari-cee - it cannot exist today except as a very expensive and self-deluding illusion. Involvement and responsibility are the means by which today's American must preserve his or her liberty, and there is really no other realistic option.

    Dear Californians,

    Yeah you, the ones who dump Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Nancy Peloosi, Henry Waxman and that loony asshole that ripped our President a few days ago plus others like Gary Condit. What kind of man would vote for a Boxer or a Feinstein. He damned sure aint no man. California is filled with faggot, fag luvers and eunuchs. You give us Gavin Newsome who puts a lesbian as Fire Chief. When the next quake hits and this lesbian hasn't prepared the city don;t call on us or blame GW. It's the same bunch that banned the USS Missouri from being place int eh bay as a floating memorial. Then you have just about every fairy lovibg city voting to impeach GW. Well, how are things now. I bet that is the least of your worries.

    Don't call us, we'll call you. Fuck yall as we say in the south.

    Ah but Loin, most of your examples have a private entity that works in cooperation with the public entity....the open market is working....

    My public roads are mostly maintained by private for profit companies that bid to work.....

    My investments are maintained by a for profit entity that reports to the government.....

    Do you or do you not advocate the elimination of for profit, private entities in the management of one of the largest industries in our country....Healthcare?

    How about our energy distribution? How about our retirement funding structure? How about our transportation system?

    For profit, free enterprise is in danger from your view of "reality." Public holding through a large centralized authority is anathema to the foundations of our nation. Seperate but reasonably accountable public and private entities are required to insure MY personal liberty.

    The swing away from the private/public coop to giving the public sole authority, permanently is insidious....and I personally believe the greatest danger to my personal liberty simply because the private (federal government) is so large and unaccountable on a level that is manageable. I also use history and my view of human nature to conclude that absolute governmental authority ALWAYS leads to despotism. Please show me a productive, healthy society as large as our country that has a majority of its industries soley managed by the public entity.

    Profit is fine, Phari-cee. I know you may not believe it at this point in our association, such as it has been, but I believe that capitalism is a perfectly fine system - but the public/political must have the ultimate control. Unregulated profit-seeking and influence peddling is just as sure a course to despotism as is your ideologial Soviet boogey-man - and a far more likely scenario, I would maintain.

    To pretend, as so many Free-market fundies do, that the "invisible hand of the Market" reflects some banker-god's will, and will result in a desireable end is as childish as adhereing to the divinations of a shaman's bowl of bones.

    To pretend that any individual "earns" hundreds of millions of dollars a year, when the average is closer to $40,000 is preposterous - such a discrepancy is merely illustrative of misplaced priorities, extortion, and the hiding of external societal costs ("negative externalities") that should be accounted for by the private entity.

    To pretend that the growth of giant conglomerates represents healthy competition is likewise an exercise in vapid credulity. Such entities exert enormous pressure against entry of competitors into a particular industry, and its subsidiaries in ancillary markets can influence availability of raw materials, labor, and outlets against all reasonable rules of laissez faire.

    Then we get to the excessive influence in political decision-making that such gigantic entities can leverage - and there we end up with government by private interests for their own benefit. Call it mercantilism or fascism, it in no way represents liberty or competition.

    Well met, Anon.

    This has long been a point of contention between Phari-cee and I; he contends that ideology - cultural, religious, and social beliefs of populations - is the root of human strife and despotism. I maintain that ideology is only a factor in such tragedies when used as a coersive or mobilizing tool by those in power, who in in our current system are those with lots and lots of money. Napoleon said "an army travels on its stomach", and not its brain.

    People do not crave enemies, but if they can be convinced that such exist, they are quiote capable of going out and creating some.

    You look at any event where human liberty was subdued, any, and there is always an ideology at its conflicted core....Human nature demands such structure....we are all servants to "something." This basic biblical truth and the only true remedy, The Shema, is what stands against all other human contrived remedies.

    The secularist wants to believe and impose that that "something" can be the supposed benign rational best interest arrived to with only the neurons contained within the human cranium. This departure from truth is the fundamental flaw of that worldview and human history/misery backs up that conclusion.

    The American form of governance guarantees that the truth is still in involved with the control and destructive potential of human free will. Secularists want to impose a worldview that disavows supernatural revelation of truth and is contrary to what The Declaration of Independence recognized.....a creator and His involvement in His creation, including mankind and its free will.

    That is ideology and always involved in any human to human conflict. Sorry Loin, until you recognize that truth, you will continue to spin your wheels.

    SLOB, you owe Sharon an apology for your behavior towards her last night. It is not right and does not advance your argument. It is not right and does not advance your argument.

    What makes you behave like that and use such language over a difference of opinion, especially to Sharon who never gratuitously insults people or use foul language.

    As I have said more than once you are obviously intelligent and well educated. So why do you sometimes resort to the tactics of a stupid ignorant thug?

    Grammie

    While the message may seem to be more in accord with Sir Loin's thoughts, and his desire for the war to end, not to become the endless war Bush so earnestly seeks, I hope this helps you, as well, Cee. The thoughts are universal and appealing.


    Posted by: Anonymous at October 24, 2007 10:21 AM


    Anyone that thinks Bush seeks an "endless war" is certifiably insane. Too much julie gold?

    "Secularists want to impose a worldview that disavows supernatural revelation of truth and is contrary to what The Declaration of Independence recognized....."

    So what revealed supernatural truth did the Declaration recognize in its general referrence to a "Creator"? Are you sure it was a big man in the sky? or could it have been a turtle toting a wad of mud; or maybe a trickster who had just killed a primordial giant and started to manipulate his remains;...or maybe a lightning strike or electric spark.

    ...but whatever the mythology may be that you insist on, where does the idea of "free will" preclude the idea of a social contract, entered into and understood by all parties, geared toward making the unworkable and haphazard into a functioning equitable system?

    FLUCKER, stuff a sock in it.

    Grammie

    I think anon is at the wrong web site.

    Sharon, whatever site FLUCKER is at is the wrong site for those subjected to him. :)

    Grammie

    "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."


    ###
    Oh dear Loin, it is not so easy to dismiss....When in the VERY FIRST sentence of the VERY FIRST document proclaiming the reason a new social contract among a group of people on the north american continent was to be fashioned....The authors cite the inate source of human worth and equality....not from Zeus, not from Anubus, or any other mythical creature, or even a "fill in the blank with your diety ____________" but I AM, Jehovah, G-d, the only one LIVING creator....it is specific....not a small g and not in a vacuum but in the context of the beliefs of ALL of the founders....You are wrong to simply feel it is mythical literary license....the document contains NOTHING like that...it is leagalistic and specific.

    Has Jefferson's and the other founder's necessity to identify the giver of rights in The Declaration of Independence ever been challenged by their contemporaries? Does the mention of God only warrant a wry smile because it was almost 300 years ago and so much about our material world has been discovered that the rational homo sapien should not think there is a creator? Is that your claim, Loin?

    Sorry, it does not wash. The rights about to be declared were given by the creator....Period. Were the founders wrong to believe this, Loin? If so, what do we do about this factual error?

    This IS the only reason why I know The United States of America was founded on Judeo-Christian belief....It is in black and white on a paper in the national archives. Recognizing one LIVING God in the founding document is not just an accident of history, it was a reasoned and well thought-out IDEOLOGY from which all of the rest of the American governance sprang.

    I am so sorry your late 20th Century public school education missed showing you this important fact of history. I am sorry your rash conclusion that there is no supernatural does not mesh with the blatant recognition in historical document that the authors thought our inalienable rights came from such a realm. And I am sorry about your sarcasm previously and I am sure more is coming.

    Let me also remind you that the document is a "God Sandwich......."

    "We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."


    ###
    WHO (and it is clear it is a WHO, Loin), is Jefferson and the other fine men who signed this document referring to with the reference, "the Supreme Judge of the world?" (CAPS again, BTW) Who would these mostly protestant Christians mean by this reference? I know it is the living God of the Jewish and Christian scriptures.....What do you think?

    Keith Olbermutt-

    why havent you blamed Bush yet for the wild fires in CA? Come on you Iranian loving, anti-American 4 eye freak, you know you want to somehow pin the blame on the president for this one.

    Dude, those colonists capitalized any word they felt like at any point in a sentence. Look at the words "Nature", "Law's", and even "Course" in just the excerpt you provided. Are you going to assert that Jefferson obviously meant "Mother Nature", since the word bore a capital letter? Don't impose modern editorial style on these quill-scratched documents unless you enjoy pointless strolls down garden paths.


    It is clear that to Jefferson "Nature's God" was an intentional ambiguity meant to bridge the gulf of belief and understanding that separated he and his fellow rational Deists from the fanatical Calvinists etc. that they were forced to cooperate with. It was brilliance, and the only way to design a diverse republic of equals. Some of the founders certainly found comfort in interpreting the documents in terms of their personal superstitions, and I believe that was generally recognized. But it is equally clear that all were on the same page in regard to the irrelevance of particular or general religious dogma to the functioning of the system they had created.


    To pretend that the DoI and the US Constitution were foundations of a theocracy is to crap on everything they actually do enshrine.

    Surely you must be familiar with the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, presented by President John Adams and ratified unanimously by congress, which at that time still retained a good number of the original founders we have been discussing:

    Article 11 reads:

    "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 tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility ....."

    Is this document simply sarcasm? Were these early legislators and diplomats in the habit of debasing in their official capacities what you claim to be their most fundamental beliefs? Was it realpolitik? Naughty ribaldry?

    No. What is starkly clear elsewhere in the Constitution and the copious documentation of its ratification is merely repeated as a citation of fact in this treaty: no god is a party to the business of this nation.

    SLOB, I never thought otherwise:

    "no god is a party to the business of this nation.".

    The unique contribution of our Founding Fathers has nothing to do with specific religions or dogmas and everything to do with the unique never heard of before idea that man has inherent rights that don't flow from crumbs sprinkled by kings, emperors, shamans, commissars but from their creator and that no one has a right to stand in the breech and to parcel them out as rewards or punishments.

    I don't understand why you rail against something that is so obviously the bedrock of our country.

    Grammie

    Grammie, I am not railing agin it -I just take exception ot Phari-cee's specificity as to exactly who and what the "Creator" is.

    His arrogance in this regard is heir to the "sprinkiling of crumbs" you allude to, and is one of the major aspects of old-world governance specifically repudiated by our founders.

    SLOB, you seem to be defining a distinction without a difference.

    Both Cee and I seem to agree that the catylist for our great country was the unique belief that rights flow directly to man, bypassing any filters and judges. I believe that you share that view.

    Why the hangup in terminology?

    Whether these rights flow from a random bacteria swimming in the soup of our young planet or bestowed by he that is upon our planet is immaterial to the discussion at hand.

    We three believe that there are inherent rights that man has. Our arguments are on the fringes of how to survive and guarantee our blessings to all men and the future.

    Grammie

    A little hypocritical, asswipe ?

    Posted by: at October 24, 2007 7:51 PM


    To the contrary, my dear Watson. What's the matter, don't like what your favorite news source has to say today?

    "SLOB, you seem to be defining a distinction without a difference."


    'fraid not, Grammie. I rhetorically accept the term "creator", as I believe Jefferson did, to stand for the power of reason tempered with empathy - a combination of factors that I believe IS responsible for the non-biological qualities that we call human.

    Phari-cee, however, has clearly stated that he means a big male spirit in the clouds when he uses this word - and in tangential arguments he applies this specific fiction to argue for a strategy of apathy, letting the chips fall where they may. This in effect means sittle idle while those with the desire, resources, and power to control all of our destinies to go ahead and do just that. This he defines as "American Liberty"; I define it as passive collusion with fascism.

    "SLOB, you seem to be defining a distinction without a difference."


    'fraid not, Grammie. I rhetorically accept the term "creator", as I believe Jefferson did, to stand for the power of reason tempered with empathy - a combination of factors that I believe IS responsible for the non-biological qualities that we call human.

    Phari-cee, however, has clearly stated that he means a big male spirit in the clouds when he uses this word - and in tangential arguments he applies this specific fiction to argue for a strategy of apathy, letting the chips fall where they may. This in effect means sitting idle while those with the desire, resources, and power to control all of our destinies to go ahead and do just that. This he defines as "American Liberty"; I define it as passive collusion with fascism.

    ...but whatever the mythology may be that you insist on, where does the idea of "free will" preclude the idea of a social contract, entered into and understood by all parties, geared toward making the unworkable and haphazard into a functioning equitable system?

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 24, 2007 11:44 AM


    ...you see, this is the real question that Phari-cee always avoids by retreating into a circular argument about magic.

    SLOB, in response to me you are describing Cee's position in fighting words, "big male spirit in the clouds", "fiction", "collusion with fascism".

    You may correct me if I am mistaken but I don't think that I used overloaded words to advance my opinion. In that opinion I thought I clearly stated is that the rights of man is inherent to him for whatever reason and is not the purview of mighty leaders whether by birth, theology, revolution, brutality or happenstance.

    As far as I can tell you advocate a socialist/communist approach to our governance b/c you believe it will produce the best result and you fear the supposedly polar opposite fascist/Nazi will produce the worst result and is the greatest danger as personified by GWB and neocons.

    I can't speak for anyone else but I do think that fascism has had a much smaller appeal and impact on our more recent history than socialism/communism has. We unconditionally ground fascism and its manisfestations into the ground.

    Hold on. Ronald Reagan's greatest triumph may have been his real failure. We won the Cold War and unlike WW II where the horrors that those systems inflicted on man were suddenly and fully exposed our victory in the Cold War did not flood the world with the horrors from that system.

    I am an optimist. I place my faith in both sides creating enough tension that we never go too far one way or the other.

    Optimist or no I do think that we have skewed in the direction of socialism/communism for quite awhile. If you disagree I am sure that you will let me know and give me specifics.

    Grammie

    I don't have the time this discussion deserves right now but I can clarify two items very easily.

    Loin once again makes a huge leap of illogic from my post. I in no way believe the founding of our nation is a theocracy....none of the founders deemed that ecclesiastical members be the ones telling us what to do. A theocracy specifically requires priests, pastors, etc. to be the ever-present officials in the structure....it is obvious that this is not the case in either The Declaration of Independence or The US Constitution.

    However, Loin's equation ignores even the deists' recognition of a supernatural origin of the rights of man (even read The French Declaration.....it uses the word "sacred'), and this leaves the ideology open to the influence that I believe leads to the very erosion of those very liberties I see in all secularist ideology....and that is the fundamental flaw.

    Thomas Jefferson never identified the basic liberties received by man as coming from anywhere but from the creator. Eliminating that last step, as Loin and other ardent secularist philosophers do, leads to the very ideologies we see once atheist thought became the norm in academic circles post Enlightenment....Marxism through Nihilism, and many radical and destructive ideologies in between. Denying this history and correlation is illogical.

    If Loin arrives at some kind of psychic conclusion that "sacredness" is achievable without what the 18th Century users of the word implied by using such a powerful adjective, then I would like him to show me an example of societal success coming from the pure "sacred secularism."

    Lastly, word choice used to be critical in public discourse and this fact is yet another flaw in the modern (and flawed) academic parcing when they interpret the written word. The english language, even though it seems more ambiguous at times compared to ancient languages, nevertheless has many choices other than "sacred," or "divine" to describe things. Loin's huge assumptions of the secular thoughts of the writers of these important documents makes his conclusions suspect.

    "As far as I can tell you advocate a socialist/communist approach to our governance b/c you believe it will produce the best result and you fear the supposedly polar opposite fascist/Nazi will produce the worst result and is the greatest danger as personified by GWB and neocons."

    I do believe that the Bushies and their phony free-market political religion is taking our country to fascism - a centralizaion of arbitrary economic power that I believe will be happilly accepted by an HRC administration.

    I am no communist, although I have sarcastically referred to my self as such in response to the knee-jerk reactions I get from a number of right-wing mind-slaves. I believe in democracy, and I think that unfettered laissez faire capitalism is its mortal enemy.

    Making money, buying and selling things and trying to make it worth your while is great, but "Liberty" is not synonymous with a fortunately situated individual's ability to accumulate vast wealth beyond all reason or equity. The unregulated capitalism advocated by today's right is nothing but a big Monopoly game in which the winners at each turn get to make up new rules, pile up all of the money, and which never ends.

    I would like certain functions of our society "Socialized" in the interest of equity and common sense - health care, energy, education (through college), and a strong saftey net of basic food and housing for the those who need it - just like we do with police and fire protection.

    But beyond that, free and open competition in the wide array of markets s about the best thing I can think of. Of course, "free and open" would neccessitate the unlimbering of TR's old trust-busting, monopoly-killing laws and a number of RICO statutes against the preposterously large and powerful conclomerates that swamp wide-based competition and devise all types of planned obsolessence into their increasingly crappy products.


    Did you see the quote by Lincoln I posted above? What a prophet!

    "Thomas Jefferson never identified the basic liberties received by man as coming from anywhere but from the creator."

    And, as I clearly pointed out above, in his writings it is clear that he means "Nature's God", by which he means the physical and natural laws. He strove to use language acceptable to the superstitious as well as the rational - he has explained it all. Your capacity for tautology is endless.

    "...then I would like him to show me an example of societal success coming from the pure "sacred secularism.""


    Well, the USA, for one.

    ....and at this point, Phari-cee, I suppose I must take sides with Grammie that the argument has become pointless. You just agreed that we are not a theocracy, putting your tacit seal of approval on Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli ("As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;..."), so basically we are done. You believe what you want, but keep the dogma out of our public institutions.

    "You believe what you want, but keep the dogma out of our public institutions."


    ###
    But what you call "dogma," is there, Loin. Our President believes as I do....even Hillary and Bill Clinton believe in nature's creator and although I disagree with much of their public policy, that influence is there if but only the small mustard seed.....Speech after speech from near 100% of our public officials mention Him...His name is on our money, on our monuments and in our offical documents...including our founding documents.

    That is your problem....Your conclusion that we are a secular society is false as God works within the hearts of men who accept Him and the lack of identification of His existance is not going to deter His divine work anyway.

    The government of The United States was founded on the protection of the God given rights from the contrived and flawed institutions of men.....both public (the government) and private.....It is erroneous for you to come to the conclusion that our nation is secular. If it was, God would not be mentioned as the source of liberty.

    Saying "secular!" covering your ears and shouting, "nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, I can't hear you," is not a valid retort.

    Oh, by the way Loin....please will you recognize one many of the real secular societies that once existed on the face of the earth.....

    The Soviet Union.

    Come now....take responsibility for the result of secular philosophy, Loin.

    Come now....take responsibility for the result of secular philosophy, Loin.

    Posted by: cee at October 25, 2007 8:45 AM

    Why? That was an oligarchic dictatorship - no comparison with the regulated capitalist constitutional democracy I described above.

    Are you willing to take responsibility for the murderous Prostetant despotism of Cromwell? The brutal Catholic monarchy of medieval Spain?

    I am well aware that many people do derive morality from ancient mythological texts, and that's wonderful...many also justify the most barbarous crimes from the same stories. The same can be said for a raft of fine literature by the likes of Harper Lee, John Steinbeck, Tacitus, JRR Tolkien, Ayn Rand, and George Orwell.

    Logic, empathy, and imagination are what is required to derive the mustard seeds you look for from any literary analogy. That is because social justice and the "Golden Rule" are the only valid conclusions that can be rationally arrived at when considering issues of human interaction.

    Have you ever read the preamble of founding document of The Soviet Union, Loin, their constitution?.....

    "The Great October Socialist Revolution, made by the workers and peasants of Russia under the leadership of the Communist Party headed by Lenin, overthrew capitalist and landowner rule, broke the fetters of oppression, established the dictatorship of the proletariat, and created the Soviet state, a new type of state, the basic instrument for defending the gains of the revolution and for building socialism and communism. Humanity thereby began the epoch-making turn from capitalist to socialism.

    "After achieving victory in the Civil War and repulsing imperialist intervention, the Soviet government carried through far-reaching social and economic transformations, and put an end once and for all to exploitation of man by man, antagonisms between classes, and strive between nationalities. The unification of the Soviet Republics in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics multiplied the forces and opportunities of the peoples of the country in the building of socialism. Social ownership of the means of production and genuine democracy for the working masses were established. For the first time in the history of mankind a socialist society was created.

    "The strength of socialism was vividly demonstrated by the immortal feat of the Soviet people and their Armed Forces in achieving their historic victory in the Great Patriotic War. This victory consolidated the influence and international standing of the Soviet Union and created new opportunities for growth of the forces of socialism, national liberation, democracy, and peace throughout the world.


    ###
    It goes on, Loin....and the concept of "The Golden Rule" is abundant in the document. Read this thing and "social justice" is mentioned as paramount in the ideology....

    Article 1
    The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a socialist state of the whole people, expressing the will and interests of the workers, peasants, and intelligentsia, the working people of all the nations and nationalities of the country.

    Article 2

    (1) All power in the USSR belongs to the people.
    (2) The people exercise state power through Soviets of People's Deputies, which constitute the political foundation of the USSR.
    (3) All other state bodies are under the control of, and accountable to, the Soviets of People's Deputies.

    Article 3
    The Soviet state is organized and functions on the principle of democratic centralism, namely the electiveness of all bodies of state authority from the lowest to the highest, their accountability to the people, and the obligation of lower bodies to observe the decisions of higher ones. Democratic centralism combines central leadership with local initiative and creative activity and with the responsibility of the each state body and official for the work entrusted to them.

    Article 4

    (1) The Soviet state and all its bodies function on the basis of socialist law, ensure the maintenance of law and order, and safeguard the interests of society and the rights and freedoms of
    citizens.
    (2) State organizations, public organizations and officials shall observe the Constitution of the USSR and Soviet laws.

    Article 5
    Major matters of state shall be submitted to nationwide discussion and put to a popular vote (referendum).

    Article 6

    (1) The leading and guiding force of the Soviet society and the nucleus of its political system, of all state organizations and public organizations, is the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The CPSU exists for the people and serves the people.
    (2) The Communist Party, armed with Marxism-Leninism, determines the general perspectives of the development of society and the course of the home and foreign policy of the USSR, directs the great constructive work of the Soviet people, and imparts a planned, systematic and theoretically substantiated character to their struggle for the victory of communism.
    (3) All party organizations shall function within the framework of the Constitution of the USSR.


    ###
    So Loin, do you not see your ideology within the founding document of "the first time in the history of mankind a socialist society was created."

    Why are you so resistant to the truth that the lack of mention of God is the difference in our documents? My goodness, Lenin demanded the very word be stricken from public view, bibles banned and worship restricted!

    Sorry....The USSR WAS A SECULAR SOCIETY as proven in their founding document. Compare and contrast to The Declaration of Independence and my argument is only strengthened.

    Maybe I'm not seeing the big picture, but considering the supposition that many of the founding fathers were deists, as well as the careful wording of the Declaration and Constitution which left out any explicit references to God, isn't it reasonable to question how much influence traditional Christianity had on the forefathers? I would imagine that ideas generated during the Enlightenment had a more direct effect, especially when you compare the rhetoric of philosophes such as Rousseau and John Locke to the wording of our treasured documents. And the philosophes, though themeselves largely deists, had pretty secular ideas when viewed in the context of 18th century European society.
    I don't see how one can form the conclusion that traditional Christian thought has had much, if any, influence on the creation of the United States. In fact, it seems our predecessors were averse to fundamental acceptance of biblical scripture.

    Maybe I'm not seeing the big picture, but considering the supposition that many of the founding fathers were deists, as well as the careful wording of the Declaration and Constitution which left out any explicit references to God, isn't it reasonable to question how much influence traditional Christianity had on the forefathers? I would imagine that ideas generated during the Enlightenment had a more direct effect, especially when you compare the rhetoric of philosophes such as Rousseau and John Locke to the wording of our treasured documents. And the philosophes, though themeselves largely deists, had pretty secular ideas when viewed in the context of 18th century European society.
    I don't see how one can form the conclusion that traditional Christian thought has had much, if any, influence on the creation of the United States. In fact, it seems our predecessors were averse to fundamental acceptance of biblical scripture.

    "In fact, it seems our predecessors were averse to fundamental acceptance of biblical scripture."


    ###
    Such aversion when they deem the rights of men as coming from God? What docoments are you reading? How can you simply overlook the fact that even your described deists recognize that rights are a creation of God...and not "a god" or "your god" but the G-d they believed in as revealed in the Hebrew and Chrisatian scriptures, the one true living God, I AM?

    20th century secular academia has wonderful theories on what the founders meant in including such "mythology" in the pronouncement of rights, but that does not eliminate the fact that the legal document contains the citation.

    The USSR was a failure on many levels, but citing its secularity as a reason for its failure is pretty weak. A totalitarian regime is a totalitarian regime, be it anti-religious or theocratic. The Soviet Union's problems went far beyond theological.

    They had ample opportunity to explicitly refer to the Judeo-Christian God in those documents; do you think they were somehow bound by a secular-minded society to include at best indirect references to a "creator"? On the contrary, it's more likely that they felt obligated to put in some reference out of a desire to appease what was by all accounts a considerably more conservative Christian culture than what we have today.

    Unless you're going to try to argue that 18th century European societies were more secular than current Western-influenced democratic states.


    "it's more likely that they felt obligated to put in some reference out of a desire to appease what was by all accounts a considerably more conservative Christian culture than what we have today."


    ###
    Theory and conjecture....do you have any primary source evidence to back up this theory? In addition, does the erosion of the belief in God in some citizens change the fact that the founders recognized rights as coming from God? I would really appreciate a logical and rational discussion of these important historical issues.

    "Jesus, after all, was pretty tough on the wealthy."


    ###
    ? I post, once again, Christ's summary of "values,"

    "'Are you still so dull?' Jesus asked them. 'Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.' "


    ###
    I guess one should conclude he was tough on EVERYONE.

    Anon, you fundamentally misunderstand, as SLOB does, the argument that Cee and I are making.

    We neither maintain the US is a Theocracy nor do we desire it to become one. For my part I believe that the examples SLOB gave (Cromwell and Medivial Spain) to illustrate the evils of government based on and relying on a specific religion only exist today in Islamic theocracies. They are anachronistic in every aspect of life and polar opposites to us.

    We both fear a Communist/Stalinist system here. The prospect of becoming like our current Communistic governments such as North Korea and Red China is not pleasant at all. Especially in light of the societies that we helped to create in their southern hemispheres.

    What modern government's are fascist/Nazi? I can't think of one. Do me a favor and don't say the US.

    SLOB, I know you think GWB, with Cee and I in tow, is rushing towards fascism b/c of our abhorrence to Communism. We have been very acceptive of Communistic approaches in this country and are implementing some of it for decades now and I oppose that.

    I see very little difference in the end result of Fascism and Communism b/c they both rely on massive government control of every aspect of life but have tweaked their economic systems.

    Whoopedido! I don't want either one of them.

    BTW, can you point me to any successful Communist democracies?

    Grammie

    No, SLOB, I didn't see your quote by Lincoln b/c you made it shortly after you were so rude and ungentlemanly to Sharon and I hurried by b/c I was so angry and even disappointed in you.

    Grammie

    "My goodness, Lenin demanded the very word be stricken from public view, bibles banned and worship restricted!"

    ...and every Waffen SS soldier had "Gott Mitt Uns" stamped on his belt buckle.

    I hate to repeat my argument from last year on this board, but Nazi ideology was a result of the 18th and 19th secular philosophies most easily represented by Nietzsche.

    The origins of Hitler's ideology is about as Judeo-Christian as Lenin's.

    Oh, but anon, the man Christ was speaking to claimed to have met all of the other high bars I mentioned as well....his specific problem was idolatry....the love of something other than God....

    in his case, money....which Christ goes on to say....The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil....Not exclusive or the worst kind of evil as you would have the less informed believe.

    So your typical secular leftist revisionism of Christ's stern message against all sin once again fails to persuade....try again.

    Sorry Anon, your reading is one given to comfort all who have sinned and come up short, including liars, adulterers, fornicaters, sodomists, gossips, murderers, etc, etc, etc....

    It is easy to point at another person's sin and say he is not being "christian," while reinterpreting other parts of scripture and say..."Well, that does not apply because of ____________." No unclean person can be in the presense of Jehovah and my reference to a basic teaching from Christ is clear what makes a person unclean....and greed is one....but so is lying, sexual immorality and murder and etc, etc, etc.

    No comfort should be taken from ANYONE, including myself, when the mirror of Christ is held up to show the flaws of human decision. "The social gospel," sells Christ just as short as any contrived message you would like to provide, anon.

    The origins of Hitler's ideology is about as Judeo-Christian as Lenin's.

    Posted by: cee at October 25, 2007 11:37 AM


    ...and the same argument could be made in regard to yours, Phari-cee.

    Hitler's packaging certainly was rich in Christiness, you must admit.

    Both of these facts are among the resaons why Jesus reportedly admonished that prayer be conducted in one's closet, and that God and Ceasar both be rendered unto appropriately.

    "Similarly, there is a faux conflict between religion and political systems. For years, the Church taught is Communism was 'bad' but left-wingers seemed to find less conflict between religion and politics than the right-wingers did. Jesus, after all, was pretty tough on the wealthy."


    ###
    Whether is is The Social Gospel movement or Liberation Theology, I, like I did before, would appreciate support from sources regarding their validity.

    Your quote above implies Christ taught liberation theology. The scripture you even quote does not support this idea. It is a simple interpretation of the hebrew and christian scriptures that salvation is by grace alone in all instances. Now I can easily support that basic theology or find no contrary view with every passage of scripture....can you do the same, Anon?

    SLOB, would you give me some examples of "Hitler's packaging certainly was rich in Christiness, you must admit."

    Grammie

    When WAL-MART closes at 8PM most nights and is not open on most weekends....then you may compare my activity here to WAL-MART, anon...

    Except I do take exception to the content.....WAL-MART carries some excellent, name-brand items.

    Stop the war!....Cut the fund now!

    And this is my post today, the 1,639th day since the declaration of Mission Accomplished in Iraq.....

    I am cee, good night and good luck.

    "I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

    "There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration's policies in Iraq. Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back." NYT 1/28/07

    "I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam," George McGovern - NEWSWEEK

    "Lefties: Leave these pathetic drowning rats alone to stew in each other's juices. Get yourselves out in the street and fight this criminal administration in ways that really mean something, and that are noted by more than a handful of keyboard heroes!" Sir Loin of Beef

    "American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it." DEMOCRAT Bob Kerrey

    "If we end up saying that because these people are committing these acts of terrorism in Iraq or Afghanistan, that we shouldn't have done the removal of Saddam or the removal of the Taliban, then we are making a fundamental mistake about our own future, about security, about the values we should be defending in the world." TONY BLAIR

    "You can't bring the troops home if you give George Bush $100 billion to wage this war. You're not supporting them. You're keeping them in harm's way." CINDY SHEEHAN

    "There is no doubt ... that Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq. There is no doubt that we've had to take very strong measures against them. And there is no doubt that the Iraqi security forces have got to be strong enough to be able to withstand not just the violence that has been between the Sunni and the Shia population and the Sunni insurgency, but also Al Qaeda itself." GORDON BROWN

    "People of America: the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq, for people have recently come to know that, after several years of tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped. Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there." OSAMA BIN LADEN

    "Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda--worse for our society. It's as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was."
    KEITH OLBERMANN

    "Thinking such as your's is a cancer on our nation that needs to be cut out." MIKE posted 10/4/07 7:02PM

    Here, Grammie, although you really should be capable pof finding such material on your own:

    "Gott Mitt Uns" as a Nazi movement slogan;

    "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."

    - Adolf Hitler, to General Gerhard Engel, 1941


    "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. ...Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. ... "

    - Adolf Hitler, speech on April 12, 1922

    "By its decision to carry out the political and moral cleansing of our public life, the Government is creating and securing the conditions for a really deep and inner religious life. The advantages for the individual which may be derived from compromises with atheistic organizations do not compare in any way with the consequences which are visible in the destruction of our common religious and ethical values. The national Government sees in both Christian denominations the most important factor for the maintenance of our society. ..."

    - Adolf Hitler, speech before the Reichstag, March 23, 1933, just before the Enabling Act is passed.


    ...and finally, for Phari-cee:


    Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith ...we need believing people.

    - Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordant

    October 4, 2007 8:25 PM

    Oh, that was one of my good ones, if I do say so myself....allow me to repost the rest of it, please.....

    "Same response to the changing name at 7:56 that I just posted to Mike....never do I see any point by point rebuttals from either of these tolerant and curious individuals....just vindictive....At least my labels are based on the ideology I see posted with the names....I am sorry that using actual words like leftist, sodomist, adulterer, liar, etc. makes you uneasy but they are accurate. I never curse or wish people death, harm or foul....Yet, I receive such slings and arrows with a smile because I know such crazy talk, anti-religious talk, intolerant talk is a sign that....

    "1) I am getting under your skin.

    "2) You are insecure and not prepared to defend your world-view and

    "3) Likely hiding some fact about yourself from this board that makes your position even more hypocritical than it already is.

    E"ven arrogant blindrat cannot control himself, shows his frustration with the profanity and I check off in my mind another victory.....It is a sad commentary on the education and sensibilities of many on the left side of the political, economic and/or social spectrum.

    "Especially those who choose to return to OW and try to defend their bankrupt values and ideology.

    "This is really goodnight, now."

    Posted by: cee at October 4, 2007 8:25 PM


    ###
    Mmmmmm, that's good partisan slaw.


    All of Hitler's "christianity" was really Gnostisism, Loin, and resembled biblical Christianity only in word, and not in deed. His ideology was more closely realted to Nietzche's idea of the potential superman, and his liberation from his lower natural self to become god-like....self-deification

    “Man is becoming God--that is the simple fact. Man is God in the making” Adolf Hitler (Hitler Speaks, Hermann Rauschning)


    ###
    This gnostic idea is a common error for the morally lost, Hitler and Nietzsche being two obvious examples.....Nietzshe declared in, "In The Will to Power",

    “A daring and ruler race is building itself up... The aim should be to prepare a transvaluation of values for a particularly strong kind of man, most highly gifted in intellect and will. This man and the elite around him will become the ‘lords of the earth’”


    ###
    Gnosticism is a horrible mutation of Christ's teachings and flavors much on the church's later writings and traditions. Even most of what Anonymous was discussing above is often thinly vailed gnosticism as people tend to go away from individual salvation by grace alone with the restoration of the true nature Jehovah intended for mankind. The personal relationship desired by God that sends the person on a spiritual pilgramage of sanctification.

    Later theologicans replace Christ's wisdom and teachings with their own ideology....again with much resemblence to gnostic silliness. I judge any deviation from the basic teachings of the canon and usually see this "man becoming god" in all of its machinations....

    Even to the extreme of Adolf Hitler.

    ...written as someone with a hot-line to heaven.

    Perhaps the fact that it is so easy for monsters to assume such pretenses - and so difficult for most people lacking Phari-cee's uncanny aptitude for identifying bona fide "revealed truth" - had something to do with the founders' explicit repudiation of religious tests or content in regad to our government.

    (rolling eyes)...your sarcasm never ends....

    Sir Loin of Milquetoast, I have yet to see any quote or reference from a founder or their contemporary that specifically states the rights of man came from anywhere other than that supernatural realm you have forever and irrevocably deem a myth.

    Sure, that Enlightenment fascination with the material world was so much fun.....ah, but the supernatural!....That great scientist, Isaac Newton, was so eloquent about his work in his worship of the same One mentioned in The Declaration of Independence.....

    "It became Him who created it to set it in order; and if he did so, it is unphilosophical to seek for any other origin of the world, or to pretend that it might arise out of a chaos by the mere laws of Nature."

    "We are not to consider the world as a body of God: He is an uniform being, devoid of organs, members, or parts; and they are His creatures, subordinate to Him, and subservient to His will."

    "Oh, yeah, damn them leftists... they're gonna make us loose in Iran."


    ###
    No, leftists are just misinformed, misguided and radical. The rest of us will keep the world from descending into the abyss.

    Oh, and Iran?.....That will be the next chief executive's conundrum to solve....This is why it is important to choose vewy, vewy carefully next November!

    Stop the criminals!.....Impeach NOW!

    Stop the war!....Cut the funds NOW!

    And this is my post today, the 1,639th day since the declaration of Mission Accomplished in Iraq.....

    I am cee, good night and good luck.

    "I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

    "There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration's policies in Iraq. Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back." NYT 1/28/07

    "I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam," George McGovern - NEWSWEEK

    "Lefties: Leave these pathetic drowning rats alone to stew in each other's juices. Get yourselves out in the street and fight this criminal administration in ways that really mean something, and that are noted by more than a handful of keyboard heroes!" Sir Loin of Beef

    "American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it." DEMOCRAT Bob Kerrey

    "If we end up saying that because these people are committing these acts of terrorism in Iraq or Afghanistan, that we shouldn't have done the removal of Saddam or the removal of the Taliban, then we are making a fundamental mistake about our own future, about security, about the values we should be defending in the world." TONY BLAIR

    "You can't bring the troops home if you give George Bush $100 billion to wage this war. You're not supporting them. You're keeping them in harm's way." CINDY SHEEHAN

    "There is no doubt ... that Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq. There is no doubt that we've had to take very strong measures against them. And there is no doubt that the Iraqi security forces have got to be strong enough to be able to withstand not just the violence that has been between the Sunni and the Shia population and the Sunni insurgency, but also Al Qaeda itself." GORDON BROWN

    "People of America: the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq, for people have recently come to know that, after several years of tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped. Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there." OSAMA BIN LADEN

    "Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda--worse for our society. It's as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was."
    KEITH OLBERMANN

    "Thinking such as your's is a cancer on our nation that needs to be cut out." MIKE posted 10/4/07 7:02PM


    Cee,

    As a Catholic, I don't agree with every theological point you make, but I am always pleased to see you take on the usual suspects so cogently. I would not know how to begin to address someone who places the elements of Hitler's speeches in the same realm as Christianity. Good Christians hid Jews at the risk of their lives. Charles Manson also spoke in terms of spirituality and identified himself as a scientologist at one point. Some of his statements sounded downright humanistic! But, he is Charlie Manson and Hitler is Hitler. I know that the larger point of the discussion is beyond that, but nonetheless, I think you get my drift.

    Why are you so hateful?

    I thought he was a Jewish Christian:

    Contemporary Jewish Christians
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Christians

    "Jewish Christians" is sometimes used as a contemporary term in respect of persons who are ethnically Jewish but who have become part of a "mainstream" Christian group which is not predominantly based on an appeal to Jewish ethnicity or the Law of Moses. This term is used as a contrast to Messianic Jews, many of whom are ethnic Jews who have converted to a religion in which Christian belief (usually evangelical) is generally grafted onto Jewish ritual which would, to outsiders at least, typically resemble Judaism more than Christianity.

    Or maybe Messianic Jew

    Sharon, it took me a little bit to find this but it is so right on I wouldn't give up. Patsy told me do CTRL +F4. I asked Cecelia what would happen if I had.

    This is Cecelia's response:

    "A little boy comes on screen, stomps his feet, shouts a few dirty words, and then sulks away with his thumb in his mouth.

    In other words, nothing different.

    (the window you're using would collapse)

    Posted by: Cecelia at October 17, 2007 11:46 AM"

    I think she nailed it. It is not hatred so much as it is aggrieved petulance by a spoiled rotten little boy who has learned too many nasty words and whose Mama never denied him anything.

    After calling us a few choice of those words he huffed away and just showed up again in the last day or so.

    Good night. I'm tired from a busy day.

    Grammie

    "Sir Loin of Milquetoast, I have yet to see any quote or reference from a founder or their contemporary that specifically states the rights of man came from anywhere other than that supernatural realm you have forever and irrevocably deem a myth."

    Well, Phari-cee, you have anon's very helpful quote above from Benjamin Franklin that ridicules the absurdity of the entire question. Jesus Christ, I've forgotten the whole point of this tautology you've dragged us into.

    Let's say that the Leprechaun King did, in fact, pull a handful of Sacred Rights of of his pot o' gold and then sprinkled them all over humanity as it emerged from under a cabbage leaf. Great. I accept this "revealed truth", and you are a barbaric Philistine if you do not see its obvious undeniability.

    But sadly, the Founders of our country devised the framework of our legal and political system that does not accept any test, criterion, or specific allusion to this scenario in regard to our governments official opperation. So get over it. Go pray in your closet.

    I would not know how to begin to address someone who places the elements of Hitler's speeches in the same realm as Christianity. Good Christians hid Jews at the risk of their lives. ... I think you get my drift.

    Posted by: Sharon at October 25, 2007 6:29 PM


    Hitler put his own words in that realm - or rather, he kept repeating Cristian words as he had been raised as he led his nation into savagery; and millions of "Good Christians" in very land of Luther and Calvin accepted it, and followed him joyously.


    Your "drift" is between your ears.

    Sharon, I am a born-again believer in Jesus Christ who's grandfather (on my mother's side) was Jewish. I was raised in a high church, The Methodist Church, but now attend a non-denominational congregation.

    As a child I attended synagogue and practiced Judaism with my Grandfather who has since passed away. I am not Bar Mitzvah.

    I usually do not like to post such personal items but with some calling me "cultist," I could not resist. My hertiage, both "christian" and "jewish," are not seperate in my own mind but are forced to be from people who do not understand the continuum easily seen in Isaiah's and Paul's scriptures concerning their fellow Jews. This is why I know there is no anti-Semitism intended when people discuss "prefected Jews," in the sense of their recognizing and service to Yeshuah (Jesus Christ), the promised Messiah, is the intent for all mankind....but first to the Jews.

    Like it or not, people who know the entire Jewish and Christian scriptures cannot deny that Jehovah was very specific in the way justification would occur through Abram and that in no way did Jehovah intend any other way for which the nations of all the world would come back into relationship with Him. Consistently from Torah to Revelation, the message is clear and consistent and anything beyond these writings has to be seen as tradition only. I find it difficult to discuss these issues because most of the very hateful and cross posts directed towards me are from individuals who later show they have very little experience with reading The Torah, the prophets and the christian testament in their entirety. If they had, they would begin to see the very clear and logical consistency of these writings and perhaps revelation would lead them to the truth.

    "Jesus Christ, I've forgotten the whole point of this tautology you've dragged us into."


    ###
    I am hopeful in seeing you invoke The King's name in helping you understand the important truth I am addressing.

    Your gnostic tendencies, my dear Sir Loin of Milquetoast, is the only alternative to what the founders believed. Your self-deification is the real conclusion as opposed to your childish attempt at degrading the truth. This is the problem. As you dismiss, out of hand, the existence of the supernatural (WHICH YOU HAVE YET TO EVEN SHOW THAT THE RATIONAL THOMAS JEFFERSON WAS IN YOUR CAMP!), you try to make that avenue unapproachable....invoking little green men, the sky-god or Santa.....I, and even more brilliant thinkers who know Jehovah exists, will not let you use such a petulant and incurious tactic. Ceding the argument that there is a God is giving away the entire argument because in its place is exactly what you want Loin.....you become the final judge of all truth.....and remember the conclusion of The Declaration of Independence disagrees with that horrible idea.....

    "We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."


    ###
    "appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions"

    Who is that, Loin?.....Frank Sinatra? Judge Judy? Marx? Lenin? Castro? Hitler? George Washington? You?

    Self-deification, the basic pathology of man since the fall....It is the flaw from which all problems of thought and deed arise....So The Shema is its counter-argument....There is ONE LORD....and His name is mentioned in our nation's founding document while it is not in the secular nation's, like the now failed Marxist state you so quickly disavow.

    Self-deification, the ideological reason despots like Hitler arise....oh what a mangled moral paradigm.

    So Loin, keep up the sarcasm....I am not going to be insulted and let you off the hook....Your idols of the 18th and 19th century denied His existence but did not have influence in our great nation's founding until recently...to the threat of real liberty.

    Pari-cee,

    There is no greater self-deification than your absolute certainty regarding the unknowable.

    "There is ONE LORD....and His name is mentioned in our nation's founding document while it is not in the secular nation's, like the now failed Marxist state you so quickly disavow."

    Where in your holy book does it identify the creator as "Nature's God"? You are delusional.

    Loin, I direct you to a Psalm of David that was revealed Psalm 104)....again the text LORD is specific to His name as opposed to "lord," and is the same God of those silly protestant founders who said He created it all....

    Praise the LORD, O my soul.
    O LORD my God, you are very great;
    you are clothed with splendor and majesty.

    He wraps himself in light as with a garment;
    he stretches out the heavens like a tent

    and lays the beams of his upper chambers on their waters.
    He makes the clouds his chariot
    and rides on the wings of the wind.

    He makes winds his messengers,
    flames of fire his servants.

    He set the earth on its foundations;
    it can never be moved.

    You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
    the waters stood above the mountains.

    But at your rebuke the waters fled,
    at the sound of your thunder they took to flight;

    they flowed over the mountains,
    they went down into the valleys,
    to the place you assigned for them.

    You set a boundary they cannot cross;
    never again will they cover the earth.

    He makes springs pour water into the ravines;
    it flows between the mountains.

    They give water to all the beasts of the field;
    the wild donkeys quench their thirst.

    The birds of the air nest by the waters;
    they sing among the branches.

    He waters the mountains from his upper chambers;
    the earth is satisfied by the fruit of his work.

    He makes grass grow for the cattle,
    and plants for man to cultivate—
    bringing forth food from the earth:

    wine that gladdens the heart of man,
    oil to make his face shine,
    and bread that sustains his heart.

    The trees of the LORD are well watered,
    the cedars of Lebanon that he planted.

    There the birds make their nests;
    the stork has its home in the pine trees.

    The high mountains belong to the wild goats;
    the crags are a refuge for the coneys.

    The moon marks off the seasons,
    and the sun knows when to go down.

    You bring darkness, it becomes night,
    and all the beasts of the forest prowl.

    The lions roar for their prey
    and seek their food from God.

    The sun rises, and they steal away;
    they return and lie down in their dens.

    Then man goes out to his work,
    to his labor until evening.

    How many are your works, O LORD!
    In wisdom you made them all;
    the earth is full of your creatures.

    There is the sea, vast and spacious,
    teeming with creatures beyond number—
    living things both large and small.

    There the ships go to and fro,
    and the leviathan, which you formed to frolic there.

    These all look to you
    to give them their food at the proper time.

    When you give it to them,
    they gather it up;
    when you open your hand,
    they are satisfied with good things.

    When you hide your face,
    they are terrified;
    when you take away their breath,
    they die and return to the dust.

    When you send your Spirit,
    they are created,
    and you renew the face of the earth.

    May the glory of the LORD endure forever;
    may the LORD rejoice in his works-

    he who looks at the earth, and it trembles,
    who touches the mountains, and they smoke.

    I will sing to the LORD all my life;
    I will sing praise to my God as long as I live.

    May my meditation be pleasing to him,
    as I rejoice in the LORD.

    But may sinners vanish from the earth
    and the wicked be no more.
    Praise the LORD, O my soul.
    Praise the LORD.


    ###
    Even the great Sir Isaac Newton knew for certain the unknowable existed....read the quote I posted previously.....

    "It became Him who created it to set it in order; and if he did so, it is unphilosophical to seek for any other origin of the world, or to pretend that it might arise out of a chaos by the mere laws of Nature."

    "We are not to consider the world as a body of God: He is an uniform being, devoid of organs, members, or parts; and they are His creatures, subordinate to Him, and subservient to His will."


    ###
    The one who for certain denies a supreme deity is making himself one, Loin. I know I am less and serve only one. I can never be God.

    Phari-cee,

    Tautology; pristine, uncut tautology.

    I don't know, Anon; based on everything you've posted it sounds to me like we're on the same page.

    Not tautology, Loin....

    You say...."unalienable rights."

    I say (and the founders say)...."creator endowed unalienable rights."

    The origin of the rights included in an ideology as being beyond the authority of any man presently, ever created or yet to be created does, has and always will make an impact on its longevity and justice.....My USSR example, Nazi Germany, North Vietnam, Cuba, and I could go on and on and see in our current leftist academia towards our non-secular system, a hostility towards the recognition of the supernatural origin of our essennce and rights.

    Your disbelief is the problem, Loin and it is not just a matter of tautology. Again, you want to frame the debate as such because it makes your position the winner even before I open my mouth. Shamful. This is the indolent and dangerous gameplan of people not prepared to defend their position.

    I challenge you and wannawipe to find one post of mine that endorces a theocracy.....this is a strawman. I simply challenge your erroneous assertion that our system is based on secular philosophy....it is not.


    "I simply challenge your erroneous assertion that our system is based on secular philosophy....it is not."


    Is that all? Then I am no longer interested in this irrelevant discussion, since it is obvious that our system of governace - BASED ON whatever - is from its inception explicitly segregated from any superstitious considerations in regard to procedure and content.

    WOW!....do you even know what a theocracy is?.....It is a government that is run by unelected "priests." If this is the case in our nation, I am miserably misinormed.

    Saying the basis of our basic rights are from God does not make us a theocracy.

    WHO elects the pope?.....Not the lay catholic individual, twit....The other priests (some dressed in red dresses).....who elects them, twit?....no one, they are allowed into the priesthood by other priests....the layperson has no say who governs.

    Who elects our leaders....the people....There is no "lay" and "cleric" in our system.....

    Duh, twit.

    "'brilliant thinkers' like Ronald Raygun followed the advice of Nancy's psychics..."


    ###
    Perhaps those same psychics advised Nancy on her stand on expanding unethical human experimentation (human embryonic stem cell research)....because I know it is not bibilical!

    he, he, he.

    Actually, those who elect the Pope are all in "red dresses" the College of Cardinals.

    dear, dear wannawipe.....

    You claimed I see The USA as a theocracy....I asked you to show me evidence of when I suggested such an erroneous idea...you failed to.

    The governance of The Catholic Church is by priests of various rank....NO lay person need apply....the basic definition of a theocracy.

    You tried to back into the argument by the absurd tact that since there are elections, it is not a theocracy, or maybe theocracies can have elections but are not truly democratic, or something....I am not really sure because you write like someone afflicted with Tourettes.....bottomline is....find a post I made that implies America is a theocracy and I will mea culpa.....

    Until then, that goodness The Declaration of Independence mentions The LORD and most of your fellow citizens call on Him because you really need Him.

    Sorry Sharon, I am getting impatient.

    AAP,

    You can make all of your arguments without the profanity and vulgar use of Christ's name. Is there a reason to do it other than hatred? How does one recognize hateful language?

    Is it me, or is wannawipe a bit more unhinged today?....

    I said at 12:24PM: "You claimed I see The USA as a theocracy"

    You is YOU, wannapipe.....I is ME and YOU are claiming I said the USA was a theocracy.....

    oy.

    Wannawipe.....I challenge you like I challenge the silent Sir Loin of Milquetoast.....show me any evidence the founders who wrote and signed The Declaration of Independence did not refer to the god of the Jewish and Christian scriptures as the creator of nature, us and our rights.

    You call it a fairy tale that does not exist in American politics, wannawipe....you are WAAAAAAAY wrong....Listen to your own leftist candiates for President for goodness sake!

    This does not mean the USA is a theorcacy, wannawipe. It means, simply, the truth.... that our governmental philosophy is not based on secular philosophy, as you and many try to perpetuate. It is based on Juedeo-Christian values....the biggest one being recognizing The LORD as the judge/authority of "rights" and the creator.

    If you see all kids of hypocrisy, etc. in Cee (I don't; he has a belief system, I have one, and you have one) I don't see how you can miss the hypocrisy of people like Olbermann and HRC. J$ points out trite examples of Olby, sure, but plenty of major examples on a continual basis. HRC went with the tide at the time and voted for the war, but she is clever enough to phrase speeches in such a way to leave wiggle room for future events. I believe in change of heart, and it is hard to determine change of heart versus flip-flopping (Romeny for me, did he have a change of heart? AT least it is in the direction I like even ikf it is flip-flopping). In HRC's case, it is political expediency time and time again. How about her adopted accent when speaking in the Black southern churches? That was laughable.
    Excuse the rambling style. HAve to run.

    Cee, I was so ashamed that I was so misinformed that Nazism's philosophical underpinning is on Christianity rather than Occultism/Neitizhe (sp).

    SLOB. you so graciously copied a few quotes from Hitler that illustrated the richness of his dependence on Christiness so I thought you would be amused by the foolish view I had of it.

    "The book deeply analyses Nietzsche’s influence on Nazi ideology, focusing on how the Nazis appropriated most of Nietzsche’s concepts and ideals to fit them into their own doctrine. Yet in doing so, the author draws a clear distinction between the Nazi esoteric doctrine, - which is elitist, supra-national, and spiritual -, and the popular, nationalist exoteric doctrine. She then endeavours to establish a clear link between the Nazi secret doctrine and Nietzsche’s philosophy, revealing both the occult character of Esoteric Nazism and the pagan Aryanism of Nietzsche.

    The book has therefore a two-fold contribution: it unveils the Nazi esoteric doctrine, which the author claims is purely Nietzschean in character, and analyses Nietzsche’s philosophy in order to extract from it a clearly eugenicist, Aryanist dimension, thus establishing a clear link between the German philosopher’s thought and the Nazi Secret Doctrine. The author thus unveils both Nietzsche’s universal Aryanism as well as Nazism’s esoteric doctrine.

    This subject is of great interest to all those interested in a deeper understanding of the spiritual dimension of Nietzsche’s thought, as well as the occult nature of Nazism, and the relationship between these two doctrines. The book aims to end the controversy that is still ongoing today as regards Nietzsche’s relation to Nazism, by showing that the exoteric side of Nazism, which focuses on nationalism and biological racism, had little to do with Nietzsche’s elitist, universal and spiritual Aryanism, thus coming up with the conclusion that Nietzsche’s influence was essentially on the esoteric, spiritual, secret doctrine of Nazism.


    About the Author

    Abir Taha, currently a diplomat and a "doctorante" in philosophy at the Sorbonne University, is an expert in Nietzschean thought. For years she has extensively read, studied, and analysed Nietzsche’s philosophy. She has written several studies and dissertations on philosophy and political theory, particularly Nietzschean thought.

    Whereas most Nietzsche scholars ignore the spiritual dimension of Nietzsche’s philosophy, the author contends that there lies the essence of the great German philosopher’s work. She thus put special focus on Nietzsche’s spirituality, which is deeply influenced by Greek and Indian philosophy.

    Having deep knowledge of Western and Eastern esoteric thought and the influence of esoteric schools on current political ideologies, the author underwent extensive research on Nazism and its occult roots, paying special attention to Nietzsche’s influence on what she calls “Esoteric Nazism”, thus unveiling the Nazi Secret Doctrine and establishing a clear link between Nietzsche’s philosophy and Nazism as a spiritual Weltanschauung.

    The author is currently publishing a book in French entitled “Nietzsche’s Coming God, or the Redemption of the Divine”.


    Free Preview

    The “Cult of the Superman” has haunted humanity throughout history, yet it was only clearly expressed in the philosophy of its modern prophet, Friedrich Nietzsche, and culminated in its fiercest supporter, the National Socialist ideology, a political religion whose main ideal and objective were the creation of a superhuman species.

    By showing the link between the Nietzschean and Nazi worldviews - and more specifically the Nazi Secret Doctrine which I have called “esoteric Nazism”- my aim is to demonstrate that the Nazis were pure Nietzscheans, thus repudiating the views of some scholars who deny or undermine any link between the Nietzschean and Nazi doctrines. I endeavour to prove that the Nazi esoteric ideology was primarily an endeavour to actualise and institutionalise Nietzsche’s cult of the Superman, applying it to a political system that would breed a Herrenvolk or “Master Race” in body and spirit, destined to rule the earth. Nazism was in fact greatly influenced by Nietzsche’s philosophy, especially his concept of the Superman, giving it a political dimension in order to “put Nietzsche into motion” and turn the philosopher’s cult from an abstract notion into a concrete reality. The S.S. (Schutzstaffeln, or “Security Squads”), Nazi Germany’s racial and political elite, was indeed a self-proclaimed Nietzschean institution of Übermenschen or “Supermen” claiming to embody the creed of the Godlike man.

    Thus did both Nietzsche and the Nazis call for a revival of Aryan paganism, namely the ancient Aryan esoteric tradition from India to Greece, rejecting the Jewish religion of Christianity, which they believed was a gross distortion of Christ’s original teachings. Both doctrines acknowledged the Will to Power as the motor of history; both praised the qualities and values of the Superman, glorifying war, and advocating a radically aristocratic view of the world. Both Nietzsche and Nazism despised Western Judaeo-Christian Civilisation and its two products, Liberalism and Socialism, introducing a “third option” - aristocratic radicalism - between “corrupt egalitarian democracy” and the “materialist socialism of the mob”. In addition, both advocated the rule of an Aryan universal “Master Race” transcending the boundaries of states and nations; and finally, both Nietzsche and the Nazis dismissed the “decadent” Jew from civilisation, considering him alien to the natural order, an incarnation of the slave morality."

    I am unclear about one thing though. How do their runic symbols reflect that Christines? I used to think that runes were associated with Nordic pagans.

    Grammie

    I used Taha in a discussion wither with craigs (I doubt) or another poster last year....They also tried to tie Nazi fascisim to Christianity. I have always had my doubts.

    Gnostic cultism has been a easy way to go religiously since the beginning of time. Every world relgion, including Christianity, has their brand of Gnosticism.

    Judaism and true Christianity is devoid of Gnostic teaching. Man can NEVER become god in these religions.

    ".....show me any evidence the founders who wrote and signed The Declaration of Independence did not refer to the god of the Jewish and Christian scriptures as the creator of nature, us and our rights."


    So you want hard evidence that they DID NOT refer to a specific god by their use of oblique and often cryptic terminology (e.g. "their Creator"; "Nature's God"; "Divine Providence"). I have, I believe, early in this childish argument stated that they ALLUDED to your particular big white-bearded diety, but that the nomenclature was left intentionally vague to permit a wide range of applicability.

    You tell me; Why didn;t the founders chuck in a few "Jehovas" or "God of Abrahams" when they wrote their stuff? You have no problem taking such a familiar tone with "Him", why would they have?


    Its interesting that Christians from which you wish to distance your creed are so easilly labelled "Gnostics" and "heretics", despite the specificity with which they parrot your own sacred texts; but you are happy to lay claim to our founders' imprecise wordplay.

    Its funny; not too far back when I questioned Phari-cee about the depravities conducted on both sides in the name of the Lord God Jehova during the 30 Years War, he immediately dismissed each and every pope, cardinal, monk, pastor, and deacon with a blanket statement that they were not practicing "true Christianity".

    I found this very amusing, as it leaves a vast gap in the temporal continuity of his creed - and implies many more like it throughout the bloodstained history of this holy empire or that.

    At what point did Christians, then, finally catch on, and begin to understand the teachings of Christ as Phari-cee so clearly and flawlessly understands them?

    Grammie,

    well, I don't think the million belt buckles stamped with "Gott Mitt Uns" that were buried in the Volga mud at Stalingrad were printed in runes - I'm pretty sure thy were printed as I have written them above. Similarly, Hitler's homages to Christianity that I posted above - and many, many more like them - were spoken in modern German. He did not allude to Wotan or Baldir in these speeches, but to Gott in Himmel and his son Jesus.

    But you reactionaries are acting like I am claiming that Hitler admirably reflected Christ's teachings - nothing could be farther from the truth. I am only showing how religious demagogues can railroad any didactic moral dogma into something the exact opposite of any of its reasonable literal interpretations.

    Having experienced this sort of phemonenon in some of their own lives, and having been raised on gruesome horror stories of dark periods of sectarian persecution from their grandparents, our founders were careful to impede this sort of tragedy in the nation they were designing.

    Read the bible, Loin, and learn about something called a "remnant." No, not the rug you have in our rumbus room, another remnant.

    Please note, I am not a member of a High Church....this should tell you something.

    The religious sensitivites of others on this site are very important to me. Their choice to or to not worship Jehovah in a particular venue will not enter my calculations. However, those, like yourself, that have, from the very beginning, expressed sarcasm and deep seeded hostility towards supernatural revelation as a possibility and important component of human existence are open season in my book because of your attempt to fashion the debate only in your terms.

    I am not accepting any responsibility for those who used Christ's name to do anything. I am simply ready to back up my argument that true compassion's source is only found in the supernatural revelation from God. Also, this idea was the founding principle for our nation and is under strong attack from people insensitive, bigoted and hostile towards such belief....all the while they call themselves "tolerant."

    Those belt buckles also came with something else.....

    "Nietzsche fuer den deutschen Soldaten"

    Please, Loin....Hitler's cultic search for immortality and superman status was not Christianity....it was SECULAR!

    Ehhhhh! From the mind of man!

    Lastly, being good Protestants, the founders would only use what The King James Bible gave them and those translations are clear what god they were talking about.....The one true G-d....The LORD....you seem intent on relying only on your own conjecture on what the founders intended when it is clear it was SOMEONE (specifically God) OF THE SUPERNATURAL!

    You avoid this point like the plague, dear Loin.....recognition of the supernatural as the source for all around us IS CODIFIED IN OUR NATION'S FOUNDING....THIS IS NOT A SECULAR IDEA!

    Please...I do not like to use all caps, but you seem intent on avoiding a basic truth.

    Lastly, the lack of a theocracy was what the founders created to avoid the nastiness you cite....but public recognition of The LORD, with Washington praying at his inaugural as a wonderful example, was NEVER intended...but is what bigoted secularists like you wish to impose upon us like The USSR stripping G-d from their secular society.....

    Again Loin.....lay claim to a secular government like The USSR....read their constitution which claims rights and privledges only come from people.....look at the quality of their liberty and tell me it did not quite work out (and still is not working out).

    "The Secularist....fallen, thinks he's a god and gets pissed off when it all doesn't work out."

    Phari-cee,

    When have you ever been coerced to stop talking about God or Jesus or whatever? To put this succinctly, without using caps: I don;t want my local policeman to feel free to use religious tests in regard to conducting his job. He can believe whatever the fuck he wants to, but when this becomes a quantitative part of his job, he needs to be stopped by constitutional law. You are whining the oposite.

    Phari-cee,

    When have you ever been coerced to stop talking about God or Jesus or whatever? To put this succinctly, without using caps: I don;t want my local policeman to feel free to use religious tests in regard to conducting his job. He can believe whatever the fuck he wants to, but when this becomes a quantitative part of his job, he needs to be stopped by constitutional law. You are whining the oposite.

    And further on my point at 2:59PM....Ann Coulter makes me laugh again....

    [...]

    "Conservative speakers are constantly being physically attacked on college campuses -- including Bill Kristol, Pat Buchanan, David Horowitz and me, among others. Fortunately the attackers are Democrats, so they throw like girls and generally end up with their noses bloodied by pretty college coeds. But that doesn't make it right.

    "Michael Moore can waddle anywhere he wants in America without fear of violence from Republicans. But we still have to hear about every testy e-mail Paul Krugman ever receives as if liberals are living in the black night of fascism. Any time Krugman wants to get into a 'Most Vicious Hate Mail' contest, just say the word. You don't hear me sniffling.

    "Congressional Democrats are constantly calling for conservative private citizens to be silenced. Even Democratic candidates for president and their wives are getting in on the act.

    "A few weeks ago, in the midst of Senate Democrats' demand that Rush Limbaugh's microphone be silenced, Lizzie Edwards distracted herself from the latest National Enquirer by announcing on Air America that Limbaugh's draft deferment was phony.

    "I was pretty shocked. Who knew Air America was still on the air?

    "I know every time Democrats call for me to be silenced, I feel a delicious surge of martyrdom. For a brief moment, I understand the thrill the left gets by going around claiming to be victimized all the time.

    "I could almost imagine a poem:

    "First they came for Rush Limbaugh, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't Rush Limbaugh;

    "And then they came for Ann Coulter, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't Ann Coulter;

    "And then they came for David Horowitz, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't David Horowitz;

    "And then ... they came for me ... And by that time there was no one left to speak up.

    "Liberals claim to be terrified that the Religious Right is going to take over the culture in a country where more than a million babies are exterminated every year, kindergarteners can be expelled from school for mentioning God, and Islamic fascists are welcomed on college campuses while speakers opposed to Islamic fascism are met with angry protests.

    "If liberals want to face real fascism, try showing up on a college campus and denouncing fascism."


    ###
    Oh boy....Just like Loin worrying my fairy tale being mentioned to impressionable young minds in the public school system may lead to "Jesus Loves Me!" revival....Coulter really hits the leftist fear nail on the head....keep that point of view away from people....it's daaaagnerous!

    Hey Loin....do they even teach about The Declaration of Independence in public schools anymore?....I think they jsut pick up civics and constitutional history from Brown v. BOE and go on from there!

    "Please, Loin....Hitler's cultic search for immortality and superman status was not Christianity....it was SECULAR!"

    Sure, maybe to him. But using Christian lingo and trappings he sure sucked in a lot of fucking idiots ala you and Sharon.

    Similarly, One might say that you fetish/president's phony piety is wholly secular, as he only wants to stack the green, but don't try to tell that to you fools.

    Mike once told me I would have been one of Hitler's blind Brownshirts....

    And then I think you said woulnot have even been that courageous (nice).

    Oh well, I guess it is only right that you get a good dig in every now or then.

    No, I would, and I know it would have only been with the power of The Holy Spirit, have been someone like Corrie Ten Boom's father.

    From my lips to His ears.

    I did not say "courageous", Phari-cee, that is your own projection. I believe I said more to the effect that you would never put your stated beliefs into actionin such a way. Please correct me if I am wrong about this citation.

    Anyway, I am tired of your circular arguments - and since you failed to pay notice previously, I leave you again with the words put into the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli by some of the Founders themselves, and then ratified by others and by the sons and understudies of yet others:

    "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;..."

    "IN ANY SENSE" .

    O dear Loin...I addressed the Treaty of Tripoli trick before but I will repeat it....

    You cut off the entire quote....it actually reads...

    "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 [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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."


    ###
    The context of the declaration in in terms of religous motives being at the core of hostilities...This was not the case. The US wanted to simply have free and safe passage. The US was declaring that there was not religious motivation in our policies based on some kind of aspect of our federal government.

    Let me remind you, Loin, of what President John Adams, the president at the time this treaty was signed, said....

    "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature. "

    He wrote this to T. Jefferson. Principles based....a very important component codified in The Declaration of Independence.

    And although The US Constitution prohibits the FEDERAL government from establishing a state religion, it was a matter left solely to the individual States. So again, the principle of God being a part of our founding and the basis of our governance is still untouched. Religious test were allowed in the states and changed as time went on....but the change does not mean that the original founding was based on Judeo-Christian values.....and I repeat the most important one in recognizing and crediting The LORD for our creation, nature's creation and our rights.....Not something made from the minds of men....LIKE THE USSR CONSTITUTION.

    "Any time Krugman wants to get into a 'Most Vicious Hate Mail' contest, just say the word. You don't hear me sniffling."


    Bullshit; everything you just posted by Tran Coulter was unctuous whining - its all he's got.

    ...other than gems like these:

    Commenting on radio host Melanie Morgan's assertion that if New York Times executive editor Bill Keller were convicted of treason she "would have no problem with him being sent to the gas chamber," Coulter said, "I prefer a firing squad, but I'm open to a debate on the method of execution." She later suggested that Times staff members should be "executed."

    Coulter said of the media: "Would that it were so! ... That the American military were targeting journalists."

    Coulter suggested that Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) is "the reason soldiers invented fragging," -- military slang meaning the intentional killing of a member of one's own unit.

    Coulter argued that the national debate during the Monica Lewinsky controversy should not have focused on whether former President Bill Clinton "did it," but rather "whether to impeach or assassinate" him.

    Coulter said of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens: "We need somebody to put rat poison in Justice Stevens's créme brulée.''

    Nice company for a christianist, Phari-cee.

    "The context of the declaration in in terms of religous motives being at the core of hostilities...This was not the case. The US wanted to simply have free and safe passage. The US was declaring that there was not religious motivation in our policies based on some kind of aspect of our federal government."


    Were this the case, they might have said so. Instead, they wrote as I posted:

    "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;..."

    Pretty fucking clear use of the language - I don't see any contextual provisions here whatsoever, despite your desperate spin.

    Whatever the Pompous and authoritarian Adamms may have believed for himself, he wisely did not attempt to enshrine it in legislation to be ratified by the legislature. As it should be, private opinions are private opinions, while the law is the law.

    Like I said when I posted her latest, Loin, she makes me laugh. Like Ms. Coulter, I do have a sense of humor that tends towards the macabre, sometimes to my detriment...but I know

    1) None of what she has said was done. It is obvious to the sane person she has no intention of poisoning a sitting Supreme Court Justice.

    2) She inflames false indignation of people like you who say the very same things, but at different ideological targets. The same with Olbermann. That is the whole point of extreme rhetoric. The person using it justifies it because of their target.

    You called me a red faced baboon once, I think.

    Anyway, Coulter is there to get coverage so her book remains in the top of the best seller list again....she has to live with her words and their impact. I do not see self-rightousness in her attitude like Olbermann and that is the big difference for me.

    Style-wise...again, I would not do it....but you have to admit....she does get out some good ones.....

    "Fortunately the attackers are Democrats, so they throw like girls and generally end up with their noses bloodied by pretty college coeds."

    nd I just noticed that you altered the text of article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli - which I had, in fact posted in its near entirety higher up on this board. You removed a crucial semi-colon to make it appear that two distinct clauses were one. Here is the actual text as it appeared on the document - the first semi-colon to appear is the one you felt the need to remove:

    "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 tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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."

    This sneaky trick did not make the article say what you claim it says, it merely makes it confusing and imprecise.

    "Fortunately the attackers are Democrats, so they throw like girls and generally end up with their noses bloodied by pretty college coeds."

    Posted by: cee at October 26, 2007 4:17 PM


    Yes, that is particularly funny coming from a giant adam's apple like that one has. I guess since the liberal youths are ridiculed for "throwing like girls", the Republican "coeds" who kick their asses must be assumed to be post-pecker post-ops, like your friend Coulter, or else such confrontations would necessarilly result as draws.

    You really want me to go down this road of comparing, once again, a Judeo-Christian nation like ours, in a conflict with a Muslim entity that actually saw the conflict as one against Christans (mmmm, I wonder why this sound so familiar....OBL?)....

    A primary source at the time was General William Eaton....

    "Additionally, the writings of General William Eaton, a major figure in the Barbary Powers conflict, provide even more irrefutable testimony of how the conflict was viewed at that time. Eaton was first appointed by President John Adams as "Consul to Tunis," and President Thomas Jefferson later advanced him to the position of "U. S. Naval Agent to the Barbary States," authorizing him to lead a military expedition against Tripoli. Eaton's official correspondence during his service confirms that the conflict was a Muslim war against a Christian America.

    "For example, when writing to Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, Eaton apprised him of why the Muslims would be such dedicated foes:

    "Taught by revelation that war with the Christians will guarantee the salvation of their souls, and finding so great secular advantages in the observance of this religious duty [the secular advantage of keeping captured cargoes], their [the Muslims'] inducements to desperate fighting are very powerful.
    Because America had taken no military action in response to their terrorist depredations and had instead adopted a policy of appeasement, the Barbary Powers viewed America as weak. In fact, Eaton reported that:
    [A]n opinion long since conceived and never fairly controverted among the Tunisians, [is] that the Americans are a feeble sect of Christians.
    In a later letter to Pickering, Eaton reported how pleased one Barbary ruler had been when he received the extortion compensations from America which had been promised him in one of the treaties:
    He said, "To speak truly and candidly . . . . we must acknowledge to you that we have never received articles of the kind of so excellent a quality from any Christian nation."
    When John Marshall became the new Secretary of State, Eaton informed him:
    It is a maxim of the Barbary States, that "The Christians who would be on good terms with them must fight well or pay well."
    And when General Eaton finally commenced his military action against Tripoli, his personal journal noted:
    April 8th. We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Musselmen. We have a difficult undertaking! May 23rd. Hassien Bey, the commander in chief of the enemy's forces, has offered by private insinuation for my head six thousand dollars and double the sum for me a prisoner; and $30 per head for Christians. Why don't he come and take it?
    Shortly after the military excursion against Tripoli was successfully terminated, its account was written and published. Even the title of the book bears witness to the nature of the conflict:
    The Life of the Late Gen. William Eaton . . . commander of the Christian and Other Forces . . . which Led to the Treaty of Peace Between The United States and The Regency of Tripoli

    "The numerous documents surrounding the Barbary Powers Conflict confirm that historically it was always viewed as a conflict between Christian America and Muslim nations. Those documents completely disprove the notion that any founding President, especially Washington, ever declared that America was not a Christian nation or people."

    http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=125

    ###
    I used this citation once before, Loin and it is clear that the muslims' motivation was religious, the federal government of The USA was not...and our treaty statement was for that purpose. It in no way repudiates my contention that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values....

    not secular
    not Muslim
    not Buddhist

    And you still have no evidence that any of the founders believed otherwise. You crawl back to the 20th century revisionists who do not want to recognize that the country's laws begin from a recognized supernatural source.....God, Supreme Judge, Lord.

    God Bless The United States of America.
    One Nation, under God.

    "You called me a red faced baboon once, I think."


    No No NO!! I've corrected you on this one before! I called you a "red-assed baboon with a penis growing out of its forehead". Then I went on to surmise as to the ocular bruising you must incur as the simian forehead-testicles smacked repeatedly against your eyes as you flip-flopped.

    As with most of your use of citations (see the "Treaty of Tripoli example above), your serendipitous errors in transcription tend to work in your favor. But remember, Phari-cee, such decietful victories are cheaply bought at first; incalculably dear in the end.

    "Bush: War Without End & Depression"....


    ###
    I was not aware of negative economic growth last quarter, a high unemployment rate or plummeting corporate profits across the economic spectrum.

    I guess anon is just showing us another example of the fearful and pessimistic leftist......

    Sorry S-CHIP will be vetoed again.....I know the unseen potential of future medical bills is enough to send the average upper-middle class parent into cold sweats as they drive home in their late model, 40K SUV, to their 3000 sq foot home!

    Mommy government help meeeeeee!

    "I used this citation once before, Loin and it is clear that the muslims' motivation was religious, the federal government of The USA was not...and our treaty statement was for that purpose. It in no way repudiates my contention that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values..."

    ..so Christians will say anything, shit on their own most fundamental beliefs, debase their ominous duties in elected office with oportunistic perfidy - just to gain a little political or economic advantage, or to make a bully leave them alone?

    Remarkable - I had no idea.


    10/26/2007 3:04:47 PM
    Fab Defense

    Loin, the original scanned copy does not have a semi-colon, it is a comma and a dash.....also see this little gem.....

    http://www.tektonics.org/qt/tripoli.html

    "The article as it stands merely says that the government of America is not founded on the Christian religion. This does not mean that the American social/political network was not founded with Christian principles of mind, or that the peoples of America were not Christian to some degree; it merely addresses the government of America. Why?
    It may occur to critics that the phrase "founded on the Christian religion" would have a certain meaning to those whose state were "founded on" the Islamic religion -- a "Mehomitan nation". The essential message would be that America was not a Christian theocracy, or a state where the church had political power, as the religious authorities in Muslim nations had power -- which is something no one argues for America."


    ###
    And again, founder quote after founder quote....even that of the supernatural skeptic T. Jefferson were consistent with people who believed there was a higher....SUPERNATURAL authority....

    not a secular vlaue

    this is a Judeo-Christian value.

    10/26/2007 3:14:22 PM
    Fab Defense

    "..so Christians will say anything, shit on their own most fundamental beliefs, debase their ominous duties in elected office with oportunistic perfidy - just to gain a little political or economic advantage, or to make a bully leave them alone?

    "Remarkable - I had no idea."


    ###
    Don't be so dull.

    Like the current conflict against islamic terrorism, our values in opposition to others of totalitarianism and loss of liberty....you have been consistent in ignoring this fact. Israel shares with The United States the values of our founding and our alliance with them and other free nations reflect those values.

    Oh Loin, you keep trying the fingers in ears with la la la technique and I will not submit.....Our nation is founded on values arising from Jewish and Chrisitian scripture....not secularists like Voltaire (who's home is now used to store bibles) or Nietzsche (who thought he was being crucified as he languished in mental illness towards the end of his life).....those values have been our struggle for some despots to target since our history began....too bad people like you just want to ignore it.

    How about the abolition movement....that was another one I washed one of you secularists up with about a year ago....was it you, Loin?.....My challenge was....Name me ONE secular humanist abolitionist.

    Just one.

    "And you still have no evidence that any of the founders believed otherwise."

    Only their own words, Phari-cee:


    Benjamin Franklin:

    “As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble.”

    Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Rush:

    "DEAR SIR,

    In some of the delightful conversations with you in the evenings of 1798-99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you that one day or other I would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other."


    James Madison, in Federalist 10, published November 22, 1787:

    In that famous essay Madison inquired how "the public good, and private rights," might be secured against tyrannical majorities. "We well know," he answered, "that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals and lose their efficiency in proportion to the number combined together."

    "Don't be so dull.

    Like the current conflict against islamic terrorism, our values in opposition to others of totalitarianism and loss of liberty....you have been consistent in ignoring this fact. Israel shares with The United States the values of our founding and our alliance with them and other free nations reflect those values.

    Oh Loin, you keep trying the fingers in ears with la la la technique and I will not submit....."

    ...beause you are fucking retarded. "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; ..." means precisely what it says. Your argument assumes the premise that people for whom you feel compelled to exhibit respect must be Christians of your specific breed despite whatever they may have said, ratified, or written. In fact, those who wrote and ratified the Treaty of Tripoli either mean explicity what they wrote, or they were oportunistic, decietful panderers. You cannot have it all ways.

    ...and no, I did not engage you on the abolitionist issue. But I will address you question if you answer mine first - it clearly being my turn:

    Show me proof of one married Christian Republican politician who is not a closeted, self-hating adulterous homosexual. Proof, now, mind you!

    Oh my goodness Loin you made an error!.....

    Franklin is obviously of the view that Jesus' message is the best man has ever seen AND....oh my....."and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble"

    He is saying he is going to die soon enough and will find out about the turth anyway.....A REFERENCE TO THE SUPERNATURAL.....an afterlife!

    What a deluded fool that Christian Franklin was! Didn't he know he was just going to be worm food?

    And you use his quote to back up your atheist dogma, Loin?....Why?

    And why do you use Madison....he clearly is not even speaking of the supernatural in realtion to a supreme judge....

    "The belief in God all powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities to be impressed with it."

    Show me proof of one married Christian Republican politician who is not a closeted, self-hating adulterous homosexual. Proof, now, mind you!.....


    ###
    The left's favorite.......

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rick_Santorum_official_photo.jpg


    ###
    What a handsome and strongly heterosexual man, eh Loin?....Mmmm, mmmm.....

    So, like Lechter....I ask you a question.....

    Is there ONE self described secular humanist who worked for the abolition of the slaves?.....

    do, de, do, do, do....where was secularist philosophy on this easy value for compassionate treatment, Loin?


    Ooo, sorry, the quote at 5:31PM was Madisons...1788.....also from his personal bible....

    In Madison's personal Bible, his hand written notes appear in the margin of Chapter 19 of the Book of Acts:

    "Believers who are in a state of grace, have need of the Word of God for their edification and building up therefore implies a possibility of falling. v. 32."


    ###
    Good theology!

    "Grace, it is the free gift of God. Luke. 12. 32-v.32."


    ###
    Amen my brother!

    "Giver more blessed than the receiver. v. 35."

    "To neglect the means for our own preservation is to tempt God: and to trust to them is to neglect Him. v. 3 & Ch. 27. v. 31.

    "Humility, the better any man is, the lower thoughts he has of himself. v. 19.

    "Ministers to take heed to themselves & their flock. v. 28.

    "The Apostles did greater miracles than Christ, in the matter, not manner, of them. v. 11.


    ###
    My man has it right....preach it Jimmy!

    "Christ's Divinity appears by St. John, chapter xx, 2: 'And Thomas answered and said unto Him, my Lord and my God!' Resurrection testified to and witnessed by the Apostles, Acts iv, 33: 'And with great power gave the Apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.'"


    ###
    A believer! James Madison knew Jesus!

    You see Loin, this father of the constitution believed Jesus rose from the dead and lives!

    I am so happy to be in such silly company.

    Nope. No proof there. Try harder.

    Ooo, the man screams hetersexual goodness Loin....Come on now, you can't deny it....And I even googled "Santorum gay" and only found leftist porno sites that also advertised they had nude pictures of Coulter....

    You want 'em?

    "He is saying he is going to die soon enough and will find out about the turth anyway.....A REFERENCE TO THE SUPERNATURAL.....an afterlife!"


    I am not surprised by this reaction on your part, Phari-cee: someone who feels free to alter the meaning of clear direct statements in legal documents will surely not balk at changing the criteria of one of his own questions at the drop of a hat. I believe your request for this information specifically inolved the founders' opinions regarding a supernatural source of our nations' founding principles, and entailed nothing at all in regard to clever jokes made by brilliant men regarding mythological issues.

    But that's OK - its not like you've ever considered yourself bound by anything like your own statements, premises, or political franchise.

    As for Madison: The Federalist 10 excerpt explicitly involves the value of religion or other forms of purely moral codes as positive social forces, and explicitly finds them lacking. Can't you read?

    And once again, you will find the Federalist excerpt to be relevant to your specific request for information, whereas the statements of some sort of personal belief on Madison's part that you so manically waved about in mistaken victory have nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of a supernatural source of American liberty.

    Neocons started off as Democrats.

    Neocons started off as Democrats.

    Posted by: at October 26, 2007 8:33 PM


    And so did the KKK, but they're all Republicans now.

    I had not seen this response by Phari-cee in our flurry yesterday:

    "Loin, the original scanned copy does not have a semi-colon, it is a comma and a dash...."


    Oh, not a semi-colon, just a comma and a dash - both of which you or the desperate history-spinning website you depend on in regard to this issue - felt free to remove entirely. A comma, most grammaticists would agree, would suffice in this situation to dicide the clauses explicitly, and identify the subject of both clauses as "The Government of the United States of America", and as to the specific combination of a comma and a dash, I would have to insist that this be given at least the same weight as a semi-colon.

    By arbitrarilly removing both the comma and the dash you introduce ambiguity to this previously forthright statement: the reader cannot say for sure if a secondary subject of "the Christian CHurch" has been introduced or not, and whether "as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen" relates to "the Christian CHurch" or to "The government of the UNoted States".

    But you blithly dismiss your dismissal of this semi-colon/comma and dash - this tendency on your part can make you very exasperating to debate with; although you do it so frequently and so transparently that it is a somewhat enjoyable passtime to expose your ham-handed deciet to your friends here.

    If I have the time this weekend I may take the New Testament and make its punctuation my plaything and then share the results with you. I wonder what kind of horrors and absurdities I can put into the mouth of Christ by using this method of debate that you have introduced?


    .also see this little gem.....

    http://www.tektonics.org/qt/tripoli.html

    "The article as it stands merely says that the government of America is not founded on the Christian religion. This does not mean that the American social/political network was not founded with Christian principles of mind, or that the peoples of America were not Christian to some degree; it merely addresses the government of America. Why?
    It may occur to critics that the phrase "founded on the Christian religion" would have a certain meaning to those whose state were "founded on" the Islamic religion -- a "Mehomitan nation". The essential message would be that America was not a Christian theocracy, or a state where the church had political power, as the religious authorities in Muslim nations had power -- which is something no one argues for America."

    ....or it could mean what it actually says: that "Government of the United States of America is not, IN ANY SENSE, founded on the Christian religion".

    Keep praying, Phari-cee, loudly and ostentatiously - perhaps Jesus will change the meanings of words for you.

    It is so interesting that in my 20 years of deep and wide exposure to United States higher academia, the gut reaction is ALWAYS the same of the vapid leftist secularists to the proof that they are so far removed from such great men like Newton, Madison, Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, etc....

    Men who praised the name of The LORD, by name, in personal and public wrtitings.

    Conjecture abounds....they were "joking," they were "appeasing their social norms," they were "being traditional or polite."

    Oh well...it seems rational, evidence driven inquiry ends when the sensitivities of atheists are concerned. "God?....DO NOT MENTION THE NAME!" They so want those dead men in their corner and strain to eliminate God from their obvious and clear worldviews, ideas and beliefs.

    Sir Loin of Milquetoast is a perfect example. So sure he is there is no supernatural that he believes the great thinkers of the past were also aware of this and just went through the motions.

    Ah, but what Loin and the rest of the overly emotional secularists ignore is what "thinking based on disbelief of the supernatural" results in....

    One clear example that American leftists flee from like mice.....Soviet Communism

    Did anyone see Loin address his atheist Marxist philosophy constitution?.....I did not see him address it. I doubt he even read the entire preamble.....it is his world-view summarized!

    While the establishment of The United States of America clearly identifies the supernatural....SPECIFICALLY.....the USSR's establishing document only goes as far as to Loin's ultimate authority....the material....Man.

    He cannot deny this.....He cannot deny the results of such a shoddy moral construct.

    No. Instead he gets all baby-like and cries....lookie lookie....a translated treaty document proves our country is not founded on a religion. Dashes and commas support my view!

    I have never claimed our nation was based on RELIGION....I have claimed The United States is founded on Judeo-Christian values...the most basic (and most important) that we, our rights, and the rest that is around us WERE CREATED BY GOD.

    Oh, my....a public school teacher cannot say this because of the sensitivities of baby Loin and his other cry baby atheists!.....They are insulted, indignant and fearful that the next step is burning people at the stake, book burnings and forced prayer!

    Oh me oh my!

    Well Loin, I can assure you, as The Declaration of Independence survives in the archives, I am assurred you are wrong. As the great quotes of those above referenced God fearing men state, they were thinking like I think....not like you, Marx, Mao, Voltaire, Nietzsche and Gould think/thought.....

    Those dead men.....you can claim as your own...but please also claim what their philosophies created....

    Soviet-Style Socialism, Nazism, Chinese Communism, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba.

    I know I can be very comfortable with Madison, Jefferson and Newton. Those you parrot....their ideas can be referenced with many other failed ideas of men.....

    Thank God and God Bless The United States of America.

    You are incurably obtuse, Phari-cee. Let me lay out for you a general history of our discussion on this subject.

    Your point has specifacally been that elements of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are based explicitly on Judeo -Christian dogma, to the degree of incorporating invocations of your specific diety.

    I have pointed out the fact, based upon the founding documents themseles and copious statements from the framers themselves outside of their official capacities, that (to borrow once again the stark and explicit synopsis from the Treaty of Tripoli) "the Government of the United States of America is not, IN ANY SENSE, founded on the Christian religion".

    I have also identified as a fact the awareness of the founders that a range of superstitions are held very deeply by many Americans, including many of the founders themselves, but that these have no bearing whatsoever on the workings of our democracy.

    I pointed out that Madison, whose personal statements of belief in the diety of Jesus Christ you howled over in acquisitive barbaric triumph, outlined in clear rational prose in Federalist 10 (and at the Constitutional Convention of Virginia in 1780, by the way) that religious moral codes are far too volatile a force on which to base any part of a civic framework.

    I showed you where Jefferson, who coined the intentionally ambiguous terms "Nature's God" and "Divine Providence" for our founding documents, disavowed explicitly all of the hocus pocus that has been heaped on the socialist humanitarian philosophy of Jesus over the centuries. INterestingly, this is the one example I have presented that you have not tried to address in any way. ("I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other."TJ)


    You see, Phari-cee, its called logic. All chickens emerge frm eggs. Not all eggs contain chickens. Your seminal question involved the intent of our founders to enshrine a Judeo-Christian origin for the concept of American Liberty. Please not that to refute this I only need to show that they repudiated this enshrinement, irrespective of their personal religious beliefs. Therefore I have provided you with explicit statememts showing this repudiation, in addition to select instances in which founders expressed serious doubts or outright disavowal of your creed.

    You can show all day how churchy these dead white guys were in their private lives; but you cannot supply a shred of evidence that they put any part of their superstitions into our Constitution.

    "Sir Loin of Milquetoast is a perfect example. So sure he is there is no supernatural that he believes the great thinkers of the past were also aware of this and just went through the motions."


    Where did you get this idea? My own specific and robust feelings regarding the supernatural I keep almost entirely to myself, with the exception close family and friends. I supose the one exception to this rule is a negative example provided by my arguments against your certainty: whatever I may believe or doubt in regard to unknowable aspects of our universe, I am fairly sure that that have little to do with any ancient texts used by rulers for centuries to manipulate the masses of this society or that.

    ...and let me revive one more small detail of our discussin of the past few days that I feel truly characterizes you position:

    Why, if you feel so certain about your case, did you feel it necessary to remove that crucial semi colon from Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, eliminating the clear precision of its language? That was truly deperate,and I think you should really think hard about what it says about your faith and honesty.

    Bill Maher: If you could go back in time and abort the fetus of Osama Bin Laden... would you ?

    Posted by: Why don't you think at October 27, 2007 2:17 PM


    To quote a certain spolbyloon, "That's a loaded question and I won't answer it!"

    Oh dear....Sir Loin of Milquetoast, you once again ignore the wonderful contrast I provided you in the side by side comparison of the funding documents of the secularist's moral paradigm for mankind and God's moral paradigm for mankind.....

    The formative document of The United States of America CLEARLY states:

    ....they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men...


    ###
    Contrast this with the secular humanist's version....

    The leading and guiding force of the Soviet society and the nucleus of its political system, of all state organizations and public organizations, is the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The CPSU exists for the people and serves the people.

    The Communist Party, armed with Marxism-Leninism, determines the general perspectives of the development of society and the course of the home and foreign policy of the USSR, directs the great constructive work of the Soviet people, and imparts a planned, systematic and theoretically substantiated character to their struggle for the victory of communism.

    All party organizations shall function within the framework of the Constitution of the USSR.


    ###
    See the middle portion, Loin?....Your perspective on this board, time and again, is the idea that from your neurons which were assembled without the need of a creator, comes the "right way"....comes the "best way"....comes the way for mankind....

    Nothing higher than YOU.

    I disagree, as did the founders. There is a higher authoirty....Creator....Supreme Judge..

    Who did these Christian men believe this supernatural being to be?....Logic dictates, the god of their church's hebrew and christian scriptures, The LORD...translated from the original hebrew....Jehovah.

    You can spin all you like and try to cite an obscure and contested piece of evidence to try to tie this fact to "religion," when it has nothing to do with it....Even argue over a colon versus a comma dash/semi-colon....oh boy, that makes a difference especially when the article is even contested....the original arabic never contained what you cite in the english translation....

    It is ideological....just as I always say....and it is not SECULAR IDEOLOGY because secular ideology always eliminates a supernatural basis/source....

    as opposed to your ideology that gave us the USSR, in addition to Nazism....

    You continue to ignore it, fine....I enjoy it because that attitude has occurred before.
    People spurn the truth when it is black on the page.

    And anon....read THE RIGHTS OF MAN....it also cites the rights of man as SACRED.....Why do these authors use a word like sacred if there is no supernatural?

    Mmmm, and again, the precision of words seems to be variable to the secular defenders....sacred, God, Creator, etc....nah, they didn't mean it....

    Oh, but a semi-colon in a disputed english version of a treaty originally in arabic that does not have the same article?.....oh well....that means something else!.....And it is not even cogent to my argument because I am not arguing the USA is a nation based on Chrsitan religion....

    I am talking "values, "principles," "ideology."

    Secular (no supernatural, only material) versus the nonsecular (supernatural exists and influences).....

    We are a nation based on nonsecular values.....Judeo-Christian values

    While my other example is the contrast...The USSR was based on secular values......Marxist socialist values

    Do you understand dear Sir Loin of Milquetoast?

    Oh, and do you have that secular humanist who called for the abolition of the slaves yet?

    You can spin all you like and try to cite an obscure and contested piece of evidence to try to tie this fact to "religion," when it has nothing to do with it....Even argue over a colon versus a comma dash/semi-colon....oh boy, that makes a difference especially when the article is even contested....the original arabic never contained what you cite in the english translation....

    Are you wholly un-pinned in reality? YOU are the one asserting that there is no difference between a semi-colon or comma and NO punctuation whatsoever! What kind of a silly, dishonest fuck are you really?

    Original Arabic? Who cares what the original Arabic had to say? The Adams administration approved this English translation, and then congress ratified it into the law of the land.

    Once again Phari-cee's own spinning presents our founding fathers as glib morons willing to put their voices and powers willy-nilly behind any damn ultimatum that an Islamic brigand presents to them, apparently without even reading it.

    These guys weren't Bush cronies, Phari-cee.

    Read the site I posted above, Loin. There is a question on the treaty that was in arabic did not contain Article 3.....But even with this disputed historical item, the argument is not applicable....I never said the US was a theocracy or based on the Christian religion.....

    I will repeat....

    Our nation is based on Judeo-Christian values.....not on secular values.

    What about the USSR, Loin....secular or nonsecular?

    Oh, and what about that secular humanist abolitionist example?

    "While my other example is the contrast...The USSR was based on secular values......Marxist socialist values"

    Sure; at least that's what they themselves had to say about it. In no way does that mean that they actually implemented this rhetoric in a coherent or consistant manner. When I've brought up Hitler's Christian rhetoric and imagery, or the faith-based barbarity of the 30 Years War, you have happilly dismissed these examples as being apocryphal, heretical, or pretentious - wholly unrelated to the "truth" (even though I was never claiming theat they represented "true christianity", merely that they used it as mob-directing propaganda).

    Your sporadic ejaculations of "Soviet Union" and "Pol Pot", similarly, have nothing to do with real secular humanism, despite what you insist on believing.

    Your sporadic ejaculations of "Soviet Union" and "Pol Pot", similarly, have nothing to do with real secular humanism, despite what you insist on believing.


    ###
    Factually they do, Loin. These wonderful regimes were based on rights of men derived from men....not God.


    The founders, and I, know that rights are given to us by God.

    Secular ideology demands belief that there is no supernatural, so obviously the right come from ourselves.

    That basic flaw was my whole point, yesterday. When secular ideology controls, liberty ALWAYS erodes...and as our country sees more and more secular ideology claim the beautiful American heritage because of false, biased, flawed leftist academia, as it has since the mid 20th century, we will continue to see less and less liberty here as the failed secular experiments get thrust upon a once freer population.

    Once again....my two questions....

    What about the USSR, Loin....secular or nonsecular?

    Oh, and what about that secular humanist abolitionist example?

    Once again....my two questions....

    What about the USSR, Loin....secular or nonsecular?

    Oh, and what about that secular humanist abolitionist example?

    Posted by: cee at October 27, 2007 4:47 PM

    Not so fast there; you have yet to answer mine: What is your excuse for having removed a crucial piece of punctuation from the Treaty of Tripoli? Your very capacity as a party to an honest discussion rests on this issue.

    Did you do it; or is the christianist propaganda site from which you plucked it responsible? In either case we need to explore why it was done before this particular line of dialog goes any further.

    "Factually they do, Loin. These wonderful regimes were based on rights of men derived from men....not God."

    Yes, men made these regimes; just as men made the American Revolution; men wrote the Magna Carta; men attended the Wansee conferrence; and men sent the French aristocracy to the guillotine.

    This discussion is silly because your entire world-view is a fairy-tale; Absolute faith in the message of an ancient book, which uses the contents of this same book as proof that the faith is justified, is the very definition of a tautology.

    You assert that Human rights were concieved and conferred by Jehova; but if this were in fact the case, why are they frequently so difficult to exercise, from a global perspective? Why did the Bill of Rights not appear in Genesis; read by Dean Jesus at the Freshman Orientation of Adam and Eve? Why did God allow 6000 years of miserable inhumanity to persist before getting the memo through in 1776 - and even then with so little proactive follow-up?

    The Bible is simply literature; a powerful medium by which humans have always struggled to understand their condition on earth, and to ascertain the most beneficial and least painful ways in which people can interact. It has been an essential strategy in our efforts to adapt to growing populations and intensifying technologies. Its what our intellects have evolved in order to do.

    All morality and concepts of human rights have been identified through this inductive process. Have they always existed? Sure, if you entertain the concept of Platonic ideals; that the products of logic must be as immutable and eternal as those of mathematics. Much of this contemplation has historically been framed in mythological terms, due ot the paucity of understanding of so much of the physical world throughout all of human history; some of it more recently has been devoid of supernatural content, but is still concerned with the same weighty, universal matters. But moreover, from such a perspective modern people with "religious" tendencies and hungers can percieve transcendance without the need to submit to the vapid credulity required in belief systems sporting bearded cloud-gods and talking snakes. I put the mjority of our most noteworthy Founders in this category.

    The interesting thing is that every human culture is aware in some form of what we know as the "Golden Rule".

    Witless faith and cynical materialism have both also been results of this long process -and both have been used as well to oppress or destroy vast swaths of humanity. And yes, "man" did this; but clearly "God" has never done anything demonstrable to fix any of these situations; that has always to fallen to people.

    ...and have Human Rights always existed? Sure, if you entertain the reality of Platonic Ideals - pristine logical conclusions regarding the desireability of productive reciprocity are as immutable and eternal as the products of mathematics.

    Logic and imagination are both more powerful than your God because both can do away with Him with ease, but He has never managed to put a dent in them.

    To quote a certain spolbyloon, "That's a loaded question and I won't answer it!"
    Posted by: royal king at October 27, 2007 3:35 PM

    because answering it would certainly make you look more like a hypocrite than you already are.

    Posted by: Why don't you think at October 27, 2007 8:32 PM


    Tell it to "mike," "why." That was his line.....

    Sir Loin of Milquetoast....My cut and paste of Article 11 on October 26, 2007 3:55 PM was from my own WORD document I had and the treaty quote was from "The History of American Foreign Policy: Volume I to 1917" by Jerald Combs. I have no way to know if I transcribed the comma. I concede the semi colon/comma dash controversy you wish to inflate for your purposes to avoid debate...but in no way does your use of the treaty document rebut my basic argument....

    And again, I challenge you to identify one founder who repudiated the claim our rights were from a supernatural source....

    The treaty does not supply this....
    Your Madison quote does not supply this....
    Your Franklin quote does not supply this....

    The founder's view of man constructed religion does not supply a rebuttal to my contention...and you avoid it like the plague. Secular philosophy has never supplied the adequate protection to human liberty in the context of human governance....you have yet to show me a such a situation.

    And your childish bias posted at 7:18PM is yet another example on your lack of knowledge of the scriptures and of God. When one is skeptical of the existence of supernatural revelation, how can one even expect themselves to know what it means and why it exists? God does not work like you want him to, Loin. He works as he works and this basic lesson is obvious to the 1st grade Sunday School attendee....Free will on our part prohibits your demand on Jehovah to provide a "manual." Seeking Him and loving Him in faith provides the knowledge you seek and it is obvious this was the case of the founders of our great nation....His revelation of His existence, plan for man and love for man is evident in The Declaration of Independence and not in the USSR Constitution....

    Since it is obvious by your posts you do not think God exists and have not had any revelation from Him, you would not understand this. Your lack in attaining of such knowledge does not logically mandate it does not exist.

    Revelation influenced ideology.....specific to The LORD that the founders prayed to and obviously were influenced by....your mistake is denying such ever occurs, Loin.

    Jehovah reveals Himself only to those willing to believe He exists. Faith. You have no excuse for closing your eyes to this fundamental truth.

    Now....How about that secular humanist abolitionist you keep searching for and not finding but avoid admitting it by arguing over a semi-colon.

    "The treaty does not supply this....
    Your Madison quote does not supply this....
    Your Franklin quote does not supply this...."

    Yes they do; and so does the Jefferson quote you keep avoiding.

    And I m not searching for anything; I've had one in mind the whole time. I've just been waiting for you to come clean on certain issues before I jump through any more of your strawman hoops.

    Thanks, patsy!

    "Tell it to "mike", "why", that was his line."

    If that was 'my' line, then why are you using it?

    Tell it to "mike," "why." That was his line.....
    Posted by: royal king at October 28, 2007 12:25 AM

    Blame it on someone else.

    That's a lame reason for YOU not answering.
    But what else is new ?
    Posted by: Why don't you think at October 28, 2007 2:07 AM

    There's another reason for not answering it. It's a specious question that sheds no light whatsoever on the abortion issue or upon the consistency of anyone's view on abortion.

    We can not know who or what any child in the womb will be---potential Bin Laden or Gandhi.

    To ask, would you compromise your principles in order to go back and abort Bin Laden, is meaningless.

    "The Great Pumpkin reveals Itself to those willing to believe It exists. Faith. You have no excuse for closing your eyes to this fundamental truth."

    Beautiful! You know, I've always thought of Phari-cee as something of a Linus van Pelt; typing with his toes as he sucks a thumb and clutches his security blanket.

    "Jehovah reveals Himself only to those willing to believe He exists. Faith. You have no excuse for closing your eyes to this fundamental truth."

    While the Great Pumpkin analogy was hillariously apt; this original utterance is pathetic. The ultimate in tautology; but Phari-cee will never admit it.

    I had a distant relative who believed that God spoke to him in English through stray dogs; before a glioblastoma killed him.

    While the Great Pumpkin analogy was hillariously apt; this original utterance is pathetic. The ultimate in tautology; but Phari-cee will never admit it.

    I had a distant relative who believed that God spoke to him in English through stray dogs; before a glioblastoma killed him.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 28, 2007 1:27 PM


    Well, you and AAP are going to have to call the whole of the Christian religion a "cult" and the stuff of madness because Cee's contention of revelation after belief is consistent with the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.

    I have no difficulty with your viewing religion in such a way, what I find surprising is that you seem to think that Cee's response to some of your statements about God in your 10/27, 7:18pm post to be so untypical and outrageous.

    True, I'd have asked you how you thought the Golden Rule could have gotten into the hearts of men, when it defies nature, or why you didn't just ask how come God didn't just send instructional video tapes before 1776, but again, Cee's response to your words weren't really that atypical of the most typical believer.

    "True, I'd have asked you how you thought the Golden Rule coule have gotten into the hearts of men, when it defies nature"....

    It may defy nature, but I don't believe it defies 'human' nature. Treating others the way you would like to be treated is really nothing more than common sense in any livable social setting, yet the principal does defy the sensibilities of some, and that is why we need laws. Religion has little to do with it.

    It may defy nature, but I don't believe it defies 'human' nature. Treating others the way you would like to be treated is really nothing more than common sense in any livable social setting, yet the principal does defy the sensibilities of some, and that is why we need laws. Religion has little to do with it.

    Posted by: Mike at October 28, 2007 2:23 PM

    No, it defies human nature as well. It defies it everyday, in countless ways that could never be regulated or codified, as any honest soul who ever walked the face of the earth would/will say...

    There's nothing in nature that is reflective of giving of oneself...to the point of death even... for the weakest and least inhabitant of the "social setting", either.

    "No, it defies human nature as well."

    Well, I just disagree then. I see examples every day in good and normal people where they defer their own self interests in the pursuit of fairness, even though not legally bound to do so.

    I also see examples to the contrary. But in reality, more the former than the latter.

    Maybe it's my naivity speaking, but I do believe in the general goodness of human nature, and that MIGHT just be what makes me lean more liberal than conservative.

    That was not me. It was Fundy-Mental Pastor Phallu-Cee issuing another one of his fatwas.

    Further, I ask you to review the historical development of your particular branch of belief. It did not grow from a Revelation Inflated Idiocy, but from the shellfish-ness of some men.

    You are welcome.

    Posted by: Average American Patriot at October 28, 2007 2:27 PM

    No, AAP, that's the point. It wasn't Cee who first said believing is seeing, it was Jesus and the Apostles.

    Cee stated this scriptural concept WITHIN the context of Sir Loin's remarks about God, revelation, and human society.

    You might not agree with him, but what he said is not shocking. It's part and parcel with Christian belief.

    Well, I just disagree then. I see examples every day in good and normal people where they defer their own self interests in the pursuit of fairness, even though not legally bound to do so.

    I also see examples to the contrary. But in reality, more the former than the latter.

    Maybe it's my naivity speaking, but I do believe in the general goodness of human nature, and that MIGHT just be what makes me lean more liberal than conservative.

    Posted by: Mike at October 28, 2007 2:41 PM

    If you really believed that human nature leaned towards the good rather than the bad, you'd be a libertarian and want the smallest amount of govt and judicial oversight as possible.

    You say you see people deferring to the interests of others everyday. I say that as a human being I know that there are a great many more instances in the lives of the people where they do not defer to the interests of others, where they do not treat others as they would like to be treated themselves....whether it's taking the warmest seat on the subway or jumping to the judgment that may never be overtly expressed.

    How do I know...because I am the same. So are you.

    It is refreshing to find someone on this site who has a high regard for human nature. A bit ironic, too. Any high theology also has a high anthropology. Otherwise, God giving us a measure of Divinity through Creation and through Christ would be foolish. God is not foolish.

    I tire of people who seem to think that they exalt God by degrading God's ultimate creation. Yet, that is what fundamentalism seems to be all about.

    Posted by: Anonymous at October 28, 2007 2:47 PM


    I suppose it depends upon whether you consider it to be "degrading" that God's Ultimate Creation fell and was in need of a bloodied and beaten God/human sacrifice. Or the concept that even still we had a spark of God consciousness that should be evidence to the most skeptical of nonbelievers.

    That's not fundamentalism. That's mere Christianity.

    "True, I'd have asked you how you thought the Golden Rule could have gotten into the hearts of men, when it defies nature"


    I strongly dispute this contention. Above I alluded to my suspicion that such a cultural universality as the"Golden Rule" is such a basic logical conclusion regarding simple survival and natural selection (very natural considerations) that it is not surprising that it appears to part of human consciousness worldwide, and deep into history.

    But illogic being at least as universal as logic, a lot of wasteful and brutal things keep happening. I do not pretend that "secular humanism" is perfect and will fix all things; but it is, in fact, the only thing we've got; all Holy Books and Sacred Creeds - and the confusion, diversion, and horrors they often wreck - being the creation of human beings, after all.


    "Well, you and AAP are going to have to call the whole of the Christian religion a "cult" and the stuff of madness because Cee's contention of revelation after belief is consistent with the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles."

    Please note that my broadside against faith was specific to the particulars expressed by Phari-cee. I have many religious friends, and we never have exchanges of this kind - generally because they rarely if ever make the particulars of their own religious beliefs a component of their political positions, or daily small talk.

    I have no idea if I have hit close to the mark in your case, because as far as I can remember you tend not to wave your intangible beliefs around as proof of this argument or that, as does our friend Phari-cee. Furthermore, I think it unlikely that you share his particular tenets - and therefore as having been tarred with my brush - as he seems rather quick to label other self-described Christians as improper, or heretical "Gnostics" based on a range of esoteric criteria.

    I think Phari-cee is going to be very lonely in his heaven.

    Yawn. The self righteous war loving "Christians" are at it again !

    Posted by: at October 28, 2007 3:36 PM

    There was only one Christian who exempted himself from human nature by saying that there must be laws because "some people" can't follow the Golden Rule.

    He's not a war supporter...

    I strongly dispute this contention. Above I alluded to my suspicion that such a cultural universality as the"Golden Rule" is such a basic logical conclusion regarding simple survival and natural selection (very natural considerations) that it is not surprising that it appears to part of human consciousness worldwide, and deep into history.

    But illogic being at least as universal as logic, a lot of wasteful and brutal things keep happening. I do not pretend that "secular humanism" is perfect and will fix all things; but it is, in fact, the only thing we've got; all Holy Books and Sacred Creeds - and the confusion, diversion, and horrors they often wreck - being the creation of human beings, after all.


    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 28, 2007 3:39 PM


    The Golden Rule has little to do with survival or natural selection. Both these things, whether in concept or action, are about the perseverance of the strongest. Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, is about putting yourself and what you love most, at risk for the benefit of another.

    That this view is more heralded than practiced, and this to the disappointment of all, ought to give anyone pause as how it came to be a nearly transcultural human value.

    I have no quarrel with how you feel about secular humanism. My quarrel is with the implication that Cee voiced a belief outside the tenets of mainline Christianity.

    Please note that my broadside against faith was specific to the particulars expressed by Phari-cee. I have many religious friends, and we never have exchanges of this kind - generally because they rarely if ever make the particulars of their own religious beliefs a component of their political positions, or daily small talk.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 28, 2007 3:55 PM

    Cee will have to be the judge of this, but his remarks referenced a specific post from you and specific remarks in that post where you voiced some "particulars" as to your views about God and the "evolution" of thinking that led to a document signed in 1776....

    Again, none of his subjective opinions to your subjective opinions as stated in that article, are outside of the mainstream tenets of Christianity.

    "When one is skeptical of the existence of supernatural revelation, how can one even expect themselves to know what it means and why it exists? God does not work like you want him to, Loin. He works as he works and this basic lesson is obvious to the 1st grade Sunday School attendee....Free will on our part prohibits your demand on Jehovah to provide a "manual." "


    An interesting dillema is presented by your god, Phari-cee. He creates a universe with, presumably, some point but leaves that point secret. The only ones who get to learn the point are those who set aside reasonable skepticism and "Seek" his truths without questioning them. On top of that he created us, at least some of us, as natural skeptics who desire proof for things we are to believe.

    Then he dribbles out revelations across the centuries, helping sporting teams win contests but letting savage wars drag on and on without touching any of the earthly hearts that could atually end them.

    But if you don't buy the right message - one of thousands of doctrines differing only in minutiae, expressed by sparkling priests, or flambouyant ministers, or guys who look and live like Aqualung - you lose and will burn in hell.

    I'm sorry, but if you are right that system is incredibly unfair, and I would resist it on that principle alone.

    Again, none of his subjective opinions to your subjective opinions as stated in that article, are outside of the mainstream tenets of Christianity.

    Posted by: Cecelia at October 28, 2007 4:28 PM


    Well, then that's Mainstream Christianity's problem.

    I'm sorry, but if you are right that system is incredibly unfair, and I would resist it on that principle alone.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 28, 2007 4:33 PM


    Actually, you don't resist it, even on principle. You live it everyday.

    There are few "secrets", knowledge or insight (or anything...) that is automatically available to anyone but to those who seek it and those who seek it diligently. To do that is to acknowledge that these treasures are there and that they are worth the effort.

    That is the system we live in and IT is unfair in the sense that it is mitigated by factors meted out by situations of birth.

    According to scripture, forgiveness, the transforming power of God, the revelation of his presence and being, is available to "all" who diligently desire him.

    Is there a more egalitarian and "fair" system than this?

    Well, then that's Mainstream Christianity's problem.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 28, 2007 4:35 PM


    And you're quarrel is with the whole of it.

    Loin, therein lies the problem regarding your 4:33 post. Some of us can accept the obvious hypocrisy, inequality, and lunacy of scripture as it is currently interpreted by mainstream Christians, ... and some of us can't.

    I was raised as a Methodist, most of my family remains very devout and fundmentalist. However, I could never personally resolve the fundmental unfairness of the scripture they so fervently accept, so I became sort of the "black sheep" of my extended family. Oh, we get along just fine, but some of the discussions are pretty interesting....and my mom remains distressed that I haven't been 'saved'.

    Therefore, I too remain reluctant to accept at face value such and unfair and capricious doctrine based on pricipal alone. I suspect that if any of us actually has it right, the odds are that it certainly isn't someone like Cee.

    Are you saying that merely pondering questions of human origins and the human condition make you eligible for Christian salvation, even in the total absence of recognition or any sort of acknowledgement of the Christian religion? If so, then GREAT!! but then; why cant you all just be happy, ad stop bothering our courts and legislatures with demands that your organizations be given some spevial prefrrences by our government?

    Just let people seek these answers via avenues that do not appear to them to be absolute wastes of time. The sciences, the arts, the should be perfectly fne as they are given my understanding of what you wrote above.

    SENIOR JESUS!
    and some 15 mexicans will step forth.


    Posted by: Average American Patriot at October 28, 2007 4:50 PM


    "Dammit, Jehova doesn't live here! This is Zeus' crib and he loves all his little apes. Particularly AAP".... :D

    That last one was in response to Cecelia

    Are you saying that merely pondering questions of human origins and the human condition make you eligible for Christian salvation, even in the total absence of recognition or any sort of acknowledgement of the Christian religion? If so, then GREAT!! but then; why cant you all just be happy, ad stop bothering our courts and legislatures with demands that your organizations be given some spevial prefrrences by our government?

    Just let people seek these answers via avenues that do not appear to them to be absolute wastes of time. The sciences, the arts, the should be perfectly fne as they are given my understanding of what you wrote above.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 28, 2007 5:00 PM


    Well, you certainly won't find ME (and I doubt Cee) engaging in an argument that science and the arts are effortless and cost-free endeavors and that THIS is evidence of their moral worth.

    I live THAT system of weighing value to YOU.

    "Well, you certainly won't find ME (and I doubt Cee) engaging in an argument that science and the arts are effortless and cost-free endeavors and that THIS is evidence of their moral worth."


    ????

    OK....but what does that have to do with what we were talking about?

    "Well, you certainly won't find ME (and I doubt Cee) engaging in an argument that science and the arts are effortless and cost-free endeavors and that THIS is evidence of their moral worth."


    ????

    OK....but what does that have to do with what we were talking about?
    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 28, 2007 5:24 PM


    Forgive me, I thought you wrote this:...

    "An interesting dillema is presented by your god, Phari-cee. He creates a universe with, presumably, some point but leaves that point secret. The only ones who get to learn the point are those who set aside reasonable skepticism and "Seek" his truths without questioning them. On top of that he created us, at least some of us, as natural skeptics who desire proof for things we are to believe."

    Therefore, I too remain reluctant to accept at face value such and unfair and capricious doctrine based on pricipal alone. I suspect that if any of us actually has it right, the odds are that it certainly isn't someone like Cee.

    Posted by: Mike at October 28, 2007 4:56 PM

    Yeah, you know what they say about those sinners, tax-collectors, and phari-cees...

    Irony...I love how God works!

    Oh boy, Sir Loin of Milquetoast (and his lesser intellectual pod that contains Mike, wannawipe and mental midget) once again show their ignorance...

    Charles Schultz was a Christian and another fool who believed in supernatural revelation.....He was active in an evangelical denomination until his death, The Church of God.....Loin's and wannawipe's GREAT PUMPKIN reference is much deeper than the weah tease they meant, folks...

    "While there was certainly no shortage of sweetness in Peanuts, there was a substructure of decidedly non-sugarcoated Christian theology—God is sovereign, no matter how difficult things get; humanity is fallen, sustained only by the grace of God; there is an obligation of holy living, met not by "faith in ourselves" but by reliance on the Holy Spirit. In Schulz’s memorial service one of his daughters, Amy Johnson, stressed that "my dad knew from where his talent came." Johnson also recalled how Schulz once responded to the persistent questions about why Charlie Brown loses: "There is only one winner. The rest of us are losers." Not the stuff of the "health and wealth" gospel."

    http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/RINVol3No2/charles_schulz.htm


    ###
    Thanks for being right for once...showing I am Linus, Loin....He universally is a sympathetic character and quotes Yeshuah's birth from The Gospel of Luke to this day when the Emmy and Peabody award-winning holiday television special, "A Charlie Brown Christmas" is on during the great season....I guess you sensitive atheists have yet to cause a stir about that one....

    http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2005-12-05-charlie-brown-christmas_x.htm

    "And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ[a] the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger."
    Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,
    "Glory to God in the highest,
    and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests."


    ###
    Compare and contract....

    "As Linus once explained, "I love mankind...It’s people I can’t stand!!" In one of the many strips with the football gag, Lucy stands over the humiliated Charlie Brown and offers her own sardonic commentary: "Your faith in human nature is an inspiration to all young people."


    ###
    Although without any sense of humor....you are Lucy, Loin....and isn't that apt....I recommend you start with the lovely Peanuts parables, that have a deeper meaning and show how much God loves you (Lucy).....At least they do not have the taint of the black leather binding that the bible has....does it cause you a rash?

    My new name for Sir Loin of Milquetoast is Lucy. You can call me Linus if you want Loin.

    So now I am in the company of another believing in a supernatural God who reveals Himself to us, the great and respected cartoonist, Charles Schultz, along with James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Sir Isaac Newton, G. Washington....

    Once again the secularists have...who again?.....Nietzshe, Marx, Lenin and Gould....anyone else you want to include mental midget?

    Posted by: Cecelia at October 28, 2007 5:30 PM


    ...I DID write that; but where did "cost-free" and "effortless" come from? You pulled those out of thin air, and I would like to know how these concepts fit in wiht anything I said.

    "Once again the secularists have...who again?....."


    Why do you keep skipping Thomas Jefferson? I've posted portions of his letter to Dr. Rush several times.

    And you miss my overall point; your dogma is also a product of human beings. If you can prove to me there's a single, personified force behind Everything, then I might lend your position a little more credence.

    .I DID write that; but where did "cost-free" and "effortless" come from? You pulled those out of thin air, and I would like to know how these concepts fit in wiht anything I said.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 28, 2007 6:32 PM


    You seemed to be implying that all divine revelation should obvious and easily ascertained by all.

    If I misinterpreted this from your suggesting that it required too much to render too little, I'm sorry.

    He's not a war supporter...
    Posted by: Cecelia at October 28, 2007 4:00 PM

    But you are.

    Posted by: at October 28, 2007 6:35 PM


    EXACTLY....

    Cecelia, I did want to respond to a point you made today on one of the threads about how Christians have been willing to die for their faith. When the argument of torture arises, one of the common positions of those who oppose any level of discomfort is that people will say just about anything to stop the pain. The early Christians could have avoided death or at least experienced a quick one if they only denied the faith. Many of them wouldn't do it. There are hundreds of lesser known saints, for example, the old calendar two days ago celebrated a husband and wife who were buried alive in sand for failure to denounce their faith. (The wife helped to bring about her husband's conversion). How could so many people irrationally believe in a"superstition"? How could so many learned minds, even after the advancement in science, still believe? Rhetorical questions here.

    I wrote this for another thread before I read the last twenty posts or so here. Excuse me if it is not on point.

    And you miss my overall point; your dogma is also a product of human beings. If you can prove to me there's a single, personified force behind Everything, then I might lend your position a little more credence.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 28, 2007 6:44 PM

    Does he have to prove to you that God exists or does he need only prove that the Founders believed that there is a Higher Power on whose authority man's rights are derived.

    OK, I see. In a way that was I was saying, but its not what your first response conveyed. Yes; science does take work; and some artists also exert great effort in their endeavors. But art's value can only be assessed by the viewer, and science is open, explicit and testable.

    Magic is another story. If you want me to believe that you an walk on water you must show me; and then allow me to fully investigate the scene of the miracle, before I would be willing to concede that you are, in fact, a witch.

    In the end, however, the burden of proof on God's part in regard to convincing me of his reality would actually be realtively low. I simply wonder why he would be so parsimonous in his "proof", since it has turned out that his various Users' Manuals were transcribed in such confusing ways.

    Once again; very poor execution from an all-powerful entity. His whole plan as described by Phari-cee et.al. does not inspire a great deal of consumer confdence.

    Hey Lucy (SLOB) I thought we were discussing the official documents of The United States of America....So as the author and signer of the very document that started this all, I would easily say Thomas Jefferson also thought the rights he was asserting were also endowed by The Creator...

    So he should be included as well.....Atheists need only seek out those I have mentioned so far...you can add others like Mao and Stalin, Lucy.

    You see Lucy, the founders had on their side a wonderful influence you seem to have missed.....God. And although you can find letters that contradict other letters and official actions that showed a faith there was a supernatural from which all was created....even a diest believed this....your worldview would have been totally alien to these fine men.....This is the truth you avoid and even slip into when you agree with the patheticly unintelligent wannawipe and mental midget about THE GREAT PUMPKIN and Linus van Pelt....

    Secular ideology (no possibility of supernatuaral revelation) is a closed-minded and intolerant avenue and one now embraced by the left in our country to the radical extreme of asking God to be removed from the government ledger, money and ceremony....again....this was the USSR's tact and see what happened to liberty there?

    Liberty derived from man is falty and fleeting. Liberty derived from God, as shown by our struggle as a nation, is preferred and successful. Judeo-Christian values are the manifestation of that notion in our country.

    Now Lucy....that secular humanist abolitionist example please. I have met your requirements to continue this debate....I'll even take an atheist that was a pre-civil war public advocate of freeing the african-american slaves like mental midget seems to want.....I can start posting God fearing indivdiuals who publically put themselves out there to free them.....F. Douglas and his biography and Christian testimony could be my first.

    Mental midget tries and fails...

    "Everyone/anyone who uses reason and rational thnking to make decisions, rather than those who use religious dogma, such as yourself."


    ###
    Sorry mm....I use reason, rational thinking and God's revelation to direct my paths.....ALong with the lovely men I mentioned....the founders and Sir Isaac Newton.

    One item (God) that is missing from your idols, Nietzsche, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al.....look at their lovely worldview results!

    Try again.

    Cecelia, I did want to respond to a point you made today on one of the threads about how Christians have been willing to die for their faith. When the argument of torture arises, one of the common positions of those who oppose any level of discomfort is that people will say just about anything to stop the pain. The early Christians could have avoided death or at least experienced a quick one if they only denied the faith. Many of them wouldn't do it. There are hundreds of lesser known saints, for example, the old calendar two days ago celebrated a husband and wife who were buried alive in sand for failure to denounce their faith. (The wife helped to bring about her husband's conversion). How could so many people irrationally believe in a"superstition"? How could so many learned minds, even after the advancement in science, still believe? Rhetorical questions here.

    I wrote this for another thread before I read the last twenty posts or so here. Excuse me if it is not on point.
    Posted by: Sharon at October 28, 2007 7:01 PM


    Sharon,

    You just have to read Fox's Book of Martyrs to be aware of awe-inspiring stories of people being immolated for their faith.

    These weren't fanatics who were committing suicide in order to take as many people with them as possible.

    Still, the best testament to Christianity is people who give of themselves FOR others.

    The world is replete with those stories too, but you aren't going to see stories of them on tv.

    Cecelia,

    A friend of mine has a two volume set of lesser known martyrs that I want for Christmas. : ) Your statement about giving is so true about your statement. Thanks for the response.

    SLOB,

    I don't mean to intrude on your discussion with others here and past exchanges indicate that I should not address you. I would like to respond to your statement of "His whole plan as described by Phari-cee et.al." because it seems to me that the et al means me; I have never seen you address anyone else but Cee and myself with that kind of statement. Although I respect Cee and we hold some common beliefs, we don't have the same theological view on many points. Two theories that I don't believe (and I don't know Cee's belief and won't speak for him): 1) sola scriptura and 2) "born again" on a date certain. I am not a fundamentalist.

    Next, I apologize for stating that you seemed to imply that the death of those serving in the military who enlisted under less stringent standards were not as noble as others. It seemed that way to me given the context of the previous comments that you were, but since you have stated that is not what you meant, then I apologize for stating that is what you seemed to imply. To state that the military is statistically not as intelligent nor as trustworthy seems downright insulting when that statistics don't have to be viewed that harshly, but you have explained your position.

    Finally, I don't believe that God ordained the present wars. You have twice wrongly and admittedly attributed ideas that weren't mine. Because I have been coming to this site for a year, I have stated my beliefs and did so initially when only a few people were on the board and usually late at night so as not to clog it up. That was my intention. Of course, these threads carry on through the day as well and then discussion ensues. But that was not my intent, to promote my religion here. It is part of me, just as what you believe is part of you.

    My 7:47 comment obviously needed revision...

    Cecelia, this is the crux of the original discussion:

    "Does he have to prove to you that God exists or does he need only prove that the Founders believed that there is a Higher Power on whose authority man's rights are derived.
    Posted by: Cecelia at October 28, 2007 7:05 PM"

    Cee and I approach it differently but we both maintained that great leap forward was that our founding fathers believed and acted on the belief that the rights of man flow directly to him from a higher power without passing through an emperor, king, shaman, despot etc.

    That lead to this in response to one of SLOB's claims:

    "The origins of Hitler's ideology is about as Judeo-Christian as Lenin's.

    Posted by: cee at October 25, 2007 11:37 AM


    ...and the same argument could be made in regard to yours, Phari-cee.

    Hitler's packaging certainly was rich in Christiness, you must admit."

    I dropped out of the argument shortly thereafter.

    On one hand we have SLOB arguing that our founding fathers were not religious/Christians who first stated this earth changing idea based on their religious beliefs in any way and on the other hand that Hitler/Nazism was "rich" in religious/Christianity.

    I don't understand how one mind could hold such thoughts simultaneously.

    Grammie

    On one hand we have SLOB arguing that our founding fathers were not religious/Christians who first stated this earth changing idea based on their religious beliefs in any way and on the other hand that Hitler/Nazism was "rich" in religious/Christianity.

    I don't understand how one mind could hold such thoughts simultaneously.

    Grammie

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at October 28, 2007 8:26 PM

    Not to mention that it is a strawman argument.... :D

    Hitler's Germany was founded upon his twisted version of Christianity (if only a secular humanist had been his influence in those early years) which lead to one of the tragic periods of history; our country was founded on secular values (with a basis of rights endowed by a Creator who is not God) and we fared pretty well until Bush came along? I am sure I have that all wrong.

    Actually, Sharon they made a show of accepting Christianity in the early years but a different Christianity that would lead to the perfection of man in God's image, the super Aryan race.

    That is very simplistic but is generally true.

    I copied a precis of a book if you're interested about the subject @:

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at October 26, 2007 1:24 PM.

    Grammie

    I do remember reading that. Somehow slob seemed to say that I (and Cee) would have been taken in by Hitler's goal of perfection.

    ""Please, Loin....Hitler's cultic search for immortality and superman status was not Christianity....it was SECULAR!"

    Sure, maybe to him. But using Christian lingo and trappings he sure sucked in a lot of fucking idiots ala you and Sharon."

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 26, 2007 3:16 PM

    Cee,

    I think you would be very interested in listening to this presentation by Mark Levin. It is maybe 20 minutes. It covers just about every topic you have addressed recently.

    http://abcrad.vo.llnwd.net/o1/levin/rss/frclevin.mp3

    On one hand we have SLOB arguing that our founding fathers were not religious/Christians who first stated this earth changing idea based on their religious beliefs in any way and on the other hand that Hitler/Nazism was "rich" in religious/Christianity.

    I don't understand how one mind could hold such thoughts simultaneously.

    Grammie

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at October 28, 2007 8:26 PM

    None of you can read. I said "Rich in CHRISTINESS". That is not the same as "rich in religion/ Christianity", unless you are a professional victim looking for insults.

    Personally, I DO apply this same judgement to right wing war mongers who think Jesus loves burning Iraqi and Iranian babies with napalm, but I don't have the same feeling toward "Christianity".

    On one hand we have SLOB arguing that our founding fathers were not religious/Christians who first stated this earth changing idea based on their religious beliefs in any way and on the other hand that Hitler/Nazism was "rich" in religious/Christianity.

    I don't understand how one mind could hold such thoughts simultaneously.

    Grammie

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at October 28, 2007 8:26 PM

    None of you can read. I said "Rich in CHRISTINESS". That is not the same as "rich in religion/ Christianity", unless you are a professional victim looking for insults.

    Personally, I DO apply this same judgement to right wing war mongers who think Jesus loves burning Iraqi and Iranian babies with napalm, but I don't have the same feeling toward "Christianity".

    On one hand we have SLOB arguing that our founding fathers were not religious/Christians who first stated this earth changing idea based on their religious beliefs in any way and on the other hand that Hitler/Nazism was "rich" in religious/Christianity.

    I don't understand how one mind could hold such thoughts simultaneously.

    Grammie

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at October 28, 2007 8:26 PM

    None of you can read. I said "Rich in CHRISTINESS". That is not the same as "rich in religion/ Christianity", unless you are a professional victim looking for insults.

    Personally, I DO apply this same judgement to right wing war mongers who think Jesus loves burning Iraqi and Iranian babies with napalm, but I don't have the same feeling toward "Christianity".

    I don't understand how one mind could hold such thoughts simultaneously.

    Grammie

    I've thought the same thing regarding you righties many times.

    "Turn the other cheek"


    "Bring 'em on"

    ""Inasmuch as you have done these things for the least among you, yu have done them for me,"


    "I intend to Veto the SCHIP bill"


    "Woe unto Ye, scribes, Pharisees; Hypocrits! For you devour widow's houses and for pretense make long prayer!"


    'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan. And I did, and then God would tell me, George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq. . . . And I did."

    I don't understand how one mind could hold such thoughts simultaneously.

    Grammie

    I've thought the same thing regarding you righties many times.

    "Turn the other cheek"


    "Bring 'em on"

    ""Inasmuch as you have done these things for the least among you, yu have done them for me,"


    "I intend to Veto the SCHIP bill"


    "Woe unto Ye, scribes, Pharisees; Hypocrits! For you devour widow's houses and for pretense make long prayer!"


    'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan. And I did, and then God would tell me, George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq. . . . And I did."

    I don't understand how one mind could hold such thoughts simultaneously.

    Grammie

    I've thought the same thing regarding you righties many times.

    "Turn the other cheek"


    "Bring 'em on"

    ""Inasmuch as you have done these things for the least among you, yu have done them for me,"


    "I intend to Veto the SCHIP bill"


    "Woe unto Ye, scribes, Pharisees; Hypocrits! For you devour widow's houses and for pretense make long prayer!"


    'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan. And I did, and then God would tell me, George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq. . . . And I did."

    Lucy (SLOB)....where is that secular humanist who demanded the slaves be freed in The United States?

    I am still waiting after meeting your demands....Are you still smarting after your error in following wannawipe down THE GREAT PUMPKIN tact only to find that Schultz's humor was a window to his, the founder's and my beliefs...God is love, perfect and wants a relationship with you?......

    Atheist abolotionist please....

    How about Darwin?

    How about Nietzsche?

    How about Marx?

    I will be patiently waiting, Linus van Pelt (cee)

    You have waited long enough. If you were better read you would have known not to be so petulently persistent regarding such a simple request. I have others in the wings:

    "Although Thoreau lived what might be called a spiritual life, eschewing material possessions, his belief in the soul was not of the Christian variety, his belief in God was of the God-in-the-Cosmos variety, and when he spoke of God, he could be speaking of the human will, or of nature, or of the Κοσμος (Cosmos), but not of a personal deity. For example,

    My profession is to be always on the alert to find God in nature, to know his lurking-places, to attend all the oratorios, the operas, in nature ... The love of Nature and the fullest perception of the revelation which she is to man is not compatible with the belief in the peculiar revelation of the Bible.[2]
    In these lines, from "Autumnal Tints," Thoreau seems to reject a belief in immortality:

    It is pleasant to walk over the beds of these fresh, crisp, and rustling leaves. How beautifully they go to their graves! ... They teach us how to die. One wonders if the time will ever come when men, with their boasted faith in immortality, will lie down as gracefully and as ripe, with such an Indian-summer serenity will shed their bodies, as they do their hair and nails."[3]
    Furthermore, Thoreau said, "Jesus Christ ... taught mankind but imperfectly how to live; his thoughts were all directed to another world. There is another kind of success than his."[4] Thoreau disliked churches and ignored most aspects of Christian theology, says biographer Edward Wagenknecht.

    Thoreau also wrote vigorously in defense of civil liberties in his 1849 essay "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience." The essay was inspired by a night spent in jail for failure to pay a poll tax — a tax on voters later declared unconstitutional. In "Civil Disobedience," he wrote, "I did not see why the schoolmaster should be taxed to support the priest, and not the priest the schoolmaster." As an abolitionist, Thoreau took an active part in the Underground Railroad to free escaped slaves.

    As he neared death in Concord, on 6 May 1862, an aunt asked if he had made his peace with God. Thoreau replied, "I did not know that we had ever quarreled." A friend asked his thoughts on the afterlife, to which Thoreau replied, "One world at a time.""

    [1] Charles J. Woodbury (1844-1927), Talks with Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1890, pp. 93-4. Ennius, called the "Father of Roman poetry," lived 239-169 BCE.
    [2] Edward Wagenknecht, Henry David Thoreau: What Manner of Man?, 1981, pp. 155, 159.
    [3] "Autumnal Tints," in The Natural History Essays: Henry David Thoreau, Peregrine Smith, Inc., 1980, pp. 157-158.
    [4] Wagenknecht, p. 161.

    Sorry Lucy....Thoreau cannot be claimed by you....he was not an atheist....agnostic, perhaps, but he NEVER dismissed God out of hand like you do.

    God "exhibits himself...in a frosted bush today, as much as in a burning one to Moses of old"


    ###
    Mmm...try again Lucy....just because 21st century atheist fanatics say Thoreau was like them does not make it so....the evidence points to someone ready for another world after their death....

    Ozymandias and Nephratiri were likewise ready for another world after death. Does that make them fellow Christians to you? Itsw absolutely remarkable how your criteria regarding Christianity variously expands and puckers depending on the rhetorical pickle you are in.

    And who the fuck are you to tell me what I am? I am merely certain on a personal level that your certainty on the Universal level is dead wrong. You have no idea what ideas I might wentertain in regard to hte Unknowable.

    And if you are going to try the old leftist academic ploy of claiming Emerson as well....sorry Lucy...he never was quoted as saying there was no god or supernatural... in fact his discussion of the soul totally stops that argument in its tracks....Again, an agnostic or seeker, but not a fanatical atheist like yourself......

    "We lie in the lap of immense intelligence, which makes us receivers of its truth and organ of its activity. When we discern justice, when we discern truth, we do nothing by ourselves, but allow a passage to its beams. If we ask whence this comes, if we seek to pry into the soul that causes, all philosophy is at fault. Its presence or its absence is all we can affirm."

    "The spirit only can teach. ... only he can give who has, he only can create who is."

    "Belief consists in accepting the affirmations of the soul; unbelief, in denying them."

    "God will not have his work made manifest by cowards."

    "Trust thyself: every heart vibrates to that iron string. Accept the place the divine providence has found for you, the society of your contemporaries, the connection of events."


    ###
    And although, like Thoreau and millions of others since Christ's time on earth, Emerson made the common mistake of following the error of gnosticism...self-deification....he was yet to arrive at your radical point, Lucy....

    "Every man is a divinity in disguise, a god playing the fool."


    Remember, Phari-cee, This is not about me trying to "claim" anyone: this has been about your efforts to declare the US a "Christian Nation" (although somehow not a theocracy), and that everything good about it derives from Christian dogma.

    For my purposes in this debate Thoreau could have been an atheist, a Jain, or an animist.

    "Does that make them fellow Christians to you?"


    ###
    No....but believers in something supernatural, Lucy....I asked a simple question.....

    DO YOU HAVE A SECULAR HUMANIST ABOLITIONIST?....secular always means not considering in the supernatural....

    I am just echoing what you have posted....no supernatural influence on us as people.....period....Now if you want to change yourself in order to try to win this argument, be my guest....

    Another wonderful Godly quote by Emerson....

    "In the woods, we return to reason and faith. There I feel that nothing can befall me in life, -- no disgrace, no calamity (leaving me my eyes), which nature cannot repair. Standing on the bare ground, -- my head bathed by the blithe air and uplifted into infinite space, -- all mean egotism vanishes. I become a transparent eyeball; I am nothing; I see all; the currents of the Universal Being circulate through me; I am part and parcel of God. The name of the nearest friend sounds then foreign and accidental: to be brothers, to be acquaintences, master or servant, is then a trifle and a disturbance. I am the lover of uncontained and immortal beauty. In the wilderness, I find something more dear and connate than in streets or villages. In the tranquil landscape, and especially in the distant line of the horizon, man beholds somewhat as beautiful as his own nature."


    ###
    Ah the recognition of deity....its a wonderful influence that allows great movements like the abolitionist movement....

    If there had only been secular humanists like Nietzsche....sorry, the slaves would not have been freed......Even Darwin did not consider the black person on par with the white person.

    "Thoreau could have been an atheist, a Jain, or an animist."


    ###
    I thought you only dealt in facts and rational argument....You did not provide one piece of evidence that Thoreau was an atheist, Lucy.

    Oh, by the way....I do not see S.J. Gould, Nietzsche, Marx or even the sappy Carl Sagan thinking in such a way as my last quote by Emerson represents. Devote atheists delude themselves into thinking some great past person was their realtive, oh but the ideology of atheism is a product of poor 18th/19th century thinking.

    Phari-cee, I'm done. Declare a victory is you want, but I'm tired of wasting my time arguing to your shifting premises. I have said from the start that Christians, Deists, and rationalists all took part in putting aside their personal religious baggage and designed an explicitly religion-neutral government; you continued to assert that it was all Christian, even when they themselves - CHristian and otherwise - said that your position is mistaken.

    Now suddenly, instead of paying attention to the very clear statements by these actors themselves regarding this issue, I have to prove that everyone was an avowed atheist or "Secular Humanist", or you claim them as Christians just like the Mormons convert the dead of centuries past, and use this as evidence that they meant nothing of what they said regarding "the UNited States Government is in no sense based on the Christian Religion".

    You win the argument by shere petulence and persistant naysaying.

    "you continued to assert that it was all Christian"


    ###
    Never....The foundation of the ideology was non-secular.....in the case of the 1776 establishment of The United States of American, it was specifically Judeo-Christian.

    I have been consistent Lucy....you seem to have difficulty avoiding changing the argument from non-secular to "religious."

    Now if you want to discuss religion, you know where I stand on that one....atheism is a religion....a system of strongly held beliefs regarding the origion and nature of the universe held by a group of people.

    You and the American fringe left demands secular cleansing.....God out of any discussion of policy or law....I see that as a recent development and have shown this to be the case....Late 20th century America was vastly different in this regard in the need of sensitive atheists and agnostics to not hear the name or deal with someone who feels the supernatural has an influence in our dealings with eachother. Like-minded (and very biased) jurists, academics and politicians have gone about
    to try to change history, law and doctrine to fit these childish sensitivities.

    Thank you for allowing me to make my point as you walk away in frustration, Lucy....Wannwipe goes the step further and makes some caustic remark that I can later take advatange of with regards to faith and belief.....Like Linus' GREAT PUMKIN....

    Happy Halloween.

    Oh well anon, you are making the fundmanetal flaw of not understanding my argument. Lucy (SLOB) states there is no supernatural and the very rights spelled out in The Declaration of Independence were arrived at only through the material workings of our universe. This is a false conclusion. Even a deist recognsizes the existence and influence of the supernatural creator on the creation and Emerson and Thoreau made absolute statements regarding this influence.

    My argument is that strident conclusions regarding ideology that dissolves the existance of the supernatural is false and leads to the loss of liberty....ie The USSR...which was based on a secular ideology called Marxism.

    Now, that I have repeated my premise please react...My knowledge of early American thinkers is vast and to conclude atheism in their beliefs is not supported by the available evidence.

    "Oh well anon, you are making the fundmanetal flaw of not understanding my argument. Lucy (SLOB) states there is no supernatural and the very rights spelled out in The Declaration of Independence were arrived at only through the material workings of our universe."

    OK, idiot, I'm back for a minute: I have never said "there is no supernatural", you pedantic child. I HAVE said that there is no reason to believe anyone when they tell you they know the nature of the supernatural, and that because of this the only wise course is to devise a system of governance that treats the supernatural as irrelevant. This is precisely the thinking that went into the US constitution.

    Three against one in trying to make my argument one about man-made relgious dogma, theocracy or theology when all along I have been discussing the fundamental component of ideology....principle....the basic principle of including God in an ideology or eliminating God from an ideology.

    Sorry gents/ladies....you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole in order to avoid this fundamental idea....My science professors did as much at university as did my myopic philosophy academic guides....

    Oh well...nonbiased inquiry is another attribute not practiced constently by non-secular ideologues as well.

    Change your "God," "Jehovah," "supernatural," "Santa Claus" for "Allah" in your dogma inspired rants and see what you are doing. You make a damn fine theocratic jihadist, Pastor DUMBFUCK! I mean Phallu-Cee!


    ###
    Instead of The Great Pumpkin, wannawipe?....oh why don't you use that one again?....Is it because you allowed me to laugh at you and show how Charles Schultz and I agree about Jehovah and His love for you, Lucy (loin) and anon?....Keep it going wannawipe....you just look sillier!

    And Loin....you have to include Thoreau, Emerson, Jefferson, Newton and Franklin in you judgement because they had clear opinion about the essence of the supernatural as I have shown with quotes.....and they NEVER stated your unproven and mistaken conclusion that it was irrelevant, actually they saw the complete opposite!....That conclusion of irrelevancy (and in practice nonexistence) is one of later thinkers....

    Marx.

    Lenin.

    Nietzsche....etc....I won't repeat it all again!

    Well anon, then we agree. I see the claim of the radical left on the heritage of the country's founding as unsupported by the evidence. The backdoor is not very ethical either...as Lucy goes to say it really doesn't matter (irrelevant) also has no empirical evidence because the founders were of the belief that there was a creator and we lived in a world constructed in all things by a living enitity. The extent and influence and the "dogma" of that understanding was only as variable as the different religious influences that existed at the time, and atheism was not one of them.

    With the advent of Darwinian evolution that lead to many ideologies and constructs, I suggest secular humanism is one. Now if we want to speculate on the practical application of a "godless" theology (which is acutally then, by definition, gnostic), I am all for that....and I start with the example I have in front of me....20th century governments based on gnostic beliefs.

    Phari-cee, you seem to think that when I cite Hitler's Christian rhetoric and the barbarities of the 30 Years War that I am indicting Christianity as a religion of evil and destruction. That is most definitely not the case; I am only citing these historical analogies to illustrate the fact that the facade of religion can be easily adopted by well-situated monsters and used for ill. Similarly, the Soviet Union and Maoist China hid their oppressive oligarchies behind the rhetoric of brotherhood and comradeship.

    But if I, as you tiresomely insist, must claim the latter as my idols, you by the same token must do the same with the former. Of course, niether is the truwe situation, but is where your arbitrary premises drive this discussion.

    You may now return to your favorite Jihad, I mean, Crusade, I mean FUCK YOU FUNDIES OF ALL CREEDS!

    Posted by: You issued another of your fatwas, Phallu-Cee! at October 30, 2007 9:23 AM


    The IRS should be the least of your worries, patsy. You have more serious issues.

    Well, I'm not left or right.
    Just a simple son of a poor war hero who spent WWII in the "Big Red One"....and he taught me what was so important about being an American......what to value and how to be a respectfull citizen.

    On behalf of my Dad and all the Americans who fought and gave their lives for the ideaL OF THE rIGHTS OF mANKIND.....AND TO IDENTIFY A sURE bRED NAZI TRAITOR PRESIDENT, HIS CRIMINAl ADMINISTRATION.....AND COLABERATING VICHY SWINE LIKE YOU ALL WHO BLINDLY FOLLOW THIS PIG OF A MAN WHO SITS ON THE USERPED THRONE.

    yOUR DECENDENTS WILL HIDE YOUR NAME FROM THEIR CHILDREN BECAUSE OF YOUR FAILING THE NATION ANDNOT OPPOSING THE VILLIAN AND HIS GROUP OF THUGS THAT OPERATE IN THE SHADOWS!

    LET THE TRIALS BEGIN.....BRING PLENTY OF ROPE FOR THE MONSTERS WHO TORCHER AND KILL !

    Well, I'm not left or right.
    Just a simple son of a poor war hero who spent WWII in the "Big Red One"....and he taught me what was so important about being an American......what to value and how to be a respectfull citizen.

    On behalf of my Dad and all the Americans who fought and gave their lives for the ideaL OF THE rIGHTS OF mANKIND.....AND TO IDENTIFY A sURE bRED NAZI TRAITOR PRESIDENT, HIS CRIMINAl ADMINISTRATION.....AND COLABERATING VICHY SWINE LIKE YOU ALL WHO BLINDLY FOLLOW THIS PIG OF A MAN WHO SITS ON THE USERPED THRONE.

    yOUR DECENDENTS WILL HIDE YOUR NAME FROM THEIR CHILDREN BECAUSE OF YOUR FAILING THE NATION ANDNOT OPPOSING THE VILLIAN AND HIS GROUP OF THUGS THAT OPERATE IN THE SHADOWS!

    LET THE TRIALS BEGIN.....BRING PLENTY OF ROPE FOR THE MONSTERS WHO TORCHER AND KILL !

    YEAH DITTO HEADS i MEANT YOU....NO TRICK OR TREAT

    YEAH DITTO HEADS i MEANT YOU....NO TRICK OR TREAT

    YEAH DITTO HEADS i MEANT YOU....NO TRICK OR TREAT

    YEAH DITTO HEADS i MEANT YOU....NO TRICK OR TREAT

    Posted by: rough draft freeform radio program at October 30, 2007 9:19 PM


    Thanks, Patsy!...

    ^

    That was nearly as moronic and paranoid as if it had been posted by BovineQueen itself.

    Thank you Bovine!

    You've managed to make other BU$HWIPES behave as paranoid as you.

    ^

    That was nearly as moronic and paranoid as if it had been posted by BovineQueen itself.

    Thank you Bovine!

    You've managed to make other BU$HWIPES behave as paranoid as you.

    Thanks, patsy!

    STUPID FUCKS!

    PROVE you stupid fucks, including you Bovine and everyone of you BU$HWIPES afflicted by your paranoia, that it was AAP posting at

    October 30, 2007 9:14 PM

    October 30, 2007 9:18 PM

    October 30, 2007 9:19 PM

    October 30, 2007 9:19 PM

    I think even Johnny BU$HWIPE sometime before has presented the maxim, "You make the claim, the burden is upon you to prove it" or some shit like that.

    The response from the BU$HWIPES ought to be good.

    fuckkkkkkkkking MORON paranoid BU$$HWIPES!

    However, ol' friend DUMBSHIT! I mean Bovine! has made it into his mission in life.

    TRULY! We are not worthy!

    YEEEEEEEEWWWWWWH!

    Relax, IT IS THE OLD "NAME GAME" AGAIN! at October 31, 2007 3:04 PM. Anyone and everyone who counts knows that Johnny-Jeff is ignorant and disgusting. No need to repeat it.

    Posted by: Anonymous at October 31, 2007 3:07 PM


    Translation-- "we" count... he can't stay away.... he'll always be here repeating himself...(under one name or another)... :D

    Perhaps, but I am neither ignorant nor disgusting like your gal pal Johnny-Jeff.

    Posted by: Anonymous at October 31, 2007 4:50 PM

    Translation-- You couldn't peel him away from "Johnny-Jeff" if you doused him in cooking oil...

    Please, Cecelia, spare me the Crisco jokes. Yet another conservative Republican office holder was caught in a male prostitute situation today, so you need to direct those jokes to your Far Right Wing Conservative Family Values types. They all seem to be as gay as a day in May.

    Posted by: Anonymous at October 31, 2007 5:38 PM

    Hey, if you associate "cooking oil" with bi or homosexuality, I'll take your word for it.

    This is probably at one thing that you know whereof you speak.

    Where's RK when we need him?
    If he wasn't hiding under Cecelia's skirt, he'd pipe in," Cecelia is using the old divert card !"

    One thing the old gal hates is reality coming too close to home for her.

    Republicans !
    Ha !
    Posted by: at October 31, 2007 10:52 PM


    I mention cooking oil and Clucker's feelings about "Johnny-Jeff" and our Capon replies by mentioning gay sex.

    That's not a diversion, it's an ink blot... :D

    Cecelia, I think that Capon and KO present with identical symptoms.

    KO is sent into sexual hyperbole because Rick Santorum is going to write a bi-weekly column and the mere mention of cooking oil sends Capon into the same fantasy.

    I do think they have a serious problem.

    Grammie

    Thanks Patsy!

    Grammie

    I do think they have a serious problem.

    Grammie
    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at November 1, 2007 12:50 AM

    Judging from history, Grammie, Capon could be one fan letter away from solving it..

    Leave a new comment