YES
Bite her
(Teabag protester)
Picture by: dunno source Caption by: dunno source via Poster Builder
-
-
Copy & paste this:
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous MILK, BREAD, BUTTER | Waldo Next »
» 868 comments
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
flodnak on Ballistic Marshmallows Vila Restal on Congressman Mistakes The Onion… Vila Restal on Keeping the Internet Hone… William Thompson on Vandals Cashing In keshet the adequate on Ballistic Marshmallows Dave on Must Be Blah History Mont… Kate on Keeping the Internet Hone… Kate on Keeping the Internet Hone… Kate on Keeping the Internet Hone… Deacon Blues on Spock Facepalm 
Cheezburger Company BlogPrint on Demand
More I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?
I Can Has Cheezburger? Home - Lolcats n Funny Pictures
Cyoot Kitteh of teh Day: My Special Snuggle Buddy
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies
No gurls allowed
Just Capshunz - All of the Internet. Captioned
Maybe if I Stay Very Still I'll Be All Right
Animal Videos - Cute and Hilarious Animal Videos
Great Escape
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
Nom Distraction
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode.
Two-by-Snores
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
So Why Was It The Best I've Ever Had??
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
Counteract That Yoga With Cookies
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
SUCK IT, NOT TREBEK!
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz
Accurate Claim is ACCURATE
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
American Idol Kyle Crews Totally Looks Like The Big Green Patrick Reena
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
Big Head Harry Potter Characters
If Style Could Kill - OMG Style!
Ring of the Day: I'm Batman
Lovely Listing - Strange Findings in Real Estate Listings
String Theory
Wedinator - Your special day... is hilarious.
Skyrim First Dance
Five Minute Getaway - Beautiful Travel and Vacation Photos
Gaudí-esque complex, Punta del Este, Uruguay
Set Phasers to LOL - Sci Fi and Fantasy LOLs
I Didn't Know
Animal Memes - A Meme-nagerie of Famous Internet Critters
Crazy Girlfriend Praying Mantis: It Was My Doctor. He Says I'm Dying. How Bad Do You Feel Now, Lady?
0
Say can you see…..
By the dawn’s early light.
What so proudly we hailed,
It hailed… no wonder my car has dents.
Don’t get me started on the rocket’s red glare.
I hate when they do that. I didn’t even do anything to offend them today. Stupid red eyes….
the rockets have a red glare…surely that means they are obama’s evil taxing commie rockets. here to enforce health care on everyone.
by the dawn early light…
Redundant, repetitive much?
You’re pretty quick to jump on errors today, Mr “mojority”. *points down the page and giggles*
“KICK HIS A$$ SEABASS”
*throws salt shaker on seabass*
you are a douchebag
teabag protester??
Tea Party attender. Did y’all like it when you were called Unpatirotic A$$hats when y’all protested. (y’all is in reference to liberal protesters, and not specifically you, and certainly not Bitter Troll)
Bitter troll is a bitter protester.
the steve is a fvcktard
bitter! Be nice to The Steve. You are a bitter protester. You’re a bitter.. everything.
Except when you roll him in sugar, then he’s bitter/ sweet.
I believe the term was “dirty f***ing hippies.”
Oh, and the teabaggers started it. Of course, that’s long before they knew they had walked right into an obvious joke, but even then, they’re so dense it took them awhile to get it.
It was Keith Olbermann who started it. Google it.
Hmm…this is what I got when I googled it:
An article in Salon.com by Alex Koppelman traced the controversy [use of the term] to a photograph by David Weigel posted on The Washington Independent website on 27 February,[9] showing a protester holding a sign that read “Tea Bag the Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You!!”[10]
That’s not Olbermann.
Yeah not seeing the term “TeaBagger” here. The word tea bag =/= teabagger.
Sorry, I should have put ‘use of the term teabagger.’ It was a long article; I just put the part where they gave the first place they found the mention of the term. A couple of other sites gave the same source; many said they couldn’t pinpoint the origin definitively (which they also said was common with slang etymology).
Teabaggers shouldn’t be asking for bites.
I think they get taxed for that.
Yes, all hail the beloved socialist leader. Do not question him, do not question his motives, do not question his goals, just mindlessly grovel at his glorious marxist feet and be glad that you have this opportunity to be his slave. G*ddamn I hate liberals.
Chill out dude… it’s called hypocrisy that both sides enjoys to paly with. You should be focused more on how pathetic of a LOL this is. There’s so much more you could go with. For instance: The CDC has determined Obama can not bite anyone due to Swine Flu.
Well it makes sense. Do you know how disgusting the human mouth is? Also, you never know when somebody is carrying the zombie infection.
I’ve had my zombie vaccine. I was promised I couldn’t actually catch the infection from the BRAAAAAAIIIIIINNNNNNNNSSSSS
Dude are you going to go hungry on this forum today!!!
*noms conservatrolls*
Mmmm, great taste, less filling. *snerk*
*noms liberatrolls*
Ugh, tastes like tofu.
*haz a sad* Rando, you’re going to get mad troll disease if you eat the brains.
if they had brains, conservatrolls would be liberatrolls
I think ALL the trolls are lacking brains, ‘cept for you, bitter! SO probably my worry is moot. Cookies?
Having tons of bad ideas constitutes having brains?
Yeah, I guess if he had a ranch, went hunting, and talked about God all the time you would love him? Damn, I hate…. idiots.
He has played more Golf than any other President already, done more “Press Conferences”…. VNV we shouldn’t compare PResidents, both are/were inadequate and really need to just shut up sit down and do nothing, sort of like Bill.
Well that’s were we disagree. I think Obama is quite adequate. I think he is doing a fair job, but we still have time for him to improve. I don’t doubt that he has the capability for great things, unlike the Bushes and Reagan.
Regan was the $hit!!!! Argueably one of the best PResidetns we’ve had, besides Lincoln, Teddy, and Ike.
so you’re telling me a PResident that is not listening to the people is adequate? A President who ignores dying troops b/c he wants to “ponder” his deiscions? A President that calls upon the American public to sacrafice for the good of the country but hasn’t sacraficed himself? A President that lies everytime he opens his mouth? A President that lacks the integrity to not accpet an award he did not earn? No Sir…. I do not agree that Obama is adequate, he is extremely wanting, especially in the leadership skills.
Reagan seemed like an amiable fellow, but he was generally kind of dopey and in no way, shape or form a good president. And if he is the person who actually came up with that trickle-down idea, then he was more than just kind of dopey, he was a fecking moron.
I don’t understand how liberals hate him so? Yes he gave the power to companies and the people, I kind of like that idea. I prefer that then forcing me to give my money to the “have nots” through taxes. Plus he was the ultimate Cold War warrior. “Gorbachev tear down THIS wall!!!”
You know who’s really underrated though? Nixon. Authorize one fvcking break-in and there goes your reputation. He actually accomplished quite a lot while he was in office.
I actually have some respect for Nixon, paranoid that he was. Reagan? Not so much.
“Even paranoids have real enemies.” (Actually Agnew, not Nixon.)
Ever read up on Lyndon Johnson? Weird to the 100th degree.
He just gave the power to the companies, not the people. So… he sucks.
Giving power to “the companies” IS giving power to the people. Who do you think starts up these “companies”? Aliens?
Giving power to the companies is giving power to a bunch of already rich executives who run the companies, not the other 300 million people in the country.
No, not all people who start or own companies are rich. All of us have the ability to start a company, all of us have the same opportunities, well we still do now but that may change if we let the government continue to morph into a fascist dictatorship.
Wow, a fascist dictatorship? A little over the top maybe? Honestly, people who believe that make me sad. I’m glad THAT opinion isn’t the will of the people.
And saying we all have the same opportunities is a gross generalization and is naive and inaccurate. And don’t even THINK about pulling out the bootstrap theory because that will send me flying into a fit of rage that I don’t need right before Christmas.
Yeah jumping to the conclusion of a ‘fascist dictatorship’ is a bit much omy. And I don’t believe EVERYONE has the same opportunities. I, for one, believe I’ve had much more opportunities to own a company than most out there (seeing as my family owns one and it’s going to become mind when I graduate). Not everyone has the advantages, opportunities, and knowledge it takes to run a company. That is as Rando said a gross generalization.
One could argue that becoming a successful drug dealer is in fact running a business. Imagine if they had used that money as capital and invested that much energy into a legit business. The fact of the matter is that oportunities are there, they are often just not taken advantage of.
ADM, did you ever watch “The Wire”? Your point about drug dealing being a business reminds me of Stringer Bell and his use of his business classes to improve the organization….
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. Reagan lucked out and was president when the USSR finally died. It wasn’t because Reagan took it to the Soviets so hard. It was because it already sucked and just gave out. And I hate giving power to companies. That’s like giving them a free pass to screw us over. I see no reason why business can’t be regulated to make sure they stay in line and don’t buttsecks the middle class.
Bigger more powerful government = USSR = sucks.
Wow, bit of a jump there, don’t you think? I’m sorry if I don’t think big business is as noble and trustworthy as the conservatives do. Someone has to keep them in line. Who is gonna do it? You and me? What power do we have? Jack squat, that’s what. What choice do we have but to hope the government will act in our best interests against people we KNOW won’t?
Do you work for a “big business”? Do they pay your salary? Do you want to exchange “big business” for “big government”? How do you think that would be any different? Do you really think the government is going to keep rich people in line? How do you think they get anything done in Washington? That’s right, grease the skids. If we keep letting them grow, we will all be slaves.
What the libs don’t understand is that just about everyone in Congress is part of the “rich” that they want to punish. They just can’t see the hypocrisy and lies because all they can think about is how rich people have it so easy, and they have to work. Although, most of your high ranking businessmen do pay a hefty price in that they don’t get to see their family that much. Truthfully, if you want to spend 80 – 100 hours a week at work, anyone could be one of those “rich fat cats.” It’s just that most Americans don’t want to do that. It’s easier to complain about those that do.
Excacly, except they have the media on their side which helps keep the idea of rich = evil going. It’s getting scary really. I know people who came here from South America during the revolutions to get away from this kind of thing. And now it’s happening here.
*Truthfully, if you want to spend 80 – 100 hours a week at work, anyone could be one of those “rich fat cats.” It’s just that most Americans don’t want to do that. It’s easier to complain about those that do.*
I don’t know about other industries, but in accounting the staffers put in as many hours (that would be 80-90 per week in busy season, and working nearly every weekend throughout the year) as those in upper management. The lazy ones at the bottom of the ladder (that would be me – an assistant who is not remotely interested in achieving a management position) get calls while we’re on vacation and home in the evening. I had a lovely (aka. irritated) conversation with my co-workers while standing in the middle of a provincial park in Quebec this past summer, and another one the following morning standing outside Zak’s in Ottawa after my morning pancakes, and another one… Anyway, you pretty much have to be not even visible from the bottom rung to not have to put in the hours these days.
So, you don’t have any ambition to move up. Is that why you are so bitter towards those that do. I believe you missed my point. My point was, if you want to sacrifice family to get ahead, it can be done. And, 80 – 100 hours in a seasonal job during the busy time of year isn’t really comparing apples to apples.
Yeah. I work for a big business. I don’t enjoy it. I don’t enjoy my employer controlling my life as much as they do. Big business can continue to exist, but they need to be kept on the up and up. We’re already slaves to big business. We don’t need government for that. As for big government, the government employs millions (don’t know exactly how many). But you’re right, let’s shrink the government down to bare bones so none of these people have jobs. I’m sure the ever benevolent big business will hire them all.
*So, you don’t have any ambition to move up. Is that why you are so bitter towards those that do.*
Nope, no ambition. Also, not bitter towards those who are ambitious, but I would really, really like them to leave me and my life alone. My time and my husband are far more valuable to me than the questionable rewards of power and money.
Big government will NOT keep big business in line, is what I said. They are one in the same, only government is worse because they have guns.
nope, more powerful government == less ability for the idiots at the local level to line their pockets and take rights away from the little guy. which is to say, most corporate fatcats and rich SOBs *really* *really* don’t want it. which is to say, most people *do* want it, they just don’t have the power to make it happen.
“fascist” my left elbow. go read some history books and then come back and talk sense.
So some fat cat in WAshington will line his pockets and take my rights away…. no Thank you, I’d rather choose where to shop, what to buy, then be told to do so by some dumba$$ I didn’t even vote for.
well then, your local fat cats will be just as glad to line *their* pockets and take your rights away. local gov’t can be just as dictatorial as federal, more so because locals usually have it in their head that they’re in the right and so the people they screw deserve it. if you think dumba$$ery is limited to federal gov’t, boy do you have some awakening coming.
nobody would be having these stupid conversations if obama was white — you’d all be stunned at his oratory talents and leadership. but because he’s black, the conservative nut-pack is pulling out all the insults in the book in a desperate attempt to get one to stick. newsflash: it’s not possible to be both socialist and fascist. go read some history and then come back and we’ll talk.
You can start out socialist and become fascist through the same machinations, and your “ZOMG RACIST!!!!!!” argument is worn so thin that you can see Pluto through it. Obama is starting to grate on both sides, with the far left ideologues who would defend him if he was caught red-handed eating a baby for breakfast remaining the only ones who are not disgusted with him in one way or another.
I don’t think it is the far-left ideologies still treating Obama as a messiah
We are the ones who want him to be more pro-active.
It is mostly those who fall between the ‘true’ moderates and the ‘far left’ that still have a love affair with Obama. Really, I don’t entirely believe those people exist anyways, but I am open to convincing on this matter.
Big powerful, secretive governments suck
Big powerful, secretive corporations suck
Power invested in government =/= power to the people
Power invested in corporations =/= power to the people
These days, corps & govt are basically one in the same. But dont take my word for it. After all, I’m just a durty hippy lib’rull libertarian.
Well you know what?
It’s good to do it in the park, it’s good to do it in the USSR.
Here, you refer to the government as becoming socialist. A few comments up, you refer to it as becoming fascist. Seeing as fascism and socialism are on polar ends of the political spectrum, I wonder which one you actually mean?
I’ve found that people who use these terms interchangeably suffer from the opinion that the Nazis were socialists, since their party name was the National Socialists. Interestingly enough, very few of them ever suffered from the opinion what the USSR was a republic, or that the DDR (Deutsche Demokratische Republik, or East Germany) was democratic.
I’d rather the companies have power than the government. I can control a company better than I can control the government (case in point happening now).
Really? You can control a company? How?
My wallet.
IF you can figure out which companies are running their business ethically. I hope you aren’t supporting sweatshop-type businesses like Walmart and Target, who have been proven to repeatedly deny basic fairness to their ‘rank and file’ workers. (like overtime pay and legally required breaks)
Outside of making you feel better about yourself, you’re not going to bring down a sleazy business by taking your business elsewhere.
Hey if that’s where I choose to shop, so be it.
Rando: If enough people do you’d be surprised. Look at Imus, Tiger, etc…. bad press = issue of money.
You’re talking about one person. Think about a major corporation like Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart has had absolute freaky amounts of bad press. They are in the news over and over again for sleazy business practices. How many people look at Wal-Mart and say “What a noble group of businesspeople who run that company?” I don’t know any. Has that brought them down at all? Nope. They continue to be one of the highest profiting companies in this country. It’s essentially oil companies…and Wal-Mart. Who will bring down the giant? Not you and me. Hell, if the entire state of Missouri stopped shopping there, Wal-Mart would be just fine. Why? Because people want and need the low prices more than they care about where they’re shopping. We the people can’t control big business. It controls us.
Would it be difficult? yes
Is it impossible? no
You may have to start a garden (if possible) or stop buying ready made types of food so you can buy more real food at a time or stop some form of activity you do till the boycott is over or etc. etc. etc.
We let Wal-mart become what they are by buying from them when they started the sleazy business practices and thinking we were great for it. It may be tough but it would be possible.
I think the only way a giant like Wal-Mart will be toppled is if it happens from the inside-out. They have to destroy themselves, much like the previous retail giant (my employer) did. I honestly don’t feel that we can beat Wal-Mart.
you must find…the heart…of wal-mart
*I see no reason why business can’t be regulated to make sure they stay in line and don’t buttsecks the middle class.*
I concur. Here I go getting all rah rah about Canada again, but our banking system is regulated and it has been rated by the World Economic System as the most stable banking system in the world. I am bemused by those who feel that not having to worry about one’s life savings disappearing into the ether (or some CEO’s Swiss account) and not being screwed over by unethical and usurious mortgage lenders is somehow an infringement on personal rights.
Simple, b/c it’s not the Governments job to do such. Who’s to say the Government won’t do the same thing. Big government = BAD.
Because we elect the government. We don’t elect businesses. We have no control over what businesses do. If we don’t like what the government is doing, then next election we boot them out.
I think it’s extremely naive to think that you or I can stop unethical business practices from screwing us over.
I think at this point government IS a big business. That’s why I hate arguing about this. Big business is bad ADM!!! I know that’s why I don’t want to give the government more power. Both parties want it and neither need to have it, because once it’s there they aren’t going to let it go.
So government is gonna screw us. Big business is gonna screw us. So the moral of the story is: We’re all screwed. Can we all agree that we’re all screwed? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
I agree on that, but to take a side and say take it from A and give it to B, when A and B are basically the same doesn’t make sense to me. You want to take power from big business then let’s protest the bailouts, and organize a countrywide boycott of walmart or something till then we are just speaking out of our butts when we say we don’t like big business, because you’re giving power to a big business anyways.
I’m down with this countrywide boycotting of Wal Mart.
It would require a much larger boycott of Wal-Mart than any of us could muster. Hell, many people already boycott Wal-Mart. Can you imagine how many people it would take to actually hurt Wal-Mart in the slightest? Or other major profiting corporations? It’s a noble idea that we can affect business but it’s damn near impossible. Talking out our butts is about all we can do. We don’t have the power to control them.
If you want proof we can’t beat corporations then look at tobacco companies.
Huge campaigns to get people to stop using, massive restrictions on how they can be sold, well publicized health warnings and still the largest companies make billions.
Then there’s the ethical question of putting a company out of business (with a boycott) rather than letting it be regulated by the government. If its regulated its a clean decapitation, the guys responsible for bad stuff get cut out and the unethical assets are extracted. But boycotting a company is death by a thousand cuts. Upper management will sack the rank and file long before anyone important faces any kind of threat. As bad as Wallmart is I still wouldn’t want to see 2,000,000 people lose their jobs and their pensions.
The tobacco industry is a shell of it’s former glory. That’s a terrible example. All that proves is that the stupidity of people will always conquer the most nobel intentions.
Ah Rando. I’m not necessarily in it to “bring down Wal Mart”.. I just think it would be neat if we, as a country, could actually do something on that scale in protest.
Okay, maybe “bringing down Wal-Mart” was poorly worded. Getting them to change their unethical ways would be better. If they can’t achieve their success playing by the rules, then they shouldn’t have success.
No no Rando. I’m not disagreeing with you at all. I think Wal Mart is evil too.
all companies seek to make money, but wal-mart does it in such a republican way…
Why is the Government’s (local albeit) business to do their best to prevent, say, a chain store from screwing you out of your pocket change using bait and switch tactics, but it’s not their business to prevent a bank screwing you out of absolutely everything you own. Is it just the scale of the business doing the screwing?
No, you see, when banks screw over people, they make even more money, and that helps big business, which helps the economy. So more people need to get screwed over to keep the economy strong.
Yup the Rich especially take all they have and give it to the have nots. That’s how you fix an economy.
See, now you’re getting it ILPB! I knew you’d come around.
Well, giving more to the haves sure as hell isn’t gonna fix things.
” I see no reason why business can’t be regulated to make sure they stay in line and don’t buttsecks the middle class.”
because the people who run the businesses are hand-in-glove with the people who run the government. they went to school together. they go to the same parties. they were BFF in their super-elite prep schools. business wants something, next thing you know the appropriate government palms are greased, someone has a dinner party, and the middle class is f*cked again.
who’s going to pass the regulations on the CEOs? the same good ol’ boys who went to keggers with them? not likely. ethics has to make a reappearance in the political arena (heck, *anywhere* would be good) before federal regulation will stick.
Having lived most of my life during the Cold War, Reagan wasn’t a recipient of circumstance. The fact is, the USSR was on a spending par militarily with the US until Reagan came along. He upped the ante with SDI which the Soviets just couldn’t compete with. He in fact caused the collaps of the USSR by spending more than they could ever dream of doing.
Wait for it……
*waiting for the “and bankrupted the US in the process line”*
And it would be a lie.. with the exception of Black Monday in ’89, the economy stayed pretty healthy. Even through Clinton’s term in office.
And Reagan also hit the home run to win the big game. Geez, and the righties give us crap for “worshipping” Obama. If we liked Obama half as much as the right loves Reagan, then “Messiah” would be an understatement. He wasn’t great. At all.
How can you say he wasn’t great? It wasn’t like he armed Saddam Hussein or anything. Oh, wait…
But Regan actually accomplished something. He didn’t win awards because he thought about it. He made mistakes too, as all men do.
Remind me what he accomplished in the first year of his Presidency. Deduct a point if you mention “freeing the hostages”. (I’m not saying you will, but if you do, you need to read up on what actually happened.)
I addressed my feelings on Obama’s Nobel elsewhere in the thread. I think now more than ever he is a poor choice for that award, especially with the sorry excuse for a speech he gave. And once again, I don’t think much of Reagan’s “accomplishments.”
Just for starters. The largest tax cuts ever enacted in the history of the United States of America.
Tax cuts for the rich, you mean. And just to jog your memory, it sent us into a recession.
It sent us into a recession? Maybe it sent you into a depression, but not our economy into a recession.
And tax cuts for the rich? They were paying 70%. I think that was dishonest in the first place. And a big part of what brought about Carter’s misery index. If anything, those tax cuts were across the board, and brought about a lot of prosperity.
@Ivan: The recession was already happening before Reagan took office, thanks in large part to Paul Volker who Jimmy Carter put in as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Besides, if Reagan did such a horrible job, why was his re-election a landslide in ’84?
Yes, the power of words. It’s too bad that Obama’s never credited with being a good speaker…
It’s so funny that people who criticize Obama for his star-quality so often seem to worship Reagan for the exact same quality.
Of course, what I remember Reagan the most for is the Iran-Contra scandal that somehow seemed to make Ollie North a hero. Since when is aiding and abetting something to be reinforced?
Obama speeches = ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ for me.
And Reagan speeches did much the same for me.
To answer ILPB’s point below, yes, I think he’s a very good speaker. Speaking is not just about ad-libbing, but if you think his blunders rank anywhere near Bush’s in terms of total magnitude, you must have had some rose-filtered earphones on.
Neb: You can aks most here, not a Bush fan, so the rose earphones are a FAIL! Obama really can’t speak, most people I’ve talked to who’ve seen him in “intimate” meetings say he has lots of problems getting his point across.
Well, I can’t say I’ve talked to anyone who’s seen him in intimate meetings, but based on your political persuasion, is it possible those people are predisposed to have certain opinions about him?
Also, note my other point that public speaking does not equal ad-libbing. (I almost wrote !=, but it occurred to me that notation might be lost on this forum, as I’m not sure how common it is outside of tech circles.)
Wife works State Department, not really an area of Government predeposed to not liking Liberal Presidents.
Some notations do not work, if you want to say not equal here it’s best to use =/=
First of all, let me say that I’m not saying you’re wrong, as I have absolutely no knowledge of his private speaking.
Secondly, I do think it’s important to acknowledge his skill as an orator. Was your wife working in the State Department during the Reagan era? (Don’t answer that if if she was and there’s any chance of this getting traced back to her – she might not forgive you for implicitly acknowledging her age.) Although I’ll find plenty of things to fault Reagan for, I do think he helped our country with his ability to inspire confidence. The jury’s still out on how Obama will do in that regard, but it seems that we are turning a corner in this recession. (Granted, it might be the middle corner in a “W”.)
Neb: I was just citing my points. And IMHO I don’t think Obama is a good orator. I don’t fill confidence when he speaks. Clinton could be talking reach around steal your wallet in front of you, and by the time the speech is done you’re thanking him.
Nah Wife just started.
And you are right, we are in for a RUDE awakening very soon, this is just a brief recovery. Come next Fall especially if this Health Care think goes the way it is, we’re fvcked.
Whoa, there. Don’t say I’m “right” about the “W”. I’m saying it’s one possibility, but I don’t think it’s what we’re going to see. Of course, trying to make predictions is difficult, especially about the future.
I hope you’re wrong, and I hope you hope you’re wrong, too. (I suspect you do. You don’t strike me as a Limbaugh fan.)
Didn’t get that Limbaugh. That’s from the Libertarians and other economic people. The problem with the Stimulous plan is it was a band aid on an open artery. That band aid’s working for now, but once it’s tackness wears off. The only think saving us right now is that OPEC has not decided to go with the Euro. If we don’t get the dollar strong again (ie raise interest rates, curb governmetn spending) we’re screwed. $6.00 a gallon for gas, that’ll destroy our economy.
The Limbaugh reference was to when he said he hoped Obama would fail. I’m suggesting that I don’t think you share that opinion. I.e., that you hope you’re wrong. (Of course, hoping you’re wrong doesn’t mean thinking you’re wrong.)
As for the Stimulus Plan being a band-aid, that’s not a bad analogy. Hopefully, it was sufficient in preventing infection on our open wound of an economy, but quite possibly it wasn’t. My dad (quite conservative) follows that stuff a lot, and he’s sent me lots of e-mails predicting U-shaped, V-shaped, W-shaped, and L-shaped recoveries (although I’m not sure you can call that last one a recovery). If you’ve got ten economists in a room, you’ve got 20 opinions. What I’m really saying is that I don’t know what’s going to happen, and I haven’t seen any consensus of opinion from the “experts”. I’ve seen really good arguments all around, but also note that a lot of the arguments seem to be predicated on unpredictable externalities (e.g., your $6 a gallon possibility), either assuming the best or assuming the worst (and I’m sure a lot assume something in between).
You really think Obama’s a decent speaker? Everytime he Ad libs he’s almost as bad as Bush.
Plus Reagan broke the Air Traffic Controller’s Union, and opened the door for companies across the land to do it, too! Among those companies, ADM followed suit less than a year later, 1000′s of people lost their jobs, unions became weaker, wages went downhill, goodbye middle class, my town shrunk in population – we (as a town, as a NATION) are STILL reeling from the effects.
For another thing, deregulation of ALL kinds led to numerous fekups that this country is STILL trying to fix.
Yeah, Reagan was GREAT . . . my dyin’ A$$.
If only — then the whole nation could be like Detroit! Oh joy!
Well, I see it this way: with a prosperous company and prosperous workers, this town grew, steadily.
Without an employer paying decent wages, the town shrunk, poverty grew, crime grew, schools and roads decayed, home ownership shrunk – I could go on and on. I think meth-production is our current claim to fame!
I saw it very clearly: lots of happy middle-class families when I was growing up, and now a clear and large rift between hordes of poor and a few upper crust “professionals”.
Not to mention (but I will) that ADM’s safety record in the 20 years immediately following the strike and mass firing was HORRIBLE. Many workers died. It became a morbid joke in town. (Safety has gotten better since then.)
Correlation does not equal causation. (And union employers are not the only prosperous employers that pay decent wages.)
The Rust Belt had (and still has) deep, systematic issues that have nothing to do with the affiliation of the work force. (Although some of these issues are directly tied to union interference in government.)
Union employers may not be the only ones paying decent wages, but in most states a contract (union or individual) is the only thing standing between you and sudden termination at the whim of your employer for any or no reason. (As the employer of somebody very close to me reminds their employees ad nauseum, “This is a right to work state and we can fire you whenever we feel like it!”)
Diss: That’s so Un-American…. EVERYONE deserves to have a job, regardless of qualifications, work ethic, and integrity… it’s their Rights.
People who are doing their jobs should be able to rely on them being there next week/month (barring layoffs or failure of the company) unless they actually screw up badly; you shouldn’t get fired because your boss woke up in a bad mood or wants to give his brother-in-law’s kid your job, in my opinion.
Everyone now works at the will of the company. This is due in large part to the companies not having any dedication to the employees, and employees not having any dedication to the company. A lot that started when people started changing jobs like they do their underwear.
Remind me never to look at Eddie’s underwear…
Hi, Eds.
Guess what we have on the ground? (And on the roads this morning, so you can imagine what Albuquerque was like for the morning ‘rush hour.’) And still coming down.
Sorry, I’m not the least bit jealous. Guess what we have? 90 and rain.. what a wonderful day in Australia!
its only in the 70′s down here in florida. slight threat of rain but not much
Oh, Eds, I just thought it would be fond memory (NM drivers in snow).
Do you know that I actually had to explain to someone why the Australian Open was in the ‘winter.’ He just could not get that it was summer ‘down under.’ I finally gave up — you can’t fix stupid.
Oh, and regarding Detroit: Sometimes people eff themselves.
I agree with the notion that unions got too greedy. IMO, my dad did the right thing: he voted to take the final offer from the company, and not strike. I *don’t* believe the company should fire everyone and hire scabs.
I gotta get going. Have to read this later.
How does Unions = to good? You realize that most jobs going overseas are partially due to Unions, right?
The only reason Reagan fired the air traffic controllers is because they went on strike illegally. Even though they had a right to unionize they were forbidden from striking (and they even signed an agreement to that effect as did all federal employees who were in a union), plus they held the nations air transportation by the short ones and tried to force Reagan’s hand by striking. I knew a few people that were air traffic controllers that chose to strike, and when Reagan issued his ultimatum a few thought he was blowing smoke.. that is until they found themselves without a job. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that Reagan was responsible for union busting, only at the federal level. Places like Detroit were victims of there own greed. I mean seriously, people were getting paid $25 p/hr to hang a bumper on a car. I can’t count the times you would hear on the news that the AFL-CIO were going on strike for better wages. If you want to blame anyone for the demise of a local economy, blame it on the unions and their greed.
People talk about how great the 80′s were under Reagan. The 80′s were great…if you were rich. Otherwise the 80′s were a living hell. There was absolutely no balance. I’m sure someone will say “I wasn’t rich and the 80′s were great for me,” and that may be true, but honestly it wasn’t a good time for the middle class. In fact, I can’t think of a Republican administration in recent years that WAS good for the middle class.
Regan liked making little airplanes
….followed by making tiny paper air traffic controllers to fire.
And little paper bag handlers to demote.
That I believe.
A rising tide floats all boats, in a good economy everyone does well. Even the under acheivers in this country have it good.
That logic (or lack there-of) just made my head assplode.
I know, right? I need to let my parents know how awesome things were in the 80s when they were both working crap jobs so we could live in a roach infested apartment.
Rando: My dad lost his job while striking (THANKS, ADM!). Even though he voted not to strike, he stayed with his union. Tough times and tension in the whole CITY, and within families trying to make ends meet, resulted in, for one, lots of divorces in town, my parents among them.
I think that many unions are leftovers from when they were absolutely necessary. Many of them now do more harm than good, IMO, but that’s not to say this was always the case (or is always the case).
My least favorite unions are teachers’ unions, and that’s probably partly because I used to be a public high school teacher, and I know how hard they made it to get rid of incompetent teachers.
Actually, I’d agree with you on the teacher’s unions, although I’ll point out it’s damn difficult to get rid of anyone in a civil service job, union or no….But, yeah, that’s an area where there needs to be some type of performance expectations keyed to retention.
Performance evaluations are key, but especially how they’re measured. Tying them to student performance is an awful idea as new teachers tend to get stuck with poorly performing students. However, I do think that the evaluation system we had at my school was pretty good (except for having no real consequences): three times a year, someone came into your class and observed you teaching (including looking at your lesson plans, etc.). IIRC, it was typically 3 different people (lead teacher, assistant principle, etc.). If you failed to pass one of those evaluations, they’d give you another one on a different day, up to 5. You had to pass 3 of the 5 (or 3 of 3, if you passed them all, which was usually the case, I think). If not, you were on “probation”.
Uh-huh.. well I lived under Carter in the 70′s and I can tell you that I spent many a week not having enough money to buy food. I was renting a mobile home that took half of my monthly wage to live in, the rest was evenly divided between gas to get to work (no, there wasn’t public transport that would have gotten me to work), food, and utilities. I did all of that on $2.86 p/hr. So say what you will about the 80′s, but the 70′s sucked hard and I barely made it out alive.
Too much Disco?
Sounds like my experience of the first half of the ’80s, to be honest. Of course some of that’s on me for not having much in the way of job skills or experience then.
Diss I’d blame Madonna and Cindy Lauper (Sp)
@ILPB: I went to a Disco Club once, at a friends insistance, and thought my head would explode. How in the hell that ever became popular I will never know.
@Eds: Drugs.
@Diss and Eds: It’s called LSD.
@diss: Remember that Reagan was still trying to get the economy under control after Carter and that it wasn’t until the middle of Reagan’s first term that things started turning around. In no way did everything suddenly become better because a Republican was in office, but it damn sure started things going uphill for a change.
And Travolta
I never really did get into drugs. Smoked pot a few times, but never really tried the other stuff. That’s probably because I saw what the sh*t did to my sister and didn’t want any part of it.
*perks up* LSD?
They would have been better in a third world country? My point was that in a country with a good economy all people do well, maybe not equally but all people tend to do better.
Your point? I thought that was omy’s point.
That was me on my personal laptop, now I’m back on my work laptop.
Oh wow. I totally thought I was arguing with a conservatroll.
But I AM a conservatroll! You can still argue with me!
I had rebooted my laptop and my email was wiped out and I forgot what I had used and I was in a hurry…
coughsockcough
*cough* true enough *cough*
n00bs, where are your n00bettes?
Oops…
Oh yes? Britain was enormously wealthy under Victoria. The cities were squalid pestholes because nothing was done to improve conditions for the poorest people. It took the Ripper murders to focus public attention on conditions there. Similar story in the US. Read Jacob Riis or “Twenty Years at Hull House”. Conditions don’t improve for the poor unless there’s intentional investment of financial resources and social services. The same story is happening in India right now. A relatively small portion of the population is getting really rich, and the rest are scrabbling to feed themselves. Many critics attribute this to the caste system. God help you if you’re born an Untouchable.
The last one was pretty good — money was cheap and the economy was strong for a good six or seven years.
GWB? I must’ve missed that part. From what I saw, it was a pretty steady decline for the most part.
That’s b/c you’re a liberal. The Stock Market was at it’s height the dollar was still sucky, but the economy did grow after recovery from 9/11. It was the housing bust that destroyed the economy, sort of like the economy under Bill started to die his last two years do to the internet bust.
b/c I’m a liberal. So in other words, because I didn’t like the administration elected in 2000, I saw things in a negative light, is that what you’re saying?
Well, that does seem to be what you meant by “Whatever the numbers said on paper was not reality for all Americans”.
What I was getting at was that for the first few years, even as things went downhill, I wasn’t looking at Bush negatively. I voted for the idiot. It took a while to realize what an awful mistake that was. I didn’t look at things negatively because I was a liberal. I looked at things negatively because that was what was going on.
Rando: If I said that the economy wasn’t great in the middle of the Clinton years, I would think my opinion is scewed by my conservatvie tendacies.
And for the first part of last decade I had insanely embraced many conservative ideologies (boy am I glad I got over that). After a few years of Bush, I realized the whole conservative thing was a load of crap and went back to my bleeding heart ways. So what I’m saying is that my impression of the Bush administration wasn’t tainted by being a liberal (at least not at first). Hell, my liberal family thought I had gone insane during the first part of this decade.
we are glad you came back from the dark side rando….did you bring any of them cookies?
You…you voted for Bush? Traitor! It’s all your fault! *blames Rando for everythingthat happened under the bush administration*
I’m with ILPB on this one — in what way?
I saw jobs start to evaporate around 2002, and it only got worse from there. Again, the stock market is fine, but what did the middle class gain from the Bush administration? Nothing. Whatever the numbers said on paper was not reality for all Americans. I’ve heard before that the economy did well under Bush. It makes me laugh.
Sorry Rando I disagree. Maybe in your area life wasn’t “booming” but most of Ameirca was doing well for a while under Bush. In 2002 most jobs being lost were still in regards to 9/11, but after that recovery the un-employment rate was about 3.5%, lowest in a few decades.
The few people I knew didn’t blame getting laid off on Bush, people blame Bush for a lot of things but sending jobs overseas isn’t one of them.
In addition to our political biases, our personal experiences are naturally going to influence our perceptions. Different regions and different business sectors have different economies. I work for a software company that does various types of engineering simulations, and our sector is strong. It was also strong during the Bush years.
Then, there are statistics. Here are 2 simple ones: Mean income went up during most of the Bush administration. Median income went down (in terms of constant dollars). IMO, median income is more telling as that means the majority of people saw a decrease in their income. I’d provide a link, but my posts always seem to get held when I do that. Google on “median income Bush administration” to see what I’m talking about.
Oh, I almost forgot. There’s a difference between unemployed and underemployed. Just because UNemployment was low didn’t mean that enough people had jobs that paid them something to live off of.
Yes, working at Taco Bell for minimum wage a career it is not.
Though, I never did work at Taco Bell, shameless pretenders to Mexican food that they are.
Yo quiero taco bell. I know it’s not real Mexican, but it’s so nommy!
Rando, I’m going whole heartedly disagree. I was a victim of Jimmy Carter and I can tell you that under Reagan I did a hell of a lot better. Let’s put this into perspective in regards to Republicans v. Democrats; When Carter was president we had an economy that was in shambles, a foreign policy that allowed US citizens to be taken hostage, and a military that couldn’t fight it’s way out of a paperbag, all under a Democrat president. Along comes a Republican that did turn the economy around and made it strong enough that it actually continued to be solvent all the way through to GWB. Now, in my opinion, had GWB not been faced with 9/11, I truly believe that the economy would have still continued to prosper. But it was his military spending, while putting everything else on the back burner, that caused the economy to hemorrhage. In this instance, I will agree that this one Republican wasn’t good for the country.
Okay, we get it. Carter sucked. He certainly wasn’t the best of us. The Reagan worship really bothers me because the only people I know who did well in the 80′s were people who were already doing well. Was the economy better overall? I suppose technically so. But for whom was it better? Everyone? That’s a joke.
By no means did I worship Reagan, but to answer your question, yes, overall the economy was much stronger when Reagan left office than it was when he came in. I was by no means well off, and if anything I have always been your average middle class tax payer. But, under Reagan I was able to buy a home, I was never threatened with losing my job, I could afford to feed a family of 5 on my wage alone, and still had money for vacations. I know that things weren’t rosey for your parents, but more than likely that has to do with the area you lived in. It doesn’t mean that it’s symptomatic of the economy as a whole. And let me add this, I was living in California at the time of Reagan, which had a Democrat as Governor. In the 80′s major companies were fleeing the state because of the taxes that were put in place on big business which made it fiscally unviable to remain in the state and still maintain solvency. Ask anyone that lived in California at the time and they will tell that nearly every single aerospace company left to cities and states that weren’t going to tax the bejeezus out of them. The only industries that thrived during that time was entertainment and IT. Most other big companies that remained were sucking the hind teat just to keep going.
Good for you. The problem with your story is, the period of the early 80s was one of the worst recessions in American history. My experiences at least matched up with the majority of Americans. Yours were an exception.
The unemployment rate from Sept. 1982 to June 1983 ranged from 10.1% to 10.8%. Compare that to recent numbers: October 2009 was 10.2%, Nov. 2009 was 10%.
My reply was intended to point out to Rando that it wasn’t only the rich in the 80′s that got by. I know there was inflation, that the employment rate was up, and that things weren’t perfect. But, compared to the administration before Reagan, things were a damn sight better. Just as Obama is trying to recover from an economy that is in the toilet, so was Reagan. The difference is he tried to slow the recession by raising corporate taxes rather than raise personal income tax. Further to this, if things were so horrible under Reagan, how in the world did he manage to get re-elected?
how did reagan get re-elected?
same way all hooman presidents get elected or re-elected.
Charm!
How do you think Clinton won? charm!
How do you think Bush the first won?
the democrates ran a man with anti-charm!
and the second bush won?
Loads of charm on that man.
What? Eddie, the 70s may have had high fuel prices and a brief oil crunch (I remember a couple of summers with long gas lines), but it is the END of a period of growth which started post-WWII and a GOLDEN AGE of the middle class! And, here, you’re trying to say Carter ruined the economy for you?
First of all, even I will recognize that the economy is not entirely dependent upon what the President does. Secondly, please don’t even ask a question like, “if things were so horrible under Reagan, how in the world did he manage to get re-elected?” Simple Answer: Charm, personality, affability . . . Smart-ass Answer: Look at Dubya – a HUGE FAIL, yet he managed it, didn’t he?
And I never even got to Bitter Troll’s reply . . .
Exactement!
OH BTW: I can’t even BELIEVE you’re blaming Carter for the hostages . . . so passe, and utter B.S! His foreign policy to blame, you say? “Allow”? WTF? I suppose next you’ll be blaming the failed rescue on him, when it was sandstorm vs. helicopter, IIRC, and giving Reagan the credit for “bringing the hostages home”! That’s what all the 1980-81 (onward, ad nauseum) conservatives did, mistaken though it was.
The 80′s were great for me. Despite the fact that I had no job and no money I was still waited on hand and foot, all my needs met at the slightest hint. Then came the 90′s. That’s when kindergarten started. It was all downhill from there.
*snerk*
Middle school for me.
Gah I know right? F*ckin Ace of base at the 6th grade dance…. Shoot me in the face…
Oooo…a baby.
The 80s were okay for me as I was in college at probably the end of the times that someone could actually work one’s way through college. However, it was pretty bad for my parents until they moved overseas to work. I think the economy in WA State was pretty bad overall.
Oh geez, I saw that one coming a mile away..
I think that each of your accusations is how you feel and not accurate. Sorry.
VNV let me set up the facts:
Not listening to the people: Health Care Bill
Troops dying: Took him 6 months to decide on an Afghanastan plan, all the while the situation was esculating there.
He told the American people to sacrafice for the good of the country, yet 1. Date night (yes I’ll go there). 2. White House dinner (which was crashed). 3. Michelle OBama’s staff is largest in history. 4. 1.5% pay raise to federal employees, allows himself a 3.5% pay raise.
Lies: Openess of administration. Afghanastan will be a priority in my Administration. There’s more but I have more to type.
Peace Award: Simple, didn’t earn it, shouldn’t have taken it. HAVE some Integrity please.
There’s more out there I could go on with.
“Not listening to the people: Health Care Bill”
What if the people are wrong?
Oh of course they are wrong!? Geez, Obama knows what’s good for us all! Let’s let him run our lives, what’s wrong with you people?!
We NEED health care reform, we NEED it. We aren’t getting it from our enlightened elected officials.
Your idea of health care reform will only make things worse.
A free market economy has made our country the greatest most properous country in the world.
And, you don’t think this health care reform won’t? You are too naive. If it’s so great, why all the secrets? And yes, my biggest problem is that they aren’t reading the bills before passing them. That’s stupid, reckless, and is not what we pay them for. Also, they have not shown how we are going to pay for this without raising taxes. They say we are already paying for it, but it’s just lip service. There hasn’t been any real numbers come out to show that “this” is the money coming in, “this” is what we’re paying for now, and “this” is what we will be paying for under the bill.
I’ll admit to being concerned about the health care bill. I’m concerned that it’s being half-assed and won’t provide the real reform we need, which is likely the kind of reform you don’t want, sdrawkcab.
I’ve given up on the health care issue… I made it to about page 900 of the first draft before congress… then …. well… congress got a hold of it, and I gave up.
Eh… feck… Then The Senate* got a hold of it…
Of course not, the people know nothing! They need to be told what to do.
Rando: I beleive the world is in agreement here that the Democrats could have put a (can’t say Monkey b/c that’s racist) Donkey up for election who believed everyone should eat carrots and only carrots and the Donkey still woudl have won election. The 2008 Election was not about Health Care, Iraq, Afghanastan, etc it was about the dumb a$$ Republicans who ran the country into the ground by getting away from their ideals, and that the country wanted to see the Dems in office.
The ideals being “make the rich richer, make the poor poorer, and shrink the middle class as fast as possible”. No… i think we should just forever stay away from the Republican “ideals”.
I fear for 2012. I don’t want to go back into the darkness after only 4 years. We can’t go back, VNV!!!!
Then tell your PResdient to start listening to the people. It sucks when your the minority in a democracy.
When the rich get rich even the poor prosper. Look how much better the poor have it in a rich country? If you don’t want to work you can still get food and shelter. Where else in the world is that possible?
So, you’d rather kill big business, which pays the middle and lower class. Very good plan VNV. You really should step back and think about things before you post them. I’m sorry, but I don’t know many middle or lower class people that higher other people. You might have some middle class people with 10 – 15 employees, but not the 30k+ of big business. And, the rich people you hate so much make that money because they are responsible for keeping the company running right. Also, it has been proven time and time again, that you can raise / add taxes, and they’ll just find ways around it.
Furthermore, it should REALLY make you mad that we spend tax payer money to keep these guys in business. However, I’m sure you loved the bailouts. And yes, I hated it when Bush did it. That’s because I believe in capitalism, which means that “too big to fail” doesn’t exist. If / when these companies go under, another will step up. That’s the way of capitalism. What we’ve done is kept those people from having their opportunity.
I really don’t know if I even could go back Rando. I might have to act sooner than I thought.
Oh I wouldn’t kill big business. I would just have the government take control of it, make them all non profit organizations, and the distribute goods as needed by the people. And if that’s killing it, then so be it.
VNV: I believe by a capitalistic definition, your idea is pretty much killing Big Business, and the American Dream.
Well since the American Dream is and always has been a huge lie, so be it. I’d pull the trigger myself.
It hasn’t ALWAYS been a lie. That doesn’t even make sense. Immigrants would stop coming if it was.
@omy–You call that prospering?? If by prospering you mean “hopefully not starving to death,” then I suppose you’re right. But the ones who almost always get fleeced during Republican administrations are the middle class. NOBODY is looking out for our interests. The poor have welfare to help them out (sometimes). The rich have Republicans giving them tax cuts so they can be even richer, but who helps the middle class? Nobody. The middle class gets screwed, and the Republican Party seems okay with that as long as their rich buddies are doing well.
You missed the point Rando, If you want to prosper you can, it’s possible. If you don’t want to, you can still get food an shelter. And, tax cuts by themselves don’t make anyone richer, it just leaves more money in private hands to invest and enrich the economy, which it always does.
This conversation is giving me a headache.
Head On applied directly to the forehead. Head On applied directly to the forehead. Head On applied directly to the forehead.
Nail gun apply directly to the forehead..
hmmmmmmm, nobody wants to respond to this one.
Dhoti, please don’t bring up he who shall not be named… I mean.. you’re talking about one crazy f*cker right there.
Words I never thought I’d ever hear from Dhoti.
*shifty eyes*
I like this Nebton fella…
His/her name is Nebbi! At last that’s what I have decided to call him/her until he/she says otherwise.
The people are governed, not ruled.
Well, I guess if the people don’t know what’s good for them, then we can all spiral straight into hell since that’s what the majority of us seem to want.
I get it. It’s all about freedom and liberty. Including apparently the freedom to be morons and drag the rest of us down with them.
Have a lot of faith in your country, don’t you?
I don’t! I have to deal with them every day! They are oppressed, lied to, and convinced. Its a shame really. They had so much potential.
VNV: Big government does opress doesn’t it.
I don’t think its the size of the government that matters. You could have a government of one person, and if they passed laws letting companies do whatever they wanted, we would still be oppressed. That whole “we want small government” crap is nonsense. You can either be oppressed by companies that solely have thier own profits in mind, or you can feel oppressed by a body you pay for, that is supposed to help protect you from said companies. I would go with the government every time. The American people just all think they are gonna grow up to be rich. And the American people couldn’t be more wrong.
Nope. But I’m just yer typical liberal that way.
VNV: Sorry you’re int he wrong country if you feel that way. Said before you shouldn’t be changing the ideals of a nation to fit yours. That’s not really a DEmocracy now is it?
No, I don’t think you do — because it’s also respecting those you disagree with enough to try to change their minds or at least come to a consensus; not to write them off as selfish pigs and hope that someone will come along to force them to do you what you want.
That sounds pretty naive to me. A consensus? In this day and age? The parties are moving further and further apart. The chances of a consensus these days is unlikely. Partisan politics is running the game now, and whoever is in control is going to push through their agenda. And as for trying to change their minds, why waste time talking to a brick wall?
Which people is he not listening to? The right wing pundits? Fox News? The people foolish enough to be swayed even after they voted for him to do it? I am for the Health Care Bill, so… he is listning to me.
Troops were dying because Bush started a war.
I think each president has said that we need sacrifice for the good of the people, and yet they all get raises. Hell, even I got a raise this year. So?
Lies? Sounds like opinions. Your opinions.
Peace Award – was given to him from someplace else.
You could go on, but it looks like more of your opinions, which are still not accurate.
The majority of the people don’t like the health care debacle. There are other ways to bring down the cost of insurance and health care that include a free market system which is what this country was built on and what makes us great. That bill is a government power grab and that is all it is, it does nothing to bring down costs.
Opinion only. I happen to think its a great idea.
VNV: Seriosuly dude, you’re creating a head desk moment. Facts are, all mojor polls show that a mojority of people in this country are not in favor of the Health Care Bill that is being pushed through Congress now. Simple fact. I can prove it if you want.
I am sorry ILPB, the head desk moment has come and gone with your posts as well as many other this morning. Your proof that Republicans have spent enough money to have a successful smear campaign really doesn’t prove anything. It just proves that people can be sold fear, and the party of sameness has only that fear in stock to sell.
Even if your OPINION that it’s all a result of a smear campaign is true it doesn’t matter because opinion is still different. It shouldn’t matter if you think it’s a good idea or not.
The reason no one likes THIS health care bill being “pushed through” is that the republicans have managed to nix anything that would have made it actual reform. Concessions to the right have made this a watery bill indeed. But baby steps, folks. If they pass this, it opens things up to more reform.
Of course, Ivan — those Republican minorities, who can do absolutely nothing to block a bill with broad Democratic support, are the ones with all the power here.
I agree ay dios mio, that all we can share here are opinions. I just happen to think that intelligent folk will clearly see how moving social and political parties left will benefit humanity much better in the long run. I also happen to think poorly of those who think that right wing politics is the answer. Purely opinion, but I stick by it, because I know I’m right, which is another convenient opinion to have.
Which is the problem. You for some reason you think you have the monopoly on intelligence and compassion. It’s ok to think you’re right, but not because you think you’re right.
I didn’t say I had the monopoly on anything, but my intelligence is the first thing insulted for having my opinions. I do not think it is unfair for me to question the intelligence of those standing against me, including you dios mio.
I didn’t question your intelligence. I in fact know you are intelligent. You just never give the same indulgence to somebody who disagrees with you.
And they give me the same indulgences. And I am not one to back down to those who I believe are incorrect. So here we are at a stand still. We all know there is no winning a debate on pk. We can only argue temporarily and it usually comes down to who can stay on the internet longer and to get the last word. Now I am gonna go see Avatar and see if its as awesome as people are saying. By the time I get back ILPB will have found a way to cap everything I have said with his final say, and if he doesn’t Dhoti will. That’s cool by me. Imma go see a movie. When those readers who think as I do read what I write, they will understand, and that’s why I write it.
AVATAR SUCKS YOU’RE WRONG LASTWORDLASTWORDLASTWORD
FROTHFROTHFROTH
VNV Is a bitter bitter man….. **puts cap on VNV posts** I got the floppy eared cap so your posts ears don’t get cold. It’s frigid out there.
A free market system will do jack squat. Why isn’t there competition now? Because they can easily keep prices high across the board without anyone to stop them. When it comes to something people need, there is nothing to stop the companies from keeping prices jacked up. Everyone still needs health care no matter what it costs.
I like mornings when you are a around Rando, I don’t have to say nearly as much. Thanks!
Because of government interference.
That’s a load of crap.
Rando: Sorry Government interference will drive cost up about 99.9% of the time.
I’m assuming you’re probably referring to Medicare? Yeah, I have a hunch that if you remove whatever effects that Medicare has, prices aren’t necessarily going to go down.
Except for when government breaks up monopolies and cartles, or when government subsidizes certain practices.
Or when they levy enviromental requirements on company that forces the company to raise prices, when the government taxes imports to “try” and get people to buy American, or when the Government forces people to pay employees a minimal amount so either the person has to lay off people or rasie prices….. Pretty much Government meddling in business hurts the little guy (whom I thought y’all were for), and forces the Big Companies to either look elsewhere for production or rasie prices as well.
ILPB, I’m very capitalistic in general, but (not talking here about small businesses so much as the larger ones) I think there’s a certain amount of hypocrisy in corporations going “Waaah, waaah, I have to pay my employees enough that they’re not living in cardboard boxes and they won’t let me dump chemicals out back anymore, woe is meeeeee!” while at the same time drastically increasing executive pay and perks.
Diss: It pi$$es me off too, however it also pi$$es me off when the government “intervenes” on behalf of the “little guy” but in the end screws the little guy, which happens more often than not.
If I may take a moment from my airplanes for a moment to politely interject my opinion here, then I will be done. I’m all about helping poor people, and when you look at the quality of life of poor people in socialistic economies and free-market economies the poor in the free market have it much better. My roommate from Hungry is middle class there and his family has an old car and they are proud of it, here, the poorest usually have a car, sometimes a dozen cars! All scattered around the lawn. That’s all I have to say about it.
It depends on how you frame the question. In surveys from Fox News, the majority of people don’t like the health care bill. In other surveys, the majority of people do like the health care bill.
What’s not debatable is that Obama campaigned on a promise of reforming health care and won the election, with a very comfortable margin.
This guy gets it!
Yes, but he’s not reforming anything. No where in the bill do they address the real problem which is the high cost. It will cost the same and more now and we will all be paying for it.
Actually, in many, many, many places they address the problem of high cost. You’re entitled to your opinion that the way they address it is incorrect, but to pretend they don’t even address it is crass and intellectually dishonest.
Please, list a few for us, Nebton. I see plenty of government subsidy, but very little cost control.
What’s the point? Any thing I point out (e.g., provisions disallowing insurance companies from reneging on promises of coverage), you’ll counter with an argument that it doesn’t “really” address the issue of cost control. It’s like the “invisible gardener” argument. Trying to argue against him is a losing battle because the target will be moved with each new response.
I don’t really think that’s true. I just think you can’t find an example of actual cost control. You know why? BECAUSE IT’S GOVERNMENT!!!111!!
*I didn’t intend to sound mean
I just gave you an example. Re-read what I wrote, and pay attention to the “e.g.” bit. (“E.g.” means “for example”.)
Wow, Neb, that’s shockingly closed-minded. (Or maybe it’s just blind faith. I’m not sure.)
Either way, why are you here? Just to yell at people?
Your own words admit that those aren’t good examples. Putting an e.g. in front of it doesn’t change that. Honestly I don’t know enough about it to argue but I’m quite certain Dhoti does, and I think you know that too. So you took an easy out and then attacked me even though I threw up a disclaimer that it was a joke.
Dhoti: ¿Que? The only one yelling was ay dios mio (in a humorous way, of course). And what the heck are you referring to that was “close minded”? My sarcasm?
ay dios mio: No, my own words admitted that dhoti wouldn’t find them to be good examples. I happen to think the example I gave is a very good example. It’s my favorite part of the bill, in fact. And, I’m sorry if you were insulted by my sarcasm. I do tend to rely on sarcasm quite heavily, and I realize it’s a weakness of mine.
Maybe it’s just me, Neb, but I took “Trying to argue against him is a losing battle because the target will be moved with each new response” to be pretty closed-minded. Declaring anyone who disagrees with you to be playing games is pretty closed-minded.
Or am I missing something?
I’m basing it on the fact that you presumably already know what’s in the bill and yet see “very little cost control”. Ergo, you’ve defined “cost control” very differently than I.
Perhaps, or perhaps I just interpret the bill differently. Regardless, you’re still refusing to open your mind to other points of view, which is, rather by definition, closed minded.
What point of view am I refusing to open my mind to? Or, by “open my mind to” do you mean “accept as true”? All I’ve heard is that you think there’s very little cost control, and I provided my favorite counter example (to which you gave no response), and you think I’m the one who has closed his mind. Please help me to be enlightened by defining:
(a) Opening one’s mind – does it require accepting all opinions as equal, or merely being able to seriously consider opposing points of view? If you think I’m a hard-core lefty, then it’s because you don’t know me. (To be fair, I don’t know you either, and am also no doubt making subconscious assumptions about you that aren’t accurate.)
(b) Cost control – are we talking about the cost paid by the patients, the cost paid by doctors, the cost paid by hospitals, the cost paid by insurers, or the sum total of all of the above? If the latter, do you acknowledge that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”, and so this is not a zero-sum game? (I.e., getting people to visit the doctor before it requires a trip to the emergency room will reduce costs.)
I know my biases, do you?
I didn’t respond to your example because you made it clear — in the same sentence — that you would dismiss my response. Like you said, “what’s the point?”
You’re attempting to cast this as a partisan disagreement; please stop. The issue now isn’t the bill, but your response to disagreement and/or debate. I have seen no evidence to suggest that your immediate response, should I decide to discuss the bill with you, wouldn’t be automatic dismissal as “see, I told you that you wouldn’t agree with me”.
So, I suppose you consider it too risky to try, then?
If the issue is my “response to disagreement and/or debate”, please prove your point. I’ll admit that I’m jumping to the end of the debate, but it seems you deciding what the issue now is sort of proves my point. If you really think my response is so egregious please explain why. Sure, I was prejudging you, and I can see why that might not be the most effective debating strategy, but so far you’ve done nothing but prove my prejudgment to be correct. Forgive me if I’ve had this discussion on other forums before and so am a little bit inured as to the path these discussions really take.
There are some legitimate concerns about the current health care bill. But to pretend that there are not even any attempts at cost control seems disingenuous to me. If you acknowledge those attempts, but think they fall short, then surely you have to admit that it’s not that the costs aren’t addressed, but that they’re not addressed to your satisfaction.
Again, going back to what is now “the issue”, you could’ve seen my response as a challenge to prove me wrong by coming up with a legitimate argument about how disallowing insurance companies from reneging doesn’t help cost control because it pushes the costs onto insurance companies (which doesn’t fly with me because those costs are less than what the costs the patients end up paying). Or, you could’ve countered my response by saying that the problem is most likely my definition of cost control and provided a reasonable definition to prove your point. Or, you could’ve countered my response by avoiding the argument altogether and making my response the new issue, while accusing me of being close minded.
“I’m jumping to the end of the debate”
“Sure, I was prejudging you”
“Forgive me if I’ve had this discussion on other forums before and so am a little bit inured as to the path these discussions really take.”
Clearly, you’ve already made up your mind, and you just want to play games. Goodbye.
And although prejudging ain’t a great tactic, it seems you’ve proven me right!
Seriously, prove me wrong. I’d like to be shown that I’m wrong. I’ve become far too cynical, and I’d like to see that I’m wrong.
Nebton: rational, reasoned, even toned response.
Dhoti: I can’t respond to your rationalism! I’m taking my ball and going home! *pout*
PK: Wild applause.
…and right on cue, here comes Ivan, my lovesick puppy: he sprints in, gets all excited, and pees in the middle of the floor. (And of course no one expects him to read.)
The truth hurts, don’t it, you fu(kweasel™?
You seem to be obsessed with my urine output lately. You should talk to someone about that. Preferably not me. You’re giving me the creeps.
If you’re going to attempt to troll me, Ivan, at least try to be funny, mmmkay? Hateful and funny can at least be entertaining; hateful and unfunny is just pitiful.
Merry Christmas!
Nebton: Show me one survey where people like the Bill.
See my response below:
Gallup Poll: Anti bill: 48% (12/16) Pro Bill 37% (12/16)
CNN/ Opinion Poll: Anti bill: 56% (12/21)
Quinnipiac University poll: Anti bill: 52% (12/10)
Rasmussen: anti bill 55% (12/21)
NBC Poll: anti bill 47% Pro Bill 32% (12/16)
Las Vegas Review Journal: anti bill 53% (12/2009)
Fox News: anti bill 57% (12/10)
I’m still looking for a major poll that says “YAY Health Care Bill”
Fair point, it seems I was relying on much older polls (and/or my faulty memory). The polls that I was thinking of were the ones that asked whether people were in favor of health reform in general.
Part of the reason for the poor performance in the polls, of course, is that this bill annoys people on both the left and the right. On the right, you’ll hear complaints that no compromises are being made for conservative issues, while on the left you’ll hear complaints that so many compromises have been made that the bill is effectively worthless.
FWIW, I, too, want to see a bill that has majority support. I.e., I want to see a bill that actually has a real public option and that makes sure that everyone is covered. (I think I’m currently covered, but who’s to say what my insurance company will decide to do if I suddenly come down with an expensive disease?)
I would say the majority of America agrees Health Care needs an overhaul, however it’s the way about it we don’t agree with. I want less government involvement (I’m still waiting for someone to list one “Social Program” run successfully by our Government.)
Here’s an example I heard yesterday on Government competence with public funds. A certain state recieved $18 million in porkul.. I mean stimulus funds to weatherize the homes of poor people in that state. Guess how many homes they weatherized? SEVEN! Yes, only seven at $250,000 a home they could have paid off their mortgages. The money was reportedly eaten up in administrative costs. Hmmmm.
It’s a reasonable concern. Of course, ILPB’s request depends on definitions of “social program” and “successful”.
I’d argue the most successful reform from FDR’s New Deal was the FDIC, but I don’t think I’d consider that a “social program”, even though it was aimed at protecting the money of those with less money (since FDIC insurance cuts off at $250K). FUTA is pretty clearly a social program, and I’d consider it a success even if it’s struggling a bit right now, but maybe you don’t. Likewise with Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. (Again, I’m assuming any disagreement on those is “success” and not “social program”.)
What the problem boils down to is that most dangerous drug – OPM (pronounced “opium”, but meaning “other people’s money”). This is true whether it’s a government program or a private insurance company. Private insurance companies have demonstrated a complete lack of respect for us by denying coverage to people because they forgot to mention they had acne, so although Medicare might not be a raging success, I think it’s better than the alternative.
Nebton: Social Securty is a social program, which is bankrupt pretty much. I will not see a dime of the thousands of dollars I’ve put in already. Medicare and Medicaid are at cost overruns, open to fraud more than private insurance, and inept at best.
I’ll admit my definition of success is somewhat weak as I’m also very skeptical that I’ll ever (directly) see a dime of the money I’ve put into Social Security. However, it has helped millions of people. All in all, I think it’s done more good than harm, and that’s how I’m measuring success. I will also freely acknowledge that the previous definition depends in turn on definitions of “good” and “harm”.
Well to be fair, ILPB, if you listened to Obama’s speech at the award ceremony he DID say, “After I heard your speech I was almost convinced that I deserved it”.
So he DID admit that he infact didn’t deserve to win the award. At least he gave the money to charity. And lets face some facts here, if he had declined the Nobel Prize, partisan conservatives would’ve had a feild day calling Obama an elitist(on top of facist, marxist, communist, socialist, racist, blueist, furist, cell phone-ist, muslinist, and any other ‘ist’) for not accepting such a prestigious award.
Nobel prize was a no win for Obama. And so was Afghanistan. If he pulled troops out, the “news” would’ve said we “lost” and sending in more troops is simply following the foolish Bush docrtrine that created more terroists than killed. Which he did unfortunately.
The same no-win situation goes for health care. Dont get me wrong. I think Obama could’ve done WAAAAAYYYY better on plenty of issues facing us. But he seems to get a barrage of criticims on issues which are simply no-wins.
Oh and Reagan was over rated. He spoke small government rhetoric and almost never followed it.
I certainly don’t think a guy escalating a war in Afghanistan deserves a peace prize.
Yes, conservatives, I’m openly and bitterly admitting that he doesn’t deserve it because I’m pissed at him about revving up the war there. See? He’s not my messiah at all.
He doesn’t deserve it for making nice with the same people who are pushing the whole cap and trade global warming stuff either.
I actually agree with what he’s doing in Afghanistan. I know, I’m a terrible liberal. Even worse, I supported Bush’s decision to stay in Iraq(though not his decision to go into Iraq in the first place). Firstly I think if we’d stayed focused on Afghanistan we’d be in a much better position than we are now, but since someone just had to go after Saddam we basically lost alot of ground in Afghanistan. After taking out Saddam though, we really had to stay in Iraq to stabilize the country and install some sort of government, preferably something that wouldn’t end with another Saddam type as that would have been a waste, not just of time and resources, but the lives of all the soldiers who died fighting. Now that we’ve been invested in Afghanistan so long it would again be a waste of the lives of the soldiers who died if we simply up and left. What we really need to do is help the Afghani people protect their country from the Taliban. *surrenders her tree hugging liberal card* sorry
Heck, he ran the biggest deficit up to that date. More specifically, it nearly tripled under him. Sadly, the record was broken by Bush, and will very likely be broken again by Obama.
I believe Obama’s already broken it.
I think you’re right in all but perhaps technicalities. I.e., I’m not sure if it counts until the fiscal year is over. (Which it might already be, I don’t follow that kind of stuff, so underline “technicalities”, but double underline “perhaps”.)
Man you ROCK! You’re so succinct! Happy Holidays! I look forward to reading more of your posts in 2010!
Well, actually, he is listening to the people–the decisive majority that brought him into office. And TRYING to cut back the partisan garbage both parties are now knee-deep and sinking farther into.
I know the idea of in-depth analysis is new for some folks who are fond of the ‘shoot from the hip and ask questions later’ school of thought, but our soldiers would have been in harms way regardless of his decision making process. Now we have a real strategy with all generals on board, an exit plan, and we have clarified our goals and set a real plan in motion (as opposed to a ‘gee guys; lets put on a war! like our involvement in Iraq)
What kind of a HUGE international mess would he have created had he turned down the Nobel? As it was, he downplayed the award as much as he could w/o insulting the award or the givers.
And I am a fact checker–he has pretty impressive not-lying skills, especially in light of the last Admin. I think his presidency is more than adequate, and as far as ‘sacrificing himself’ What??!? You want blood or something?
I don’t hate conservatives, per se, but I do hate you. Actually, hate probably isn’t the word. What is the feeling you have for someone that you consider to be world-class pathetic? Pity? That’s it – I pity you. Pity you with the white hot fire of a thousand suns.
Yes. I, too, do not agree with the direction this administration is taking the country, but I can’t do anything until the polls open up again. So instead of getting angry about it and telling everyone I hate them, I’ve decided to take up hobbies, like building little airplanes. It’s fun!
Just don’t fly them into model buildings, b/c then it’s a conspiracy!!!
No, that’s religion.
No, that’s Islam. A deviant religion.
Islam is a deviant religion? Deviant from what?
I try not to use this, but it does say to kill people in the Qur’an. Are there good Muslim people? of course. Has Christianity been used for evil? Of course, but we aren’t SUPPOSED to.
Are you saying that the christian bible doesn’t say to kill people? *stirring the pot and grinning*
People dying in the bible =/= Christians killing them.
No, God advocating killing people was more an old testament thing. I’ll agree that Jesus never condoned killing under any circumstances. But there are occasions in the bible where killing someone is recommended. No, I’m not going on a bible reference hunt, so don’t ask.
Exodus 22:18
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
“And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine.” — Isaiah 49:26
Lev.20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
thats right kids, murder homosexuals in the name of jesus!
“If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you … Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.” — Dt.13:6-10
BT, you make me so, so proud. And you saved me having to copy/paste!
And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. Joshua 6:21
bitter troll could go on for hours
Genesis 34:25
Exodus 32:27 (This one’s a definite winner.)
Joshua 8:24
2 Kings 17:25-26
I’m sure I could find more, but this’ll be some nice lighter fluid to put on the fire that Ivan started…
I has a grateful.
He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. — Exodus 21:17
-sings- murder in the name of jesus…
no hawt mama/daughter action for you christains…bitter troll can have it thou HA HA
“If a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.” — Leviticus 20:14
god makes liberals fat?
The liberal soul shall be made fat. — Proverbs 11:25
Once again, Rando pointed out that those are Old Testament morals that aren’t followed through in the New Testament. Learn your religious history before you try and put the OT crap into a Christian’s lap. If anything, the Torah followed by the Jews is closer to the OT than anything mainstream Christians follow.
God made this liberal fat.
well it gets waved at us enough and used for what ever , when ever it suits them, but no your right, dont ever expect them to answer for it…noooo…its a weapon for them to use only, not to be used against them.
So, do Christians not um. I don’t get it. Are not the Old and New Testaments both part of the same book that Christians call -The Bible- and use to teach their religion? And what they follow?
by reading this, you might think god was insulted every time a christain goes to the doctor instead of praying the herpes away
And Asa in the thirty and ninth year of his reign was diseased in his feet, until his disease was exceeding great: yet in his disease he sought not to the LORD, but to the physicians. — 2 Chronicles 16:12
Damn. I always wanted to get stoned with my parents for getting lippy.
So, does it say this somewhere in the New Testament? Or is this what the preachers/priests/fathers/nuns teach you?
“Many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter.” 8:11
bitter troll not sure if that has anything to do with anything, but made bitter troll smile
What God is there in heaven or in earth, that can do according to thy works?” What other God can kill so many people? 3:24
Direct quote from Matthew 19, verses 16-19. This isn’t the exact verse I referenced earlier, but I’ll give you a Biblical cite on that one if you’d like…
“And someone cam eto him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?”
And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
Then he said to Him, “Which ones?”
And Jesus said, “You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, honor your father and mother, and you shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
The verse I quoted earlier is this one: Matthew 22:36-40
One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him.
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and foremost commandment, The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”
Yes Frou, but the problem is the Christians who quote the old testament as the word of law and then when you quote something back, like the not eating of shell fish for example, they suddenly say, well, yeah, but that’s the old testament and doesn’t count anymore. They pick and choose which bits they like to condone whatever they want to and it pisses me off to no end.
Addendum: Bitter! Stop pissing in the drinking water!
Typically those are “christians” who lack an actual understanding of what they believe in, and are just trying to pick a fight because of an ingrained moral center that their parents instilled that hasn’t been understood on a personal level.
How’s that for a convoluted sentence?
Ok, so why not just do away with the Old Testament then?
Can’t be that convoluted, I understood it.
The problem is that those Christians tend to be the loudest ones because the crazy ones are usually the loudest. *is gonna start a charity fund “Megaphones for sane people”*
but bitter troll’s bitter piss is what gives the water that fruity punch!
But then it is just like the political parties: when a politician doesn’t behave the way you (not you personally) want, then he’s a RINO (or DINO). So when someone who says he’s a Christian doesn’t behave the way you think a Christian should behave, he’s not really a Christian? They certainly think they’re Christians, and usually they belong to a Christian church that backs them up.
Perhaps you’re saying that you don’t agree with those Christian sects’ interpretation of Christianity? I could certainly go along with that.
But perhaps I’m just more confused than when we started. Religion is hard. (Actually, other people’s religions are hard.
)
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished”
Those are Jesus’ words. Now, sure, later one of his disciples adjusted some of the letters in such a way to suggest that it’s OK to eat food that was previously considered unclean, but I’m not sure how the other laws got invalidated.
Because if you don’t know where you came from, you’ll never understand where or why you’re going.
The whole idea behind the OT was to show people that that there was no way they could actually earn their way into Heaven by following the Law exactly. It was too draconian and impossible to do. This necessitated the “scape goat,” an animal deemed perfect by the ruling religious body that was sacrificed after having the sins of the family symbolically placed on its head. By taking away the sin of the family, the family was then (according to the tradition) able to enter Heaven should they die. This was a yearly festival that became a racket, but that’s another post for another day.
Enter Jesus, who became the scapegoat for humanity, and removed all need for a physical scapegoat. Since it wasn’t necessary to be perfect anymore, only to accept the Gift as it was given, then the Law and its draconian ideals became a thing of the past.
If you abolish it, though, the understanding of WHY Jesus did what He did goes out the window. You need it for context more than anything, and to show how it used to be as opposed to how it is.
You’ll notice I never said the old laws were abolished, rather, that they were fulfilled.
I don’t understand.
Oh, I understand everything you said all right; I just don’t understand why there are so many different interpretations.
What is the saying about having 10 (whatevers) in a room, and you get 20 opinions?
This is why it’s so important to go and research this stuff yourself (not speaking directly to you, charro, but rather to Christians and other religious’s as a whole) instead of just believing by rote. It becomes a giant game of Telephone and the message gets all screwed up. The only thing I have to go on is the modern interpretation of the Bible, which is, as we all know, sketchy at best. I can go off what I find in my own research, use the research of those who devote their lives to this sort of thing, and use my own faith in God to help formulate what Is from what Isn’t.
The reason there are so many different interpretations is that over the millenia since religion of any kind came to be, it’s been taken over by those who want to use it to either kill or make profit. The beliefs I’m sharing with you come from (like I said) my own research and the research of those much smarter than I, purely from the historical need part of it. The divine part is up to the individual to accept.
I love the history side of religion. If you remove all divinity away from it, and just look at WHY things were done the way they were, it’s fascinating to me!
First, I want to make clear that I’m really arguing for the sake of arguing so I hope you don’t take this with any ill will. You don’t seem to be, but obviously religion can be a touchy subject.
Secondly, I am familiar with your argument, but it doesn’t really hold water when you look at the whole quote and the whole Old Testament. Here’s why, in my opinion:
(1) It doesn’t begin to explain why God killed entire nations that were not part of his covenant in the Old Testament. If you have an answer for that, I’m interested. I’m not just saying that, I really am.
(2) Look at the second half of the quote I provided: “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” Early Christians continued to follow the Law. In trying to remember some of the details, I did a Google search on “unclean foods new testament” (without quotes), I recommend looking at the first link – at yrm dot org. It’s not that relevant to this conversation, but I think you will find it interesting. I did. Where I was going with that was that Acts 10:15 is often cited as abolishing the unclean foods proviso (thus opening the door for lobsters, oysters, icanhascheeseburger, etc.), which one could imagine to be the case (especially considering the other examples from that same web page, even though they argue the reverse), but I don’t see any Biblical support that Jesus actually wanted to eliminate the other Laws. He did stress what was most important, but he was quite clear that he wasn’t eliminating the others. (Rather, his stated position was that the others flow naturally from the most important ones.)
Ditto. Of course, this can be done in a respectful manner and in a disrespectful manner (e.g., Dawkins’ book). Also, I want to say I respect your approach to faith, even if I’m an atheist who is damned to Hell.
“Christians who quote the old testament as the word of law and then when you quote something back, like the not eating of shell fish for example, they suddenly say, well, yeah, but that’s the old testament and doesn’t count anymore.” – In the NT, I think it was Peter that had a vision in which God told him that he was not to call unclean that which God had made clean (By the sacrifice of Christ). He wasn’t just talking about food, but that he should go to the Gentiles to preach the Gospel. I still think it meant that the old laws about what was clean and unclean had been abolished. Like Froo said they were Draconian, but necessary for the plan of salvation. The other laws, like the 10 commandments however, were not. You still are commanded to not murder, commit adultery, etc. The difference is now we follow the law out of love for God through Christ instead of out of fear of damnation.
Well, intellectually I get it froo. I mean, why there are so many interpretations; but it’s just one book.
At any rate, I enjoy history too and religion is a huge part of history. Though, I must say, religion baffles me. Not spirituality, religion.
The first part of your question is easy. The reason other nations were wiped out is that the Israelites as a people were a fairly small group. With interbreeding and the watering down of bloodlines, what was once a small group would eventually disappear altogether, assimilated into another culture. These are nomadic farmers you’re talking about, and their God was telling them to stop being quite so nomadic and set up shop. In order to do that they had to have land to do that. Complete annihilation of a competing race (or tribe) of people was necessary in order to make sure that the Israelites weren’t pushed back out. It gave them street cred as people that hostile tribes perhaps didn’t want to mess with, and it stopped that nasty inbreeding with inferiors (I’m speaking in terms from the day, you understand, not because I actually condone this). The Israelites were instructed not to worship the idols of the land and not to be tattooed so they would stand out from other tribes that did those things, and would therefore be easily identifiable as Israelites. Also, child sacrifice was practiced by many other tribes, and this was not something the Israelites wanted to continue doing.
The complete wiping out of a competing tribe was pretty common in those days. It followed along with getting your ears pierced or wearing certain clothes.
Most of the nitpicky laws were cultural in nature as well, and were in place for health reasons more than religious reasons. Remember, we’re talking about simple nomads here. The instructions not to eat pork were to protect from nasty critters that will kill you. The same goes for the laws about eating animals that were not cloven-hooved but chewed their cud (rabbits). You can starve to death if you eat rabbit all the time. God was protecting these idiots from themselves.
You’ll notice that Jesus didn’t spend a lot of time on the nitpicky laws. He named the Big Ones and pretty much left it at that. By the time Jesus came along, food prep and other things that were killing the nomads back in the day had advanced to the point that it wasn’t really all that necessary to mess with them any more.
As far as the early Christians still following the laws that were in place at the time, that’s more a comfort thing than anything Jesus instructed them to do. He told them to “Follow Me,” not to follow any particular law. If someone told you that everything you knew and had grown up doing was going to change drastically tomorrow, and you’d better change along with it, wouldn’t you be a little nervous? You’d cling to those familiar things too, just like the early Christians did. It’s a human response.
(this is why the history part is so fascinating to me. It’s all pretty much completely culturally based, and the details changed along with the culture)
But if the most important commandment is to love God with all your heart, and God wants you to get ill-behaved children stoned, then isn’t it your moral obligation to not Bogart the weed? (Hidden in the joke is a serious question.)
You know, I think I understand Christianity fine when I read the New Testament; it’s when I talk to Christians (not meaning you personally frou) that I get confused. I still don’t get the whole Catholicism is monotheistic although they believe in the Holy Trinity.
Also, what n00bs said about the Gentiles
Don’t get me started on Catholics being monotheistic……*clamps mouth shut*
Frou, I totally get what you’re saying about wiping out competing nations, but I was hoping that could be explained in the same context as the idea that God didn’t condone killing people (or actively participate in it).
I also agree with the rest of your argument about the need for food laws for safety reasons. (Of course, the counter argument could be made that the laws weren’t created for safety reasons, but because these people followed those laws they were more likely to procreate, etc. A classic example of selection bias, if you will.)
I still have to part ways with your interpretation of Christ’s will. It’s hard to say for sure, though, because I’m quite certain that later editors had some hand in changing what he supposedly said. There are other Gospels than the standard four that paint differing pictures, for example.
Hee hee. Well, I do understand that they believe it. I think it’s hard for people to explain the “why” or “how” of something that’s such a deep belief. (All parents realize that when their child first asks why is it wrong to lie, to steal, to do this or that.)
Ahem. As a good Christian, don’t you think you should be returning Christmas so everyone can celebrate Jesus’ bday?
Actually, the christians need to return the holiday to the pagans, where it originated.
well if they are going to do that, they need to give back easter too
I agree.
Well, I’m way behind.
It’s OK, Rando. Blame the thread. It’s lost all of its threadiness.
The FrooFrou who stole Christmas stole it from the pagans, not the who’s as Dr Seuss has led you to believe with his evil capitalist propaganda!
It claims to worship in peace. It has certainly deviated from that.
Extremists have. It’s not fair to say that about Muslims in general. There are a number of Muslims at my work who have no interest in hurting anyone.
Well, there’s some self-selection at work there.
Still, isn’t it odd how so many major Islamic leaders and large Islamic groups seem to subscribe, or at least condone, this “extremist” interpretation?
I refuse to believe that Muslims are a violent, extremist group. It’s always the loud freaks that we’re gonna hear about, not the millions who would never condone the extremists. It’s completely not fair.
wait there are peaceful muslims? bitter troll dont believe it!
next you will tell bitter troll there are christains that dont protest the funerals of troops, or blow up federal buildings in oklahoma city to protest a crazed child molesting christain cult’s accidental burning to death
No, actually those are the only Christians there are. Filthy bastards.
if only there was a way to tell them apart fromt he other people…like say a mark…on the hand or forehead..
Maybe something easy to remember. A common number, perhaps.
more like a few of them, just to make it stylish…how about some 9′s?
The great thing about 9′s is that if you feel like it, you can turn them upside down and make a totally new number!
a 6? well that just sounds silly to me
Well, one six, sure that’s silly. But what about 2 sixes?
How about one 6, and one 9? That’s kinda fun.
That is fun, but it’d be a little awkward for a “mark.”
How about a string of 3′s? 5 of them, or 7, maybe…
I haz a sad. I do not get this.
No doubt a feeling you’re accustomed to, bigot…
So glad you’re back! We haven’t had any name calling for many many posts.
I’m sorry, am I violating your sacred right not to be bothered again?
children children, if you cant behave bitter troll will give you BOTH a time out
Way to kill a funny thread Dhoti.
Let me see if I can offer some insight Nebs. The fundamental problem with the old testament is it tends to be vague and on several points seemingly contradictory.
For example shortly (in terms of the text) after giving the commandments including ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’ God orders Joshua to essentially commit genocide in Canaan. Huge portions of Rabbinic Judaism are dedicated exclusively to trying to develop interpretations of the law in a way consistent with the text, but without understanding the context and subtext it can be a daunting task.
New Testament Christians believe the Gospels and other books of the New Testament demonstrate the context and subtext not made explicit in the old testament. By focusing on the principles of the New Testament rather than the explicit laws of the Old Testament one can supposedly tell where a simple literal interpretation is invalid and so judge what the spirit of the law is, thus while appearing to violate the law as written, upholding the principles on which the law was built. (My interpretation may be off a bit, as I myself am not a Christian)
doh, nesting fail AGAIN…
Just to nitpick, there are over a billion Muslims. So, to your point, if the majority of them were violent, the world would be a far, far worse place than it currently it.
Show me any islamic ruled nation where they aren’t killing each other, or killing those who aren’t islamic. Islam is geared towards a caliphate ruling the world. Much like Japan of the early part of the last century.
Of course, to be fair, are there ANY nations where people aren’t killing each other?
And Christians aren’t guilty of this either? The prejudice against Muslims sickens me. It really does. You are still blaming the actions of a few on the whole and it’s wrong.
Turkey? If that doesn’t count as an Islamic nation (since technically, they’re not), then there aren’t any Christian nations for comparison.
All that you just said can be said of christianity.
Kuwait. They’re too busy making loads of cash.
Ooh, good one. I’ll add Dubai.
And Dubai.
Argh! YOu ninja’ed me! Okay, um, United Arab Emirates.
Damn you guys I was gonna say Dubai too. Curses!
Though, I do have a question.. Can you show me a country where there aren’t people killing people.. Period? Just because a nation is Islamic doesn’t mean that the violence is caused by that. Correlation =/= causation. There is strife here in the US too, and it’s not just Muslims. Gang violence comes to mind.
What about oh.. say Brazil? Brazil is predominantly Catholic and they are in the top 20 for intentional homicides in the world. Or Columbia? They are also predominantly Catholic and are NOTORIOUS for their violent crimes. Or South Africa? They’re known for murders and rapes and are predominantly Christian. Being a “Christian Nation” doesn’t seem to exempt a country from killing one another.
@ charro — that’s…what I said. Killing each other seems to be the human condition regardless of religion, sadly.
Killing time is appropriate
To make a mess
And fukc all the rest
We say.. We say
So what?
in da butt?
I believe Quatar is one of the most modern (by western standards) and peaceful of the Islamic nations. I saw a bit about them on 60 minutes some years ago, I quite liked them from what i say.
Nitpicking again: It’s typically spelled Qatar. For some reason, they don’t merit a “u” after the Q. Go figure.
Well, this is Amerika and I spel americkan! Though I have actually seen it spelled both ways.
If you think Dubai, Kuwait, ect…. are nations where they aren’t killing each other, you need to read that article over on PKIR2. I don’t remember which one of the ladies posted it, but it goes on about the abuse in Dubai.
Just a tiny bit of research will show you that while it’s not as extreme, it is still there.
And not just the usual crime that exists in all countries, but killing because you renounced islam, or because hubby decided to get a new squeeze and divorced you.
I believe every country has murder or some form of death by hands of other human being.
Charro, it doesn’t happen here because it’s part of Christian doctrine. There are those who make up dogmas, but it’s not part of Christian doctrine.
And the biggest difference and easiest thing to see, those examples you cite, they were not people who were practicing Christianity. When it’s happening in islamic nations, it part of that faith.
Gang bangers aren’t killing each other over because one is baptist and the other methodist. Though that does exist (Ireland), it’s not the prevalent actions of every nation. You can have Christian faith in a nation and not have it. Where islams exists, people aer routinely being murdered because of it.
Neb, the only wallowing in hate I see here is you.
Agape is something you certainly need to learn about, not just fling it at others.
Christianity declaring homosexuality being immoral is not the same as ordering a father to kill his daughter in law because his son is a whoremonger.
And those who do kill, and claim the Christian faith to do so, aren’t following the Christian faith. That includes abortion doctor killings.
The difference is that islam does promote those things.
And abortion is murder. Doesn’t mean you have to kill others because of it.
Neb, that’s precisely the opposite question to ask — of course 100% of the religiously motivated abortion attackers were Christian, just as 100% of the religiously motivated suicide bombers were Muslim, 100% of the religiously motivated beheaders of Daniel Pearl were Muslim, etc.
The real question is, do the majority of Christians consider these extremists to be acting with Biblical support? The answer to that is, I think quite clearly, no. Islam, on the other hand — not so much. (See that Pew study somewhere ’round here.)
Thank you for bringing up the Pew study. Unless I’m misreading it, the majority of Muslims think that suicide bombings are wrong, thus disproving JAC’s assertion to the contrary.
If you think I’m wrong, please let me know which statistic you thinks supports your argument.
I’m looking at the chart titled “Support for Suicide Bombing Declines”. I think they asked whether it was *justified*, not whether it was *wrong*, based on the “Violence against civilian targets justified” subtitle, but I’m willing to assume that the folks in the “Never” column believe it’s wrong.
Still, look at those figures — the non-”Never” numbers in Arabia are still markedly high, but less so elsewhere. Contrast that to a similar survey of Christians.
Granted, the numbers are higher than a similar survey of Christians would be, but if you look at the countries with the most Muslims on that list (the bottom 3), in all 3 cases a strong majority said suicide bombings were never justified. Throw in the Muslims in India (it has more Muslims than Pakistan), and I’m quite certain you’d find an overwhelming majority of Muslims are against suicide bombings. The Pew survey supports that assertion, no?
And yet you say nothing of the scripture, only the opinion. And that’s been my point. Islam says kill. Over and over and over.
As does christianity.
{http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm}
@DU: I’ve spent time in Qatar; it’s very peaceful. But it is a hot flat boring hot sh!thole.
I’ll.. Have to disagree with you on that Justa. The Bible does say to kill people. And people do kill people as per the Bible. It’s very nice that you can say those people aren’t Christian, but they claim to be and use the Bible as justification. I wonder, do Muslims in other countries say things like that? “Oh, those people SAY they’re Muslims but they’re really not. Clearly, they aren’t following the tenets of Islam.”
Did you ever wonder that?
It seems you two can’t separate the old testament from the new. Christianity vs Judaism.
Show me one new testament law, commandment, or prophecy that that orders it’s followers to kill those who don’t obey or convert.
Even arguing that the battle of Armageddon is such, it would be against an army (of the earth) and not individuals.
Islam has the standing order to establish the caliphate BEFORE the return of any deity.
And Qatar does have problems with both terrorism and “mercy” killings. Just not to he degree of most islamic nations. A lot of it is covered up, such as in Dubai.
So, let me get this straight, JAC: in your “Christian” opinion, scripture refers solely to the New Testament. Everything in the Old Testament can be ignored. Is that your defense for us pointing out numerous passages in the Old Testament that not just sanction, but outright call for murder? Does that mean the Ten Commandments are not part of scripture, either? Or, are you getting to pick and choose which parts of the Old Testament are part of scripture?
Neb, Christian refers to followers of Christ. Not the law of the old testament.
Here are a couple of New Testament verses for you, but they do pale in comparison to the Old Testament:
Acts 5:1-11
Romans 1:24-32
Don’t get me wrong, Jesus was a much more peaceful prophet than Mohammed. But if you honestly think you’re able to cast the first stone in the name of your religion, think again.
So, if Christians are followers of Christ, and Jesus was a scholar of the Torah, then doesn’t that make the Old Testament part of your scripture?
Neither of those scripture is telling a disciple to kill anyone.
So basically, you just showed yourself to be a liar. Or misled with false information.
Maybe you just hoped posting them would convince the random passing stranger?
Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Worthy of death =/= go kill in my name.
Acts 5: 1 ¶ But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
2 And kept back [part] of the price, his wife also being privy [to it], and brought a certain part, and laid [it] at the apostles’ feet.
3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back [part] of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried [him] out, and buried [him].
7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband [are] at the door, and shall carry thee out.
10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying [her] forth, buried [her] by her husband.
11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.
Yeah, I don’t see any “go kill the liar” commands here. Nice try. You failed hard.
I never said they did say to kill anyone, and I distinctly said they pale in comparison. One merely suggests that it would be a real shame if something would happen to your fine establishment (*nudge, nudge, wink, wink*), and the other suggests that maybe Peter put a little Holy Ghost smack down on someone who’d been naughty. Hence, they pale in comparison to the much more overt sections in the Old Testament.
I see you chose to avoid the tough question though: If you’re a follower of Christ and Christ considered the Torah and related books (i.e., the Old Testament) to be scripture, then shouldn’t you also consider them to be scripture?
Answering your second question. You missed the entire thing Froo said about Christ fullfilling the law. And the price for sin was paid for with Christ’s blood. And a “New Covenant” was made. IE, the new testament.
I did answer, even though that post hadn’t appeared yet!
And *wink wink* is you adding your thoughts to scripture.
They don’t command anyone to kill anyone. Pale, Dark, Red, Green, Orange, or whatever you would like to twist.
You failed hard again. If they don’t command or endorse killing in anyway, why did you bring them up?
How could I have missed it when I addressed it? (And, I’ll apologize for writing too quickly that you weren’t addressing the harder question. It occurred to me belatedly that perhaps you were crafting your response as I was crafting mine.)
Is it your position then that the whole Old Testament goes out the window, except for the parts dealing with the prophecy that Jesus fulfilled? It seems to me that an awful lot of Christians (I dare say an overwhelming majority, and very likely more than 99%, even) want to claim the Ten Commandments as part of their faith, but Christ only emphasized two as I recall.
Oh, and I specifically asked for new testament scripture. As Christians are followers of the new testament. Not the law of the old.
So your question is irrelevant anyways.
Yes, the *wink, wink* was me adding my thoughts. I thought that was painfully clear. Maybe I need to be more explicit when I write things for you.
Are you aware that Jesus often spoke in parables? (Damn, there I go getting snarky again.) Not everything in the New Testament is to be taken literally. There are layers and layers to be taken from the scripture. You yourself used the phrase “worthy of death”. It’s not much of a leap that I took there. Also, let me be explicit about something else. The word “pale” does not refer to a color in the sense that I used it. I realize you’re making a joke, but since you seem to insist everything must be taken so literally, I thought I’d make that very clear to you.
I am curious (and perhaps you’ve addressed this by the time I post this): do you consider the Ten Commandments to be part of Christianity?
Excellent point, Nebs. Since the ten commandments are part of the OT, and christians are now ignoring the OT, (it’s funny, that. I was raised in the baptist church, and the paster sermonized from both the OT & the NT. This tossing of the OT in the rubbish bin is news to me) then the ten commandments are now null and void.
Actually, initially you wrote: “And yet you say nothing of the scripture, only the opinion.” Then, when we showed you line after line after line of scripture, you moved the goal posts to the New Testament. Which admittedly never blatantly call for murder. I’d argue it’s implied in at least one case (but never by Jesus), but never blatantly.
The problem is you’ve moved your goal post in such a way that you’ve chopped off more than half your Bible. I’ll ask again (and maybe you’ve answered by now): Do you consider the Ten Commandments part of Christianity?
The old testament is part of my faith, yet none of it applies to me as a commandment.
And Charro, they can claim that they fly to the moon every time they fart. But they are taking the commandments of Christ out of context. If they don’t behave like Christ, they are not Christian.
The quran, however, doesn’t have a old/new testament. It does have current commands to establish the calphate, kill or enslave those who won’t obey muhammed.
Neither of you have shown a new testament commandment, prophecy, or law to kill. Not one.
Ivan, my pastor was similarly ignorant in reading regularly from the Old Testament, and not just the bits that prophesied the coming of Christ. No wonder I became an atheist!
(Disclaimer: actually, I arrived at my religious (or non-religious, whatever) beliefs through an intense study of the Bible, with friends who are (still) very devoted Christians. For whatever reason, I was willing to let a lot of the Old Testament that bothered me slide, but when I got to the bit about the angel dipping her wings in a pool to cure the first person who entered that pool afterward of his illness, it was the beginning of the end for me.)
Actually, I DID specify new testament. No goal posts moved. And I’m quite aware that a lot of churches quote the 10 commandments. They are great! But not law to the new testament Christian. Which is what we were discussing.
OK, so I think we’re about to get at something very profound. Unless you say otherwise, JAC, I’m taking your position to be that the Ten Commandments are not, in fact, part of Christianity, other than as a historical artifact. Is that right? I.e., they do not apply to you or any other Christian. I hope you realize that puts you in an extreme fringe area of Christianity. It’s your right to believe you’re one of the few true Christians, but I just want you to realize that you’re the only member of that group I have ever met, in real life or in cyber-space.
Ok, sorry for the html mistake.
Ivan, no one is throwing the 10 commandments in the trash can. We simply don’t live by the law. As Froo so elegantly pointed out today.
C’mon, JAC. I gave you your exact quote. At December 24, 2009 at 10:04 am, you said:
No where in there do you specify New Testament. It wasn’t until after Ivan gave you a nice site discussing scripture that you moved the goal post (from our perspective at least, since none of us had ever heard that the Old Testament wasn’t part of scripture before) to be only New Testament scripture.
So, there you have it. According to JAC, the Ten Commandments are to be considered the Ten Suggestions, formerly known as the Ten Commandments. Can you find me any other Christian who shares this opinion? You do realize that Jesus quite explicitly said
I’m just going to interject this: there are hundreds if not thousands of Christian sects, which differ in varying degrees (as there are different types of Muslims). When a Christian says “Christianity means such and such,” he means his sect, but a non-Christian might take it literally thinking ALL Christians believe that. Which is often not true.
I believe JAC is describing his Christian sect, not trying to speak for all people who call themselves Christians. Which I think is where all the confusion arises. Many sects view anyone not in their particular sect to not be ‘real Christians’ (not meaning JAC here) and most seem to hold that view of anyone who differs significantly from their interpretation. This is quite understandable (otherwise they wouldn’t be separate sects), but very confusing if a non-Christian is trying to figure out what someone means by Christianity.
Neb, you are putting words in my mouth, just as you did to the scripture a while ago.
The fact that the law doesn’t apply to the new testament Christian doesn’t change a thing about the 10 commandments. They are great. And in the new testament, all things are lawful, but not expedient. Time and again, the scriptures talk about those of us, as gentiles, who lived lives against those commandments. And whom now, by choice, live a different life.
Yes, I am putting words in your mouth, but only because it seems you keep dancing around my question. I’m still a little unclear on your position, if the words I’m putting in your mouth are inaccurate. You say the Ten Commandments are “great”, but you also seem to suggest that they’re not commandments you actually have to follow. Allow me to put more careful words in your mouth to see if you agree with them: the Ten Commandments give insight into God’s will, and since you love Jesus, you’ll follow those commandments even though they’re not really commandments to you. If that is, in fact, your position, then that still leaves open the question of how that applies to other parts of the Old Testament. Are they also “great”?
Neb, go back up in the post, from your quote, and I did specify the difference. The entire point about Christianity vs Judaism. And how you were trying to mix the two.
And once again, you are taking out of context what Jesus said. And what I said. I didn’t say the 10 commandments were suggestions. Seems the only thing you are good at is taking things out of context. I said that as a gentile, I am not under the law. Many of the precepts that are in the 10 commandments are reaffirmed in the new testament. But not as law.
You people are just mad because you can’t show one scripture to the Christian that commands the killing or enslaving of those who refuse to convert.
The entire conversation about the 10 commandments is just a diversion. And a fruitless, weak minded one.
Mabs, I have asked for anyone to show me scripture that commands the Christian to kill or enslave anyone. It doesn’t exist. Not the opinion of any sect. Scripture. Now Neb is trying to forcefully imply the old testament to Christians, by putting words in my mouth, and taking Jesus out of context. *wink wink*
He failed, hard. So many times, I’ve lost count now.
OK, so Ten Commandments aren’t law, right? That’s not putting words in your mouth is it? Old Testament isn’t scripture, right? That’s not putting words in your mouth is it?
I understand the difference between most denominations of Judaism and most denominations of Christianity, but yours appears to be a brand new type I’ve never encountered. Every denomination of Christianity that I’m aware of from Presbyterians to Baptists (Southern and otherwise) to Methodists to Catholics to Eastern Orthodox considers the Old Testament to be part of scripture. Every non-denominational Christian Church also seems to hold this tenant.
Yet I fail because I’m not aware of your particular sect.
this was supposed to be down here…
Let me see if I can offer some insight Nebs. The fundamental problem with the old testament is it tends to be vague and on several points seemingly contradictory.
For example shortly (in terms of the text) after giving the commandments including ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’ God orders Joshua to essentially commit genocide in Canaan. Huge portions of Rabbinic Judaism are dedicated exclusively to trying to develop interpretations of the law in a way consistent with the text, but without understanding the context and subtext it can be a daunting task.
New Testament Christians believe the Gospels and other books of the New Testament demonstrate the context and subtext not made explicit in the old testament. By focusing on the principles of the New Testament rather than the explicit laws of the Old Testament one can supposedly tell where a simple literal interpretation is invalid and so judge what the spirit of the law is, thus while appearing to violate the law as written, upholding the principles on which the law was built. (My interpretation may be off a bit, as I myself am not a Christian)
JAC, I was trying to point out that you are one Christian who I assume follows your interpretation of Christianity. There ARE Christians who hold that the Old Testament is the literal word of God, so, if one is thinking of them, then the whole discussion of the Old Testament is totally valid.
I was also trying to point out that from your point of view, you probably don’t consider them to be Christians, which is your totally reasonable religious choice. But to a non-Christian trying to understand what Christians believe, you all are Christians. Hence all the confusion.
I am not interested enough in scripture to discuss it at this length.
Neb, what is so hard for you to understand about Jewish scripture vs Christian scripture?
Christians acknowledge the Jewish scripture, but we don’t live by it. The whole Christ’s blood covering our sins thing.
So what I have said originally stands true. There is no scripture commanding a Christian to kill or enslave. There is scripture by the ton for islam to do so.
I have repeatedly explained that to you, as you vainly try to force the old testament laws on Christianity.
Mabs, I understand what you are saying. And I hope you understand what I said. I believe the old testament is the word of God. Completely. What I have said, more than once, is that there is no instruction in any form for a Christian to kill or enslave. (Note, not instruction to a Jew)
Nebs is desperately trying to associate commandments to the Jews to new testament Christians. And I think you also missed Froo’s explanation earlier. I think she got into why we don’t follow the law too. So it’s not just me. Believe it, yes. Commanded to kill, no. Does that clear it up for you? (Mabs, please, if I fail to communicate that nicely, forgive me.)
JAC, I know that you are always trying to be polite when we ‘chat,’ so you may assume that I will always give you the benefit of the doubt. And I do understand the distinction you’re making about the OT and NT. (And Frou’s explanation was pretty good also.)
I think the whole distinction between the OT being the word of God, but the instructions were to the Jews not Christians is just hard to comprehend. It’s what I was telling my friend this morning: other people’s religion is hard to get.
But I wish you a very Merry Christmas. I have to go make a pie.
OK, JAC, I thought you knew this already, but maybe not: for the vast majority of Christians (in fact, for every Christian I’ve ever met) the Old Testament is part of scripture. I.e., scripture is the whole Bible, not just the New Testament. Do I need to scan a program from various churches showing “scripture readings” from the Old Testament to prove this? Maybe this will help: {http://www.oca.org/reading.asp}
Nebs, if you stop at the one statement, you are correct. However, going back in the conversation, we were discussing scripture commanding Christians. You then began to associate scripture to the Jews.
You even tried to slip in scripture that DIDN’T say such a thing, and pass it off as an example of a milder form. When it clearly does not. You may not like or agree with it, but it doesn’t command anyone to do anything to another. Which is the root of this thread.
Justa, your point is kind of moot. You saying someone isn’t a Christian because of your own interpretation doesn’t make it so. Let me tell you why. Those same people you say aren’t Christian, they could say the same about you for not holding to the laws of the Old Testament. What makes them wrong and you right? Only your interpretation. I would have to call this as another fallacy.
Let me show you another reason why your point is moot: I am a witch. Now, you tell me why I am not. I’m sure you could come up with many reasons why I am not a witch, yet I could come up with many reasons why I am. Neither of us would be “wrong” or “right”; but nothing you say will change my belief that I am a witch who practices witchcraft. Just like nothing you (or froo) will say will change the people you don’t think are Christians belief that they are Christians who adhere to the law of God and Jesus Christ as they interpret them.
Therefore; your saying that Old Testament Law does not apply to Christianity is not necessarily “wrong”, but it is not “right” either. It is merely your interpretation.
In conclusion; Christians do indeed use Old Testament Law to justify their acts.
OK, then JAC, here’s the final exam: capital punishment, Christian or un-Christian? On one hand, we have the Old Testament “An eye for an eye”, and on the other, we have Jesus, “Turn the other cheek” (while in the same part of scripture apparently overturning the “eye for an eye”).
The reason I ask is that most conservative Christians seem to support the death penalty. When I challenge them with:
They return with the part I previously cited about Jesus not changing the laws of the Old Testament.
So, are you consistent here? Obviously, I really don’t know, though you might suppose I have a guess. Do you agree that the death penalty is not supported by Christian theology, and if not, please explain.
Also, I will provide testimony that charro is a witch: she turned me into a newt. (I got better.)
Charo, I have to disagree with you, even to the point of just plain calling you wrong.
You can call yourself a taxi all day long, but you don’t have the abilities or the resemblance of a taxi. You are not a taxi.
Not one of you can show me a scripture, addressed to Christianity, commanding the forced conversion, the death, or enslavement of another human being. It doesn’t exist.
And Nebs, I think I have stated here on PK that I am not for the death penalty. (not today, that you would know) I can’t help what organized religion has taught. What I have said all day, is that there is not scripture to support the killing or enslavement of another, any where in Christianity. I don’t have to explain myself. I’ve said more than enough. None of you can show any scripture that in any way instructs the killing or enslavement of others. (In Christianity, which is what we were talking about) And Nebs, since you have already tried to put words in my mouth, and falsify scripture, don’t waste your time trying to twist anymore scripture to fit your lies.
I’ll take your word that you’re against the death penalty, especially considering that I’m quite certain that long-time PKers would call you out if you were lying. (Also, I really have no reason to suspect you’re lying.)
So, I’ll give you points for consistency, but I’m sad that you don’t seem to know how much of a minority your opinion about what counts as Christian scripture is. Maybe you know and you don’t care, and that’s fine, but you’re not giving any indication that you know that you’re in the minority and for some reason that bothers me. As for me twisting scripture, that’s your opinion, and you’re entitled to it.
Still, kudos for consistency.
P.S. I hope you (and all PKers everywhere) have a merry Christmas tomorrow. I’ve been shut-in due to very bad weather here (I live in central Virginia near the Appalachian Trail where we’re just not prepared for this kind of weather), hence me spending far too much time here.
Justa, taxi =/= witch (or any other spiritual belief). That’s a ridiculous comparison. A taxi is something quantifiable. Faith, belief, religion; these things are not. Your point remains moot. You calling someone not Christian who believes they are Christian because your interpretation of Christianity is different does not make it so. You are not the end all be all of Christianity.
And gods damnit, it’s “charro”. Two “r”‘s!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Charro, the name of Christian started at Antioch because the people behaved like Christ. Not because they called themselves that.
If you don’t have the specifications to fit the blueprint, you aren’t said item.
And I am not the end all, nor have I ever claimed to be. Jesus is. Those who call themselves Christians and don’t live up to the name will be the very same ones rejected as workers of iniquity.
If you claim to be a humanitarian, and steal like Bernie Madof, you aren’t a humanitarian. No matter how you choose to interpret it.
Nebs. Scripture is scripture. Yes, old testament scripture is true. It still doesn’t command the Christian to do any of the things being discussed. And when I asked for scripture, that is what we were discussing. Christianity, not Judaism.
If you have a scripture commanding the Christian to do said things, present it. If not, stop with all the circular arguments.
Justa, you really just proved my point. Jesus is the end all be all of Christianity. Therefore, you (and every other Christian) only have your interpretation of a book that was written ~2000 years ago by men to know what Jesus was like and would have deemed “Christ Like”. Your interpretation will be different from mine, mine will be different from my grandmother’s, hers will be different from her Pastor’s, his will be different from his wife’s etc. Their interpretation of “Christ Like” and “Christian” is not wrong because interpretations (of beliefs), by nature are not wrong. Not to mention interpretations of a ~2000 year old book that has been translated from language to language through the prejudices of man and kingdoms throughout history.
Calling it a blue print is a misnomer, because again; a blueprint is something quantifiable. There are mathematical equations, angles, weights; all things that can be quantifiably verified and duplicated. Interpretation of faith/religion/belief still is not. I would submit to you that only Jesus can say with any certainty, which of you “Christians”* got it “right”.
But all that aside; you telling someone who believes they are following the word of Jesus Christ as they interpret it to be correct that they are not a Christian does not make it so. History is littered with people convinced they were “right” in their interpretation of The Bible.
False interpretation doesn’t disqualify the original. And those who did the wrong in the name of Christianity will answer for that on Judgment day. Something discussed at length in the Bible. Jesus also spoke a lot about imitators in his day. How they were not really children of God, but of the devil.
If they don’t conform to the image of Christ, they are not Christian. Period. And I can get you the scripture for that, should you need it.
And once again, show me any scripture commanding, suggesting, or any such was that a Christian should kill or enslave those who don’t follow Christ.
Go check out sura 5 in the quran. And no, there is no, that was then, to other people, this is now in the quran. It is an order to them to set up the caliphate, and use any means necessary. Lie, cheat, steal, kill. It’s ok, because they don’t profess muhamed as God’s final prophet.
And that is the distinct difference. There is no scripture to support killing. Therefore those who claim to do so in the name of Jesus Christ are liars. Period.
Maybe I’ve misjudged you a bit, JAC. One more question: are you against wars, too? I.e., do you hew to the Anabaptist theology?
Ah, therein lies the dilemma. You can’t prove that it is a false interpretation. And, again, the followers of Christ who interpret it that way can (and I am sure they do) say the same of you.
Your words really prove nothing Justa; it is all an interpretation. You still have not proven that your interpretation is the correct one, and that is because you simply cannot. You have no way to prove to me that your interpretation is any more valid than the guy who quotes Old Testament scriptures to justify the bombing of an abortion clinic.
Allow me, if you will, an exercise. One of the commandments says “Thou shalt not kill”, or “Thou shalt not murder” (I suppose, depending on the version). My morals tell me that killing and murdering are about taking an innocent life. Any innocent life. Including all forms of mammal, crustacean, fish, reptile, insect etc. Therefore, the Bible is telling me not to kill any innocent being “in cold blood”. My morals tell me that the definition of “in cold blood” means “if I don’t take your life, my life is in imminent danger of being taken by yours” or “in me versus you, shark, you will probably win so I hope this harpoon works”. So, killing an innocent for food is wrong. I can gain sustenance from plants, those are not animals, therefore I do not have to kill or murder.
Now, tell me how that interpretation is incorrect.
Charro, you are going off in left field. Totally. The way you are twisting the commandments, you could take the words “boil an egg” and turn it into “murder the world.”
Do you know what a lexicon is? There is enough context, and redundant scripture to cover the different interpretations that the fakers try to use.
And, as I’ve said over and over, none of those scriptures is addressed to the Christian. Not one.
Calling myself Charro, and claiming to believe your values and faith, doesn’t make me Charro. And certainly doesn’t give me the right to knock over a liquor store, and blame it on you.
As politely as I can say this. Put up, or shut up. Give me 1 single scripture addressed to a Christian (since Christianity is the faith that was questioned) or stop with all the bull. Pee or get off the pot.
Justa, the amount of rudeness in your response is indicative that you don’t have a concise or intelligent rebuttal to my argument. I will not simply “put up or shut up”, nor will I “pee or get off the pot” because you tell me to. You have resorted to condescension and mockery instead of debating my points logically.
Exercises like the one I put to you are consistently used in critical thinking, debate and logic courses for precisely the reason I used it; to demonstrate that our personal experiences colours our interpretation of everything we read, see and hear. You have not shown me that my interpretation of four simple words is an incorrect one. Nor have you demonstrated in any way shape or form that an entire book cannot be interpreted a different way and be incorrect. I submit to you again, sir, that only Jesus himself will be able to make that distinction.
And to your sarcastic question regarding lexicon; I give you two more words for you two read up on. “Etymology” and “vernacular”. Also I would like for you to read up on how languages change over time, as well as how many times the Bible has been translated.
Now since our discourse has devolved into you taking the low road and slinging insults and sarcasm at me, I shall bow out as I know we can go no further. I bid you good day sir and wish you a Merry Christmas.
*sigh*
vernacular
I had done so well too.
Nothing was meant as sarcastic, however, take it as you will. You keep using circular arguments in a vain attempt to associate Christians with murder.
All I have asked you for is scripture to show that there is, or has ever been a command or instruction in any form for Christians to murder or enslave.
There it plenty of scripture in the quran that says just that.
Your “four simple words” have no meaning in them to go kill anyone or anything. In any language, or time. None.
Please give the scripture, chapter and verse that does. Or admit that you are wrong.
The circular arguments that you keep referring to amount up to someone failing to read all the instruction to assemble said item, then failing miserably. Then calling themselves engineers, when they plainly aren’t.
You’ve been crude and nasty to me in this entire thread, and then get upset when I ask for proof.
ISLAM=Murder. Proven. Deviant from it’s claim of peace.
Before you accuse ANYONE of condescension, you need to go back and read your own posts. You have vainly attempted to associate the actions of misguided or evil people with the actions of Christ.
JAC, just to be clear on another issue that’s gnawing at me. You seem to acknowledge that the Old Testament has a lot of verses supporting this (and I’ll admit that the 2 verses I gave you – which came from that web-site Ivan posted – were weak), so does that mean that Judaism=MURDER, also?
Ok, I know I said I’d bow out, but wow. Just wow. Did you even read what I wrote? My entire four simple words argument boils down to this: “The Bible says thou shalt not kill; therefore killing animals for food is wrong and I will not do it”. I don’t even know how you could possibly get that I said anything like “Thou shalt not kill = the Bible tells Christians to murder people”. But yet, here we are.
Though it does go a long way to show you how something written can be misinterpreted because of the reader’s bias.
And again, “ISLAM = Murder” is still a fallacious statement.
Me again. I just would like to say that just as I accept JAC’s assertion that these quotes from the OT are not taken literally by him to represent his Christian faith, I think everyone should recognize that the same is probably true of the Torah and the Koran. Just because we read something in someone else’s religious book does not mean we are interpreting it correctly according to the followers of that religion, especially as they also have many different sects. And just as there are Christians who interpret the Bible to call for acts of violence, there are the same in other religions. You may not accept them as Christians, which is fine, but I don’t know any Muslims who accept terrorists as ‘true’ Muslims. So for you, JAC or anyone else, to condemn all Muslims because of passages in the Koran is very much like someone condemning Christians for passages in the OT.
And the argument that Jesus negated any of those passages does not change this. As non-Muslims, who are we to say what parts of their book they think are the parts to follow? (Especially if, like myself, we are not even reading it in their language.) Everyone gets to select their religion as they choose. If someone says, my religion believes in peace, I think we must accept that unless THAT PERSON demonstrates otherwise.
Islam = Murder. It’s own scripture and instructions say to kill, in order to set up the caliphate.
No where is there any scripture, in any interpretation of the Bible. You stated that Jesus was the ultimate authority, and I agreed with you 100 % on that. And he said that the people who don’t obey his commandments are none of his.
Therefore, those abortion doc killing deviants are not Christians. In more than one place, the Bible refers to people who will claim things in Jesus name, and will be rejected.
While Islam has direct quotes, authorizing killing, lying, stealing, whatever is necessary. It is a murderous religion, and a deviant from it’s claim of peace. Are there peaceful supporters? Yes. They don’t obey their own scripture, mainly because most of them are ignorant of it.
Are there people who claim to be Christians, and take the old testament scriptures as an excuse? Yes. Once again, they are not following Christ, as he specifically forbade that kind of behavior.
Froo did a wonderful job of explaining the old testament scriptures, that so often get taken out of context. And none of which can be applied to a Christian. Are they scripture? Yes. But not commands to the Christian to kill anyone. (Or enslave)
Going off on the tangent that this can be interpreted as that could be applied to anything. And using “Jesus was a Jew, and therefore followed old testament, so you must be doing it also” is not valid either. He quite plainly broke many of those laws, and did so openly. And could do so, because he was the blood sacrifice that changed the covenant. Like the example Froo used about eating certain foods.
Since I don’t have my laptop, and therefore it’s bookmarks, I have to ask you to trust me that I’ve read up on islam, and found it not only to be violent, but also racist. When you have the time, look into why arab muslims are killing african converts. I don’t remember the word for word quotes from the quran, but it’s part of it too. Even the countries that were mentioned as peaceful have a history of slavery and murder. One of the regulars posted a link on PKIR2 that talks about it. The truth could only be hidden so long.
Are there members of islamic nations that are wonderful, peace loving people? YES. And you will find most of them flee islam if they leave those nations. The BBC did a study a while back about all the islamic immigration, and found (with hidden cameras) that most of it is rooted in the idea that islam is conquering the world. There was preaching on how to deceive others into thinking you were peaceful, and how the nonmuslim must come under subjection or be killed, at some point. It’s not radical, it’s their commandments.
Those commandments don’t exist in Christianity. All I have asked of you, since you believe they do, is to show them to me.
Maybe this got lost in the shuffle, so let me ask it again, since you acknowledge the killing in the Old Testament but distance Christianity from it, in your mind is it true that Judaism=MURDER?
Ahmadinejad, nothing got lost in the shuffle.
Nice non-sequitor, there. Why are you refusing to answer the question. According to the rule that you developed to infer that Islam=MURDER, it also follows that Judaism=MURDER. Note, I’m not saying that Judaism=MURDER, but I’m not the one bragging about my ignorance by saying that Islam=MURDER. I’m just pointing out the inconsistency in your argument if you’re not as anti-Semitic as you are anti-Islamic.
I’ve already caught you lying, and twisting scripture, even trying to bluff with scripture that didn’t say what you claimed it did.
The only ignorant one I see around here is you. If you can’t tell the difference between the Hebrew scriptures and the quran, you need help.(or you’re just dishonest enough to fake it) Just for a start, the quran instructs conquering the world, through conversion or killing.
Have you actually read any of the quran, or are you simply defending it because you wish to attack Christianity?
You keep using the word “lying” to describe my citation of scripture, despite the fact that there wasn’t a single bit of lying involved. Try reading what I wrote again, but this time with Christ in your heart. You asked for scripture advocating murder in the New Testament. I provided the two examples from the list previously provided by Ivan, and qualified them by saying they paled in comparison to the Old Testament. You then challenged me on it, and I gave you context for how it could be construed to advocate murder. (I always tend to play devil’s advocate, which requires seeing things from multiple points of view. You ought to try it sometime.) You then accused me again, falsely, of lying. Luckily for you, you’re not bound by the commandment not to bear false witness.
That said, the real reason you’re lashing out at me is clear, and any psychologist would recognize the pattern: you’re close to learning something and it’s causing you distress. At least part of you realizes how inconsistently you’re treating Muslims, and the rest of you is fighting against the cognitive dissonance. By the yardsticks you use to deduce that Islam=MURDER, it also follows that Judaism=MURDER. Rather than acknowledge that this implies a faulty yardstick on your part, you lash out at me, first by calling me Ahmadinejad (even though it’s not my yardstick), and then by calling me a liar. You want the truth, well, evidently, you can’t handle the truth!
More BS from you. You did lie, and I could care less about your psychoanalysis. You did your best to twist scripture to fit your thoughts, and tried to fake it even.
You went so far as to assert that Hebrew scripture applied to Christians because Jesus was Hebrew.
I haven’t found any honesty in you, only games. And childish ones at that. Your thought that I’m bearing false witness against you is weak. You even admit that you just grabbed some script from Ivan’s link. Calling them weak doesn’t mean you can get away with lying.
You jumped in here, pretending to be an expert, and you clearly don’t even know the scriptures. You’ve heard a few talking points, and haven’t any real knowledge.
I’ve found nothing but dishonesty out of you, and owe you no explanation. None. I have never said anything one way or the other about the Hebrew scripture. It’s not my place to defend or attack it.
I will leave you with a hint. God existed before there ever was a Hebrew. And go read up on what Paul said about the law making nothing perfect. And I mean read more than just that one verse.
None of which exists in the quran, btw. It’s entirety is kill or convert until the return of muhammed. It talks peace, peace, peace. Then it orders lie, cheat, kill or enslave.
Lie. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Having a different opinion does not make one a liar. I suspect I know more about scripture and the various ways it’s been interpreted than you do. Of course, trying to prove that would just be a pissing match which would just end up with urine over everyone’s shoes. Furthermore, I don’t know you any more than you know me. I do know that you feel so strongly about your interpretation that any other interpretation becomes a lie to you. It also seems that you don’t have Christ in your heart, at least not the Christ from the New Testament that says that love makes up the two most important commandments.
However, even if what I said was a lie, it doesn’t change the fact that you’re skirting the issue. By your yardstick, Judaism=MURDER. The truth of the matter (which you’re trying to avoid) is that it’s not really about the Islamic scripture. It’s about your impression of Muslims. With the Pew survey disproving your impression, you rely on Islamic scripture, but if you were to rely just as heavily on Old Testament scripture, you’d end up with a very unfavorable impression of Jews, as well.
Now, can you respond to that dilemma without changing the subject yet again? (If there’s something I’m failing to address, please let me know, because as far as I can tell, I’ve answered every question you’ve posed to me, even if you don’t like my answers or consider alternate interpretations of scripture to be “lies”.)
You don’t understand, or have knowledge of the scriptures, and yet you want me to explain it to you, so you can then attempt to pick me and them apart. And it isn’t happening.
I’ve not called you a liar based on a differing opinion, but rather because you pretended that you had evidence against Christianity, when you didn’t. You then proceeded to try and bluff. And since you knew you were bluffing, you added in the weak clause.
And you are vainly attempting to put words or opinion in my thoughts. You have no idea what I think about the Hebrew scriptures.
Come back and talk to me when you have read what Paul wrote about the law. If you wish to call Judaism murder, that’s your bag, not mine.
And you are right, you know nothing of me. And you don’t know what love is, if you think it means embracing dishonesty. Love is corrective, too. And it’s not “my interpretation” of Christian scriptures. You, or ANY one has yet to show me a single scripture for the Christian to kill or enslave those who refuse to convert. Not even a debated scripture. The 2 you gave, even you backed off the original claim (and the lie) when you were called on it. I also notice you don’t deny that the quran IS full of said scripture. And to the muslim, the quran is the final testament.
To sum it up, there IS a difference, and Froo even touched on it in her conversations about the old testament. Go read what Paul said about the law. Then come back and ask me what my yardstick is. Don’t just keep shouting in ignorance. And I don’t owe you any explanation. No matter how important you think you are.
“Come back and talk to me when you have read what Paul wrote about the law.”
Done, several times. I once even gave a (guest) sermon on the topic. And? (If you want some fun reading, read John 5:4. Note: this has nothing to do with murder, and me including a reference to it here in no way suggests it has anything to do with murder.)
How in the world did you come up with the idea that I was trying to bluff? I gave you chapter and verse and told you it wasn’t that great of evidence. If you consider that to be bluffing (which I suppose is why you keep saying I’m lying, when I’m not), I’d love to play poker against you some time. No, you’ve invented that idea in your head to avoid answering my question, as to do so would cause increased cognitive dissonance. As for me “vainly attempting to put words or opinion in [your] thoughts”, it’s a technique known as reflection, where I attempt to play back your argument in my own words so you can help me understand where I’m misunderstanding your arguments, or in one cases it was an attempt by me to get you riled up enough to answer the question that you seem to be avoiding. It makes you angry I suppose because you’re unable to explain the inconsistencies in your thought process.
“And it’s not “my interpretation” of Christian scriptures. You, or ANY one has yet to show me a single scripture for the Christian to kill or enslave those who refuse to convert. Not even a debated scripture. The 2 you gave, even you backed off the original claim (and the lie) when you were called on it.”
Sigh. Back to that diversionary tactic again. If you really, really want me to address this (again), I will. I almost did, but I felt you’d use it as an excuse to avoid (once again) the issue I’m actually discussing.
“If you wish to call Judaism murder, that’s your bag, not mine.”
“I also notice you don’t deny that the quran IS full of said scripture. And to the muslim, the quran is the final testament.”
Now we get to the crux of the matter. See, the problem is that it’s not my bag, but if you apply the same rule to Judaism that you appear to be applying to Islam, then that’s the only conclusion one can reach. Since you so studiously seem to be avoiding reaching that conclusion, I can only believe that you don’t really believe in the rule you’re applying to Islam, but rather it’s an excuse, as I indicated in my previous missive. Prove me wrong by applying the same rules to Jews as you do to Muslims. Demonstrate what the difference is. You state that “to the muslim, the quran is the final testament”, yet the Pew study previously cited suggests that the vast majority of Muslims do not think that suicide bombings are ever appropriate. Ever. An acute eye will also note that political boundaries are a more significant predictor than religious identity. How many Muslims do you personally know to make you such an expert on them?
P.S. FWIW, it seems that John 5:4 has some extra-Biblical history and might not have been part of the original manuscript. I was totally unaware of this until just now. (Presumably, you’ll take that admission as a sign of weakness and somehow decide that it makes me a liar, to boot, but I still want to be completely honest, even if you do try to use it against me.)
{http://mattdabbs.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/the-case-of-the-missing-verse-john-54/}
If your 2 scriptures were not evidence of Christian commandments of killing, why did you cite them? Why would a sane person quote something that doesn’t prove their point? Unless it was a bluff.
And if you know so much about Paul, then you would have the answer. Please, tell us!
And I have already said there are muslims who are ignorant of their own scriptures. A huge portion of them, I would gather. Doesn’t change the fact that islam commands them to kill or enslave those who refuse to convert. And with out end, I might add.
There are also other things in islam that make it deviant, since it’s claim is to be of the God of Abraham. Their god allah behaves much differently than the God of Job, Noah, and such. There are some commonalities, but that exists in almost any religion.
So, go ahead, and accuse me (falsely) of claiming that Judaism=Murder. I’ve said no such thing.
You failed to show that Christianity was full of murder, as was your original assessment, you posted scriptures that didn’t support you, and justified it by claiming they were weak. Now you claim to have given lectures on Paul, when you admitted you had to borrow those weak scriptures (not weak, but wrong) from Ivan’s link.
All I see out of you is a lot of blabber. And even if I post what you demand of me now, then it will be something else. And that will lead to something else. You’ve done nothing but blabber.
Paul said:
What I wouldn’t give for a preview function…
Like I said, you would go on to this, and this, and then this……..
Nothing will satisfy you. And you left out a lot Paul said about the Law.
What next? Do I have to justify to you what brand of car I drive? Or how about permission from you to eat dinner?
None of you can give scripture commanding a Christian to kill, as it doesn’t exist. There are plenty of scripts from the quran telling them to do so. Paul went into the law, and it’s lacking, rather thoroughly. Nor did the law apply before the Mt Sinai visits.
I drive a Ford Taurus, and I plan on having baked Talapia, using Ms Dash for seasoning. Is that ok?
Any chance you two could just start yelling “Tastes great!” and “Less filling!” back and forth at each other?
It appears your diversionary tactics are getting sillier. That’s OK, at least silly is fun. Here’s the gist of our last few discussions in silly-eese: I say stop signs are red. You respond with coal is black. I acknowledge that coal is black, and ask if you agree that stop signs are red. You respond that I should stop lying by saying that coal isn’t black, to which I respond that coal is, in fact, black, but do you agree that stop signs are red. You then say that snow is white.
So, in plain English: if Koranic scripture is how you’re judging Islam, how are you judging Judaism, if not by Judaic scripture? It appears to me, and please, please correct me if I’m wrong that you’re not judging Jews by their scripture, but by their actions.
We’re almost there, diss. You have to admire such stubbornness, though, don’t you? (And, no, I’m not just referring to JAC. It takes two stubborn-headed mules to keep a debate going this long.)
Also, to make it easier, just go to the bottom of the page and continue the thread there. The scrolling makes it hard to keep up.
Yea, how about all those loud violent extremist bhuddists!? They’re something else.
or those super insane brutal new age hippies?
They are totally insane! Always blowing stuff up…
Personally, if I HAD to endorse any religion (which, thankfully, I DON’T) it would be Jainism.
{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism}
Yay! Someone else who knows this one! The first time I had ever heard of it was when my teenager was trying to explain it to me as heard from his teenage friend whose family practiced it. It was an excellent demonstration of why you only need one teenager to play the telephone game.
(I finally had to call his friend’s mom and ask her about it.)
I knew someone whose family was Jain. Do you know they are so strictly vegetarian that they wont even eat any root vegetables because it would disturb the earth and possibly kill living things when they are taken out? Also, they don’t eat after dark because in the old days when they cooked by fire insects would fly into the fire. (Sorry if it already says that in the wiki, I didn’t read it all)
..oh I see they do mention that in the wiki…
That’s okay. You should have heard the version I received via my teenager. It was VERY confused and confusing.
Now I want to know how your son described it.
ZOMG BUT THAT’S A SWASTIKA AND THAT MAKES THEM NAZIS!!!!!!!!!11
EBILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!1
They… lost me at celibacy.
“It claims to worship in peace. It has certainly deviated from that.”
You’re talking about christianity, right?
And there’s my point exactly. Some bad eggs in Christianity have given the whole religion a bad name. But most Christians are perfectly normal people who don’t want to hurt anybody. The same goes for Muslims.
I have always found this to be true of most people, regardless of nationality, religion or any other arbitrary dividing factor. They want to live in peace and raise their families in peace.
But…but…but…they’re durty muslins! ZOMG ELEBENTY!!!
Only on the outside, inside their human beings who want to be hugged.
Yeah, just like Shirley Roper of the Westboro Baptist Church. Now THERE’S a lady crying out for a hug!
Have you tried living in a desert? The moment you step out of the shower you’re covered in sand again. It’s not their fault they’re dirty.
That’s a myth DU. Sheesh.
What? What’s a myth? Showers? ZOMG! Charro doens’t believe in showers!
Well, not alone, at least.
No, Ivan, I’m talking about a religion that it’s entire prophecy is focused on the establishment of controlling the world.
But you knew that, and simply want to be an arrogant ass. As usual.
Hm, isn’t a tenet of christianity to spread the “good word” all over the world? Missionaries? Ring any bells? When all else fails, start name-calling, eh? You name-calling arrogant ass.
Describing you actions isn’t name calling. You are an arrogant ass. You enjoy abusing people who don’t share your beliefs.
Telling people about something vs kill them or enslave them if they don’t convert is a big difference. But you knew that, and don’t care. You simply have a chip on your shoulder against Christianity and belittle it every chance you get.
And actually, it’s really only YOU I enjoy tormenting. You so love cramming your “faith” down everyone’s throat that I just can’t resist. I have christian friends I get along with just fine. You just get so…frenzied! It’s too, too fun.
Ok Darth Helmet. You couldn’t torment me if your life depended on it. And that’s one more lie you just got caught in.
Just on this page, where others have discussed faith, you jumped in and got nasty with them.
And I have yet to see you show one scripture that says “kill abortion doctors” or any such thing. None of the things you have listed exist in the Bible. Yet, they do in the quran. And that is what our discussion has been about.
Now, how about we discuss the forced conversion by atheists, and all the killing and murder done by them? Even the evils of the catholic church pale in comparison to the hatred and murder of atheism.
If atheist murder, it’s for the sake of murder, and not at the behest of an invisible sky daddy. PLEASE don’t try to tell me that you actually think that the folks who kill abortion doctors aren’t religiously motivated. That is disingenuous on a whole new level. As a matter of fact, most of your arguments defending the murder of abortion doctors is disingenuous.
And I didn’t lie. You get all pissy in your tight little icy cold heart and start calling me names. A clear sign of a tizzy.
I have no idea why you called me Darth Helmet, but it’s rather catchy! I may start using it!
Religiously motivated and Christian are 2 different things.
And atheists murder because of their beliefs. Not any different than a religious person murdering because of their beliefs. And as I’ve said on today many times, show me one scripture commanding the Christian to murder or enslave someone not of their faith. It doesn’t exist.
And you did lie. You said that you only got in your tissy with me. And that is simply not true.
Atheist murder because of their beliefs?? LOL No, an atheist may murder someone for money, revenge or passion. Not because their imaginary friend said they should.
You’ve twisted things so many times in this thread, you’ve pretty much lost all credibility. Sad, really. But go ahead, have the last word. I know your insecurity makes that a necessity.
Nothing is twisted Ivan. Nothing. Show it, or shut up. In this thread, you claimed Christianity condoned killing. The link you gave was wrong. Not one scripture telling the Christian to kill. Not one.
And, putting aside the imaginary friend insult, you think no atheist ever killed because they had an imaginary friend tell them to do so?
Many an atheist killed, even genocide, because their beliefs were not obeyed by others.
But you’ve already lied, and ignored being caught in the lie, so I imagine you will do it again. All the while whining about me having the last word, when it’s killing you to try and insult me one more time. At least be creative in the lies, make it harder for me to catch you doing it.
But the fact remains that a significant majority of those billion Muslims support, tacitly or overtly, those few extremists. Corrupt Muslim theocracies harp on these themes all the time to distract their populations from their crappy governments. Like it or not, that’s not exactly peaceful.
I think that statement is really too broad and ambiguous to say concretely, Dhoti. There are ~billion people who are Muslim and knowing how all those Muslims feel about the extremists is really tough to nail down. Though, I would be interested to see where you got that from. I mean that seriously too.
I really think you could change that to “corrupt theocracies” and still be correct. Muslims aren’t the only group that can be corrupt.
Fair, and I’ll concede the point. However; Justa’s statement about the entire religion is still fallacious, and however you or I feel about Muslim governments doesn’t change that.
Also, more to the point (and I think this is something we can both agree on
); we all know that power corrupts and a government that is not peaceful isn’t necessarily representative of the people’s will.
I agree that we can’t get too specific, but I still think there are some useful conclusions we can draw, just as if we asked “what do Catholic/Eastern Orthodox/etc. Christians believe?” I recall reading a summary of some research recently, but I can’t find it; the best I can find on short notice is this Pew study from 2005. (Interestingly, it shows a relative drop in support for terror, but near-universal anti-Semitism.)
Thanks Dhoti, that’s a very useful link.
They should call it “pewpewglobal” though.
Yes, absolutely they should. I’m writing them an email right now.
This is very true. As much as people hate the Catholic church now, it went through time periods (where it pretty much WAS the law) where it was horribly corrupt. A complete abomination of Christianity. And if anyone wants a cite, I’ll give them Father Maher’s European history class at my university.
Well, in that case, I’d like a cite. I’d like it shipped to my address if you don’t mind.
Although I often disagree with your points, Dhoti, I can normally see the logic behind them. This is pretty weak all around. It is pretty silly to generalize individual support from crazy government leaders. Do you agree with everything our leaders says? Obama/ (I guess Michael Steele)?
As a side point the World Value Survey has found consistently, that citizens in ‘Islamic countries’ have a much higher rating of democracy as a political system than most modern democracies, including the US.
I meant it the other way around, actually — that a majority opinion exists at the individual level, but that it’s encouraged by religious/government leaders to keep the population distracted from their corrupt and inept government.
That survey’s referring to citizens’ opinion of democracy, not of the actual degree of democracy present in the country, right?
Correct, citizen perceptions of democracy, not of the degree present.
Something like that just proves to me that american lives have become so comfortable that we forgot what it’s like to live like most people live.
Like Nixon said “We enjoy so much freedom it’s almost sickening.”
Its not really about Americans. It is more about experience with democracy. In a democracy, no one is really every happy with the policies chosen?
Just out of curiousity, what did you think of the direction Bush took America in the same amount of time?
Oh Bush fvcked us too. He went away from the Conservative Party and started WAY too many stupid overseas and domestic “social” programs. He didn’t anticipate economic down turn. The one thing he did do is ensure that the terrorists fought us not on our soil, I’m afraid that’s going to change rapidly here.
Make sure the terrorists fought us not on our soil? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds? First, there are not nearly enough terrorists to actually fight us on our soil. Second, we had 1 attack planned and carried out by less than 100 people. Yeah, we got sucker punched, but the answer could have been a better defense. How many Iraqi and Afghani people have died because of our invasion? If anything, if I knew I had to sacrifice 3000 American Lives to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians in other countries, especially after what we have done to them with our economic imperialism, I would be all for it. Hell, even if I had died on 9/11, I would still have wanted more peace and not more war. And if Heaven or Hell exists and has a gateway to look back, I am betting many of the fallen would feel the same.
3000 civilians murdered, and you just shrug it off? I guess we should be glad you’re nowhere near the Department of Defense.
100,000 civilians murdered and you just shrug it off? I guess we should be glad you’re nowhere near the Department of Defense.
Don’t say I didn’t give you a chance to respond intelligently. But I’m sure mimicry is more fun.
Oh I’m sorry. I thought it was intelligent to compare numbers. Maybe I should have just insulted your intelligence instead. That would make my point a winner. But then that would be mimicry at this point.
Why should VNV respond intelligently to your snide comment? Especially when he’s right? You’re intelligent, sure! But you want to pretend that no one will debate civilly with you, when you post the snottiest comments you can. You win Dhoti! You’re the meanest, most sarcastic bastard on PK! Hurrah! *throws confetti*
/sarcasm
Wow, what a shocker — a topic even tangentially discussing religion, and Ivan shows up to p!ss all over it.
Excellent distance today, and nice grouping. Your color is a little off, though; did you drink coffee this morning?
@Dhoti the Asshat
We were talking about war, not religion, you douchenozzle.
Yeah, I’m name-calling. It seems the only thing you understand.
Thanks for proving my point, sweetie. Kisses!
didnt you prove your own point before?
Dhoti, if you’re a male, I’m grossed out. If you’re a female, I’m disturbingly turned on. Either way, what point did I prove? Just because I comment on something it automatically becomes a religious discussion? I DO have other interests and beliefs.
HE SAID BELIEFS!!!!1
ATHEISM IS A RELIGION
FROTHFROTHFROTHFROTH
LULZ
*facepalm*
Pst, ADM. I didn’t say “supernatural beliefs”.
ADM is just yanking your chain, Ivan. Successfully, I might add.
I don’t want to provoke an argument, but I can understand that if you’re using the strict dictionary definition of the word, you could make an argument for atheism being a religion. However, in the colloquial American usage of the word, I don’t believe it fits. But that’s just my belief.
*whispers to Neb* I think he knows, I think he was yanking back…also…can I call you Nebbi?
DU: You can call me whatever you like. I’m sure Nebbi is better than some of the names others have thought up.
*sotto voce* Ivan knew.
Ivan you don’t know Bo….
That’s the fact Jack. Who is this Bo you speak of?
You do realize most of the casualties that occur in Iraq and Afghanastan are from Terrorists don’t you? So blame the US for terrorists actions. Brilliant.
Really? I thought they were dying because Americans were throwing missiles at them. Silly me. And I do blame the US for many of the terrorists actions. Like when we trained Bin Laden and his people. Convenient to forget that eh?
I don’t think Bush did that training. Either way Peanut is right. The majority of deaths occur when the terrorist looks a three soldiers, and 100 civilians and decides it’s STILL a good idea.
A civilian dying =/= ZOMG American Pigs.
Is it a sad thing? Yes
I never said bush trained them, but the US did. And I think that you and ILPB are wrong in this case. So… there you go.
VNV: You don’t think it’s b/c the terrorists park a car in a crowded market and make it go BOOM isn’t responsible for more civilian deaths than a missle shot at a building with terrorists in it?
And yet ADM has a wonderful, valid point. A terrifying terrorist screams “SILENCE! I KEEL YOU!.” *BOOM* because they can’t stand Shia or Sunni walking down the wrong side of the street. =/= ZOMG American Pigs.
All this was happening under Sadam, but to a lesser degree. Why? because if his people found out you were going to do something stupid, they killed you. And if they killed you, and it was a mistake? Pfffft. Oh well. Let me rape your daughters, that will make up for it.
Bush pulled the little boys’ finger out of the dyke, and here came the flood. And the American media made sure to open the floodgates.
Now, arguing that maybe we shouldn’t have been there in the first place, that is legit. And I would tend to agree with you. But it’s too late for that. How about we line Rumsfeld up in front of a firing squad, with rubber bullets? And every day, we whisper to him, “one day, those will be real bullets.”
terrorists =/= insurgents, of which we have killed tens of thousands
VNV: Insurgents blow up innocent people therefore = to terrorists. If they bombed legitimate military targets, then =/= to terrorist.
Since our original plan to take Baghdad included dropping ridiculous numbers of cruise missiles on a major civilian population center “Shock and Awe”, does ILPB’s definition make us terrorists?
Wino, the scale of civilian deaths in modern war is astonishing. Look at Dresden Germany, or the firebombing of Japan. Part of war is demoralizing the civilian population. It’s not good, and remember I said that it’s a fair and honest debate about starting the war.
The war was, and is legal. Moral is questionable. Motive is questionable. We also didn’t do it alone.
We simply did it with bombs that were unlike any ever used. Curve around things to hit the right door, limiting civilian deaths. If it would have been old fashioned iron bombs, there would have been hundreds of thousands killed. And don’t forget that Sadam was using human shields.
Translation of JAC’s post: The USA are always the good guys, so when we do it, it’s okay.
No that’s really not what Justa said at all. Maybe what you read. The fact is that it is war, war sucks but at least we aren’t just blowing up bombs at random. We try our best, the terrorists don’t.
I don’t entirely disagree with ADM’s post, but my point is that it is often not so clear. Human shields confuse things, but so does locating your government headquarters in a major metropolitan area *Thinks of DC*. Maybe ILPB’s definition needs a little more nuance?
So, regarding your new name (and excuse me if I’m belatedly noticing), is this an either/or choice or may one opt for both? And are you intoxicating people with alcohol or just your looks? (I’m assuming the latter.)
Mabs: Is that last question an either/or thing? Because I’ll take both.
When DC was built, it was a swamp. Not a major population area. In fact, malaria nearly killed the people building and living there.
The wars in Iraq & Afghanistan have CREATED more terroists than killed!! America is NOT the world’s police men and we SHOULD NOT be “nation building”. They need to get their sh*t together, build on their capital, and become a success themselves. Isn’t it the conservative philosphy to work hard and do for yourself with NO government intervention? The same goes for foreign policy dammit!!!
America =/= Imperialism
It time to GET.THE.HELL.OUT.
You know how many people would get mad at us if we didn’t? We are still the most powerful nation. People expect everything from us. I see what you’re saying, but it’s a damned if you do damned if you don’t thing. The public is a fickle mistress.
I’d rather be damned if we don’t. If the world is gonna hate us, I’d rather our armed forces NOT be dying for it. They’re supposed to be for when we NEED them to PROTECT us, not to save everyone else.
Rando: I CON-FVKING-CUR!!
So they’ll be mad at us. Fine. I’d rather people have a pouty lip with American soilders than have such a burning hatred they’ll blow themselves up to kill them.
You’re forgetting the fact that these people are taught from infancy to believe that the largesse of the United States is evil and must be destroyed. They would hate us whether we were occupying or not.
I don’t think those folks were taught that ‘the largess’ of the US was evil, but that the influence of the US: our movies, music, beliefs in the rights of women, contraception…
The presence of US television and movies abroad is amazing…and scary. And they get the very worst of it, ‘Baywatch’ along with ‘Sophie’s choice’. Since most folk from other countries do not actually make it to the US themselves, how can we expect them to really understand our behavior and beliefs?
Well they are also being manipulated by wealthy Saudis who are funding the Madrassa schools which teach a very radical form of Islam. It’s not just our decadence they don’t like, it’s our non-mulsim-ness. It’s completely political.
VG: I don’t get it. What’s wrong with Sophie’s Choice?
O_O
*slowly backs away*
Yeah dude……………… yeah
VNV and I agree on a lot of stuff on this thread…but this is where we split. Won’t touch that one.
” the needs of the many, out weight the needs of the few”-Mr. Spock.
Yeah, well, then they went and rescued his sorry ass, so there you go.
after they defeated……KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-breath-AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!
And Christopher Lloyd. Don’t forget beating Christopher Lloyd.
funny how they defeat the man who played Doc Brown, the very next movie they get the bird of prey up to 88 miles per hour and go back in time.
Dang it, I keep trying to post this link:
http://images.cheezburger.com/view.aspx?ciid=6082075&vk=2yZ%2fQidCJNqonYv4tFFx8PIR1wBhlZQF9EMMWQ0E8esxkC7LQ4Q3%2fcPg2b6nsReX
Oh finally!
Noobs the sock, I like your link, and favorited it.
n00b(ette)s(ock) – why can’t we be cheez friends?
Oh Charro, I don’t have an actual account yet, but when I make one I will request your cheez-friendship!
Yea, weird.
Yeah, believing in life being equal comes with lack of dotted lines. Life lost is horrible either way.
The fact is VNV, if we hadn’t done anything after 911, they would not have stopped at 3,000 innocent civilians.
The “fact” is that we had two options, rethink our defenses and foreign policy that caused the attacks, or start killing their people. We chose the wrong one and hundreds of thousands of people died for it.
Nothing we did caused the attacks. What you are doing is known as “blaming the victim” and it’s not cool. We didn’t go over there with the express purpose of killinng civilians like they did to us. We went over there to route out the bad guys, which we did and kept the civilized world much safer. You can blame them. Oh, and Merry Christmas.
I didn’t like it too much either, because I’m a supporter of state rights and sovereignty, no one has been very good about that in a long time. But at least he wasn’t overtly socialistic. Oh but I’d divulging too much into it, could you hand me some glue, I need to get these wings on.
This is why I like making Airplanes, because I make a poliet calm argument I get ignored, but If I were to write F**K OBAMA I’m sure to get lots of attention.
What did you say about the messiah!?!?! Well! *takes back the cookie she offered earlier, which due to nesting rules is in fact below this post. Storms off in a huff* AND DON’T EXPCET ANY POT BROWNIES NOW!!!
Yay! *gives J a cookie* I know it’s a socialist liberal cookie, but that’s all I know how to make.
Rando I believe it’s “And a Merry Fvcking X-mas to you too, Ebenezer.”
I got your Merry Christmas right here, cgray!
I think you need to make little airplanes too!
Aw, but I wanna mess with the angry conservatroll!
AIRPLANES DANG IT! AIRPLANES!!!! ANGRY FRECKIN’ AIRPLANES!
I’m making little birds instead, ok?
yeah that’s cool, but be careful! No bird strikes please!
That’s airplane suck, not bird strike.
Okay…okay…airplanes…don’t hurt me…
That’s better. Are your airplanes angry?
Yes. They’re angry at the conservatrolls.
I’m making water bottles! (I’m really late with the holiday presents!)
Making water bottles! That’s a new one on me. How do you do that?
Sorry, I realized that was a strange way to put it after I posted.
I have stainless steel water bottles in various colors. We’re (my son and I) engraving them with a Dremel for gifts…cartoons, sayings, etc. The process is hampered by the low level of our drawing skills.
haha! that sounds like fun! I’ve always had trouble with dremels getting out of hand and ruining everything! good luck!
Yes, the Dremels are tricky little devils, even more so on a rounded surface. Fortunately we have a couple of freebies (with company names) that I used for practice. Don’t get me wrong — our ‘straight’ lines are not all exactly straight!
close enough! haha
I don’ wanna make airpanes! *throws a tantrum for a few hours then gets bored and goes back to her fairy coloring book that happens to be about the same size as a five year old*
*perks up ears* Colouring book? About Fairies? Can I colour too, DU?
Sure! I also have a princess one and a unicorn one! And the Big Box of crayons!
RAAAAAAACIST
Yes I am, I hate all White People….
Are all my crackas in the house?
With cheese or Crab spread?
That’s racist!!!!!!
What? I didn’t ask if there was Wine and Punch served as well. And the Lexus in the front yard with a big bow?
Totally off-topic — anyone else notice that a lot of the “get somebody a car with a bigass bow for Christmas” commercials are advertising lease rates? “Hey, baby….I rented you a car for Christmas. Don’t drive it too far, there’s a mileage limit in the lease, and any overage charges are on you.”
Now I want to actually LISTEN to the next Lexus commercial I see. See, you’re playing right into their evil plot.
That’s better than the commercial they were making fun of on the Soup advising men that if they really loved their woman to get them a pap smear for Christmas.
Yes, I’ve seen that several times, and it always evokes an ‘ew.’ But I think that Diss was just commenting that the annual Lexus Christmas sale is pushing leases more than it used to.
What’s the “Soup”?
Yo!
Honky go home
Oh, I wish I could….
…
Okay.
*goes home*
I’ll say this much, she’s a lot more clever than most Tea Baggers I’ve seen.
I’ll say this much, you’re a lot more nicer than most Libratards I’ve seen….
…wait, how do you know Boredom is a Libra?
For what it’s worth, I think her sign is funny and actually somewhat creative, not to mention being spelled correctly. The lol….meh.
The sign is creative, and spelled correctly. I just get tired of people insulting conservative protesters. How many liberals on here get mad when conservatives call Obama the Messiah, or call them libratards, or unpatriotic for anti-war protests, etc… yet they turn around and constantly call people TeaBaggers…. when it’s a Tea Party.. no bag involved (except int he Redskin’s stands)
Lol…poor Redskins.
When the hell did it become “libratard”? Libras are born between September 23 and October 22 and don’t have any specific political leaning. Was it a conservative that came up with that bit of illiteracy? Based on the quality of their angry protester signs, I will have to assume that this is the case.
If anything, a Libra is going to be about as close to neutral as anyone in this country can be. My best friend is a Libra. She annoys the hell outta me sometimes.
You Libras and your communist ways! Only Geminis can steer this country in the right direction!
Truly the Tauruses and our bull-headed stubbornness and perseverance will prevail in righting the nation!
Things would get better if we were all pisces. Then we’d all see both sides of the issue, and compromise.
I stubbornly refuse to compromise with no damn pisces!!! Hey, is someone waving a red cape over there…
Jane, if we were being led by the Geminis we’d be led in two directions at the same time! I personally think we should be led by Cancer. Er…Cancers rather. Because we’re awesome! Our mommy told us so. *goes back into her damp basement in her parents house* Mom! I’m hungry! Feed meeeee!
As a Cancer, you should’ve said: “I personally FEEL we should be led by Cancers.”
Are you calling me emotional? I’M NOT EMOTIONAL! *runs off crying*
Lol….Rando, why am I not surprised we’re both Tauruses?
bitter troll is cancer….-sighs- atleast his animal is cool its…crabs….bitter troll hates astology
I’m a couple of fish. Yin and yang?
-sighs-
I’m Cancer bitter love. I love astrology.
The best part about being cancer? Our symbol is a sideways 69
FWIW, I’m also a Taurus, and it seems our esteemed leader is a Leo. King of the jungle and all that, I suppose.
You? Stubborn and bull-headed? No f’ing way!
*digs her heels in*
*snorts heavily out his nose all bull-like*
*backfires and gets snot all over his shirt*
Crap.
I’m sorry, I don’t get this argument. When they had a protest here, they called themselves teabaggers. (Heck, they even had teabags on their hats.) Later they discover they’ve made an unfortunate choice of name for themselves and want everyone to call them something else? I believe it was you who pointed out that misspelling potatoe [sic] destroyed Quayle’s reputation. Stupid mistakes haunt everyone.
But her sign is spelled correctly! A first for signs from either side!
Incorrect.
Um, certainly correct here. I listened to them being interviewed on TV and that’s the term they used.
I have yet to see the term “teabagger” applied by anyone except the opposition. Can you prove that’s what you actually saw?
It would have been easy to be misreported (by interviewing a “bystander”, for instance), or to be misremembered. Alternatively, I wouldn’t put it past you to lie about a group you disagree with.
Wow. Already with the name calling. I assume you know how to use google. KOB TV news in Albuquerque. Look for them interviewing a man with tea bags on his hat.
You lied previously; that is a fact. You were unrepentant about it when caught; that is also a fact. How is it name-calling to suggest that you would repeat a previously documented pattern of behavior?
The burden of proof is on you. Find your own link.
Gee. Forgetting one post on a lol thread that had 1300+ posts. Sorry for my so egregious sin.
What are you even talking about?
TeaBaggers was coined by the liberal pundit Keith Olberman as an insult to conservative protesters. He apparently didn’t like the fact that people were expressing their opinion which was different than his, you know being a Pundit.
I am just repeating what I heard the local protesters say on the local news here. They choose to use that term.
Although liberal pundits can probably be blamed for popularizing the term, I’m not sure they can take the claim for coining it. The Wikipedia article on Teabagging has a political section that talks about the origin of this term, and it’s really not clear at all. There were definitely a lot of eager Tea Party members who wore tea bags and used tea bags in other ways as a form of symbolism.
However, if you’re upset about this name-calling, perhaps you should review your own conduct in that regard (e.g., “Libratards”).
Concept lost on Nebton. *hands Nebton a quarter* please go buy a concept. Thank you.
What a complete non-sequitor. You want to try to point out exactly what concept I lost? Is it the concept that it’s OK for you to insult, but not for liberal pundits? If that’s the concept, then don’t worry, I totally got that.
No the concept is if people want to insist on calling Conservative protestors names, then I’ll gladly paly the game of calling them names. You know the whol what goes around comes around. It was kind of a sarcastic concept for you. If you want I can help you with the whole sarcasm thing.
Oh, I see. So, the concept is that if people will call conservative protesters names, then you’ll gladly play the game of calling them names, but it was wrong for them to call the conservative protesters names in the first place even though those conservative protesters called them names previously.
Brilliant use of sarcasm, or is it really parody? See, I thought you actually were a conservative. You’re right, it was totally lost on me.
FWIW, I think that calling the protesters names is wrong, in the sense that it’s unhelpful for civil discussion. And unless you actually are invoking Poe’s law, I think you live in a house with a lot of glass in it.
Or how it was patriotic to protest Bush, but now it’s just a smear campaign.
OR
When liberals were told to leave if they didn’t like it it was ebul, but now it’s perfectly acceptable to tell conservatives to get out.
partisan stupidity = partisan stupidity
Agreed.
What’s also very unhelpful is to assert that because the person you’re speaking to of the same political persuasion as someone else who’s said something insulting that the person you’re speaking to now is somehow responsible for those insults. (That’s not to say I’ve never said anything insulting. I have, but I do try to keep it to a minimum, and I’m never proud of those weaker moments.)
*sigh* Whatever…. not in the mood really…. here have a pint of warm cider **hands Nebton warm cider** and no it’s not warm b/c I pi$$ed in it. *takes sim of own**
*takes warm cider*
*sniffs*
*sips*
*offers ILPB some “special” brownies*
(In all seriousness, I’ve never actually tried any illegal drugs, but I thought I’d go with the joke.)
All liberals have tried drugs… DIDN’T you know that. *takes Nebton’s liberal card, and tries to tear it* DAMN lamination, you liberals are tricky aintcha?
I got it triple laminated before suggesting to my liberal friends that I liked Bush’s plan for going to Mars.
I then got it ten-fold laminated before suggesting that Bush was a better President than Jefferson because he didn’t own any slaves (only half-way in jest).
*snerk*
No bags involved? There was a protester sign reading “Tea Bag the Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You!!” (sorry, I have no idea how to attach links) shown in The Washington Independent on February 27, and the TeaParty.com website has made numerous references to teabags.
Did the protester refer to himself/herself as a teabagger?
I don’t know – my response was to the assertion “no bags involved”.
And I have never referred to myself as a “libtard”, or the even more egregious “libratard” (can’t get over how stupid that one is), and yet teabaggers insist on referring to me as such.
The whole assertion was “when it’s a Tea Party.. no bag involved” — it’s a bit different in context.
There is a fancy way to do links, but I often mess it up. The easy way is to put the link between the curly brackets. I just am not particularly good at googling things, so won’t take the time to find things for people who start with name calling. (But I did find five pics by googling teabagging protests.)
Passive aggressive blah blah, who cares? All I see is you continuing to refuse to back yourself up.
And the name calling continues.
You seem to be confusing “name calling” with “uncomfortable truth”.
And I’m still waiting for that link. You proved you know how to embed them, so there’s really no excuse.
And I’m still waiting for the name calling to end. (BTW, redefining it doesn’t change it.)
Was responding to me by commenting obliquely to somebody else passive-aggressive? Yes, by definition.
Have you continued to refuse to provide a link? Yes.
Those are *facts*. What part of *citing facts* constitutes name-calling?
Actually, mabsba pretty much did provide links by telling you what to Google. I’ve noticed on this site my posts tend to get swallowed when I provide links, so I don’t tend to do so. I’ll follow up with some links in a different post, but if you don’t see it, it’ll be because it got swallowed up.
Still, they’re not hard to find. Just Google teabagging protests.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/224788/april-16-2009/teabagging-protests
http://teabagparty.org/
(As far as I can tell, it’s not a parody. Poe’s law applies, of course.)
http://gawker.com/5206967/the-history-and-point-of-teabagging
No, she absolutely didn’t. Saying “go google it” to something we don’t agree on the existence of is a lazy cop-out. Can I support the claim “Obama was born in Kenya” by saying “google ‘Obama Kenya birth certificate’?”
The fact of the matter is, she can’t back herself up, so instead she does this passive-aggressive “you do it”, “I don’t like you” crap.
Dhoti: Is it that hard to google it yourself? She told exactly what to google and what to look for.
Nebbi: Put the web address in brackers like this {http://icanhascheezburger.com/} then it won’t get moderated.
No, but you can’t support it by providing links, either. I.e., giving me the phrase to Google is essentially the same as giving me the the results of that Google search (i.e., the links it returns).
So it’s precisely the same thing, then. She swears up and down that there’s this one video that unequivocally proves her point, but she refuses to produce it. Similarly, were I so inclined, I could also swear up and down that there’s a scan of a Kenyan document that proves the birthers’ point, but also refuse to produce it — does that make it any less valid as evidence?
Is it cool only because mabsba is an exceedingly polite bigot? Would my point have been made better by referring to Trig Palin’s supposed conspiracy rather than Obama’s?
I believe she’s referring to the Colbert video I posted. I’m not sure that it “proves” her point, but it does show the use of teabags featuring prominently in the Tea Party protests. If she did in fact say what you’re attributing to her (I’m not seeing that claim), then it would’ve been helpful if she had mentioned Colbert, if that was the video she were referring to, or if it was a different video something that would’ve made it clear which one she was referring to. Again, I think some latitude is called for because it can be difficult to post links here. That, and the fact that I provided the links you were asking for.
Here was the description she gave upthread: “KOB TV news in Albuquerque. Look for them interviewing a man with tea bags on his hat.” I doubt the Colbert gentleman was the only one to think up the tea bags + hatwear idea, so it’s unclear if that was the same clip, and even so, she didn’t make it clear who said what she alleged was said.
Sorry, but I disagree with your call for latitude — particularly in the case of these “magic bullets”.
Nebton: That teaparty.org one was funny . . . the first link I clicked on showed protesters in Naperville, IL . . . funny because the mean income in Naperville has got to be ridiculously high. I’ll be good and go look it up.
Wikipedia was first (easy)–sorry:
“In 2007 the median income for a household in the city was $96,548, and the mean income for a household was $127,816. Males had a median income of $87,527 versus $51,586 for females. The mean income for a family in Naperville was $149,352 according to the 2005 census. The per capita income for the city was $42,235. About 2.8% of the population was below the poverty line, including 1.3% of those under age 18 and 9.1% of those age 65 or over.”
“In 2007, the median annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233.00 according to the Census Bureau.[4] The real median earnings of men who worked full time, year-round climbed between 2006 and 2007, from $43,460 to $45,113. For women, the corresponding increase was from $33,437 to $35,102.”
So, here’s why I found it “funny”: an average American makes 52% of what protesters in Naperville typically earn.
*crickets*
*baseballs*
*croquet*
*polo*
*kipling*
(Do you like Kipling?
I don’t know, I’ve never kippled)
*curling*
OKay, I will try to show you the link thing (I found where I had saved it):
LESSTHANa href=”linkaddresshere”GREATERTHANWhat people see hereLESSTHAN/aGREATERTHAN
makes
What people see here
when you replace the LESSTHAN and GREATERTHAN with the appropriate symbols.
Dude, ILPB, please. Stop using the word “Libratards”. It’s insulting to Libras.
I suggest using the term “libertards”, or “libtards”. I’m sure there are Libras who are conservative that get sad when you lump them in with Liberals.
It is awful insulting.
*in stan’s dad’s voice*
I’m… I’m not a libratard…
This is about the only time Edward Cullen would be even remotely useful.
That sparkling queer is too busy 69ing his boyfriend
We could always drown her in glitter. That might get him to stop long enough to accomplish the intended goal.
ROFLRAZZLE is that way
<—-
i think her sign is funny
agreed….hilarious how so many people are getting their panties in a bunch over it though ^_^
damn conservatives AND liberals. absolutely pathetic.
FWIW, on that I can agree. It’s original and a somewhat clever play on symbolism. (I mean, let’s face it, it’s not that funny, but it’s more funny than it is offensive.)
It is funny.
Hey, can we take a break from the partisan arguing for the holidays? I’ve got special cookies for everybody that calls a truce till the new year.
Are they the ‘special’ cookies? I thought DU ate them all.
Haven’t see DU today and I made lots of “special” cookies should she show up.
Have some!
You didn’t see me all day because…I…um..I wasn’t in the kitchen eating all the cooki-oooh look at all the pretty colors! Have you seen my hand? It’s so cool! How did I never notice this before! OMG It moved! Ack! *hides*
I would, I really would, but I have a seriously nasty toothache (*sniffle* need a root canal), I can’t leave the office for the dentist because half the staff is currently on holidays and I’ve taken twice as many codeine tablets as I usually would in order to get through the day and am not looking forward to breaking into the oxycodone in order to get through Christmas. I am in a fighting mood.
But the ‘special’ cookies will make you feel better.
Oh, Ratty. That’s so awful. I hope you feel better very, very soon.
She is not holding the sign!!! Every body needs to look closer to see the facts, and not rely on first impressions or jump to any one elses conclusions.
You’re right! Good call.
No she just has a manly, slightly dislocated arm!
Actually, if you look at the original picture the pink nail polish on the hands make them look much less manly. She is the one holding the sign. I should point out, however, that she’s Belgian.
No, she’s obviously an Israeli IDF. The cat is Belgian.
Quick! Call Rahm Emmanuel!
ugh…
this makes me think about the “EDWARD PLEASE BITE ME” tshirt that maany girls have
Something tells me Edward prefers biting men.
your just jealous cause eddie is a non-threatening bad boy who is oh so pretty and all the lil girls just love them
Eddie is awesome sauce! What? You meant the sparkly vampire? Oh…I thought you meant Eddie owner of The Lawn™. Sparkly Eddie is meh…
Awww, thanks DU!!! And it’s always a pleasure to see you frolicing about on the lawn.. and in the pool. Definitely the pool.
He would get a Noble Prize for biting.
Zero-bama thanks you for your votes SUCKERS!
lets all hope frank gets raped by a rhino for christmas
Leave Frank’s mother out of this.
Ow. Coffee out of the nose. BT, you are teh awesum!
….-nom!-
Happy Howladays! wow, zealots from both sides can really drag a comment session down. I am gladly nearly neutral and just hoping to survive until the economy comes back up.
bitter troll is a lawful good half elf paladin
I prefer to figure out my alignment this way {http://d21-gaming.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/alignmnet-20darts.jpg}
-gasp-
)http://www.rottentomatoes.com/guides/great_big_gift_guide/collectibles/tauntaun_sleeping_bag/(
the greatest item EVER
!!!http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/plush/bb2e/!!!
You guys here at LOL just love the Obamination of Desolation. You just can’t stand it when real people point out how screwed up you have made this country. Damn liberal idiots – the lot of you.
DAMN THEM!! THEY BLEW IT ALL UP!!! THEY DESTROYED THE ECONOMY AND PUT US IN TWO HORRID WARS AT THE SAME TIME!!! THEY SENT JOBS OVERSEAS AND ACTED SUPRISED WHEN POPLE COULD NOT LONGER AFFORD THE GOOODS BECAUSE THE JOBS WENT OVER SEAS< ITS CLEARLY ALL LIBERALS ALL OF THEM CAN BURN IN THE MAGICAL HELL LAND
I think Bitter Troll needs a Charro cookie and/or hug…… Come here… come on… come here…
Oh dear, it’s time for your medication. C’mon, you know you aren’t allowed on the computer, it makes you angry. Now lets go back to your room with the nice safe padded walls.
He’s just annoyed that you wouldn’t let him poke you with the pitchfork. Very unsporting.
Hey, Ioannes, I just wanted to say that I’m a huge fan of your blog. It is THE funniest thing I’ve ever read! Keep up the great work! Seriously, you have a fantastic career in comedy.
And a merry Christmas to you too.
This is our final stand before we are attacked by Obama’s zombie Socialist army.
Are you serious. Really?
clearly he will use voodoo zombies. because he is black and all black people know that stuff
That voodoo magic?
you remind me of the babe…
I just noticed that you are homeless. I’m making chocolate cake for the art studio run by Healthcare for the Homeless; do you want some? You can come make art with us tomorrow.
no, bitter troll lost his apartment when the roomies snuck out and stole all the money bitter troll had stashed away. bitter troll has been sleeping in a back room at workf or the past week.
I would recommend sleeping in their hollowed out corpses, but that may be illegal in Florida.
Illegal shmillegal. Do it anyway. They deserve horrible death for doing something like that.
BT, I have a rather large shovel at my house…
There’s a wheelbarrow in our back yard that could easily wander off for a bit….
It’s too easy for someone like that.
Play games with them. You might have to stalk them for awhile. Learn some hacking skills, but after a year or two you will have the perfect plan to frame them for a crime, and then they will be raped and killed in prison, while you move on and enjoy your life.
Death is too good for them. I suggest kidnapping them, and slowly inflicting large amounts of pain until they beg for death. Then, pretend you’re going to oblige, just to stab them in the eye and laugh maniacally.
Then stab them 47 times in the liver.
Stabbing in the liver would be kind of fatal. I recommend stabbing them in the feet instead. Hurts more, fatal less, and they will have a real hard time getting away before the next greatly deserved punishment!
Tea *PARTY* protester. (You know, like the famous Boston Tea Party of the American Revolution, that you should have been studying in High School American History class?)
Tea*bagging* is something else entirely. Yes, it probably didn’t help that the Tea Party sent teabags to the White House – in retrospect, it probably would have been better to send loose tea leaves.
What??? Teabagging has a meaning that we don’t know about?! Thank goodness you came along to inform us of these things.
It also didn’t help that a few more naive protesters embraced the term ‘tea bagger’. Sorry I didn’t study the Boston tea party in high school, the US Revolution us 5th grade where I went to school.
No no no. It was only the ebil liberals who called them teabaggers. Which is exactly what they decided once they realized what they called themselves.
So who wants to be the first to bite? I would but her looks say all she’d taste like would be hairspray and nasty. :S
finally a moment where that douce from twilight would come in handy.
When did this become a political forum? ugh.
Probably about the same time they came up with the tag line
“Lol News and
Lol Politics Fun”
But I’m just guessing.
Finally, some common ground for us, JAC.
Look, I give you the benefit of the doubt, that both of us are missing communication because of the vagaries of the written language. I’ve explained why I felt you were lying, and bluffing. Fair enough.
And I’ll even tell you this, I don’t want to get into a scriptural debate on here, as there are certain people here who HATE Christianity with a passion and would use it to start a flame war. No matter how I answer you, they will use it to flame. And I promise you, if you continue to mention faith, without sucking up to said people, they will start flaming you too.
And let me phrase your own question back to you, not to insult, but rather to provoke thought. We both acknowledge the violence of the old testament. How does your “yardstick” justify it? I’m expecting you to have an answer to this, as you said you gave a sermon, and hold position in ministry.
*sigh* HTML fail. *headdesk*
-jumps up and down on a couch like a crazy person-
*pours lighter fluid on couch, then sets it ablaze*
*sprays couch with fire extinguisher*
See, this is why we can’t have nice things.
-finds a new couch to jump on- setting fire to couchs while trolls jump on them is not the christain thing to do!
He’s just trying to recreate the conditions of the volcano that Xenu put their Thetans around in order to help free you.
xenu? the warrior princess from space?
Oh, love the new name. I’m so glad to see you protesting the outrageous govt spending, and all for mother’s and Jesus everywhere. I never knew you were such a right winger there BT. Maybe it was using the .50 on the back of my truck that converted you. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!
because jesus was clearly speaking on the mound, about makig sure your armed to t he teeth and ready to kill kill kill
To every thing there is a season, and a purpose to every thing under the sun.
let bitter troll know when its season to have sex with crying underage asain girls-nods-
A large portion of asian countries, that is now.
well crap, when is it that time in florida??
Go for it, if that floats your cookies. All things have consequences, season or not.
If you don’t know about Xenu, then you’re not allowed to jump on couches.
Sorry, I don’t make the rules, but JAC evidently enforces them.
(Just in case you really don’t know, it’s a Scientology reference.)
xenu? sounds kooky, tell bitter troll all about it!
{http://www.religionfacts.com/scientology/beliefs.htm}
P.S. With respect to your new name, it’d be more appropriate to use the wrong “your”.
thats the second most instane thing bitter troll has ever heard of!
I wish you wouldn’t teabag my mom while jumping on the couch in praise of Xenu. That’s just sick.
And I thought I was helping you in your weight loss exercise program. It was all in the note you sent me. Jumping just does not burn the calories that running while on fire does.
First, I do get flamed by my fellow atheists for my viewpoints on Christianity, other faiths, and atheism itself. So be it.
Secondly, I’m not at all insulted by your question and give you mad props for contributing to a health discussion. My yardstick does not attempt to justify the Old Testament. Rather, I judge Jews and Muslims by their individual actions. By that metric, the average (in a mean, not a median, sense) Muslim is more violent than the average Jew, in my opinion. However, each Muslim and Jew is accountable for his/her own actions. I think painting them all with the same brush does more harm (in multiple senses of that word) than good.
Finally, back when I was a Methodist I have gave two sermons, one of them dealing with Paul, but I do not, and never have, held a position in ministry. These were both guest sermons. The one dealing with Paul was at an Easter service.
Ok, great information. And plan on the flaming. Unless you are willing to make zombie/hippy jesus, FSM, and the likes of what you see above, the flames will begin.
Now, like you, I don’t judge the individual, but by what I see the individual do. Measure their fruits, per se. Now, the religion as a whole, that is a different story. And while there are crazy nuts claiming every religion and non religious idea, Christianity doesn’t have actual scripture calling for murder. And I rebuke those that try to say it does. The same cannot be said of islam, as it does command said things. Ignored by a multitude, for sure, but it is there.
No where in Judaism is there a command to conquer or enslave the world. And we know the law was written to prove that man couldn’t live by the law. And at a time when the world was BRUTAL. Many of those laws were necessary for survival. Also written by a God, knowing that Grace was coming, and would demonstrate the lacking of law. Keep in mind, to the new testament Christian, all things are lawful, but not expedient. You can do said things, but you wont get away with it. And if that is still your nature to live in said things, you didn’t get converted in the first place. (Shall we continue in sin, that Grace may abound?) Judaism was harsh, yes. Had a death penalty, and slaughtered those in the promised land. (heathen) It never went out to conquer the entire world, nor does it give the authority to lie for said conquering. The world was brutal, and God gave rather brutal laws and commandments to deal with it. Knowing all the time that the redemption for the whole world would come out of it.
And the atheist will use that to say that God is a murderer. Let them do it. God acknowledges that he created evil to serve his purpose, and even uses it direct things in the world. Think about the lying spirit that came from the throne, to deceive the 400 prophets before Ahab. And also, look up Amos 3:6.
I hope you are on Facebook, and invite you to look up the group there.
I am on Facebook, but I don’t plan on making any connections between my Facebook (i.e., “real”) self and myself here as, unfortunately, such a connection could potentially have commercial repercussions. (My boss knows I’m an atheist, but as we are a very small software company, my name is part of the corporate image, and I think it would be irresponsible of me to saddle the our company with my ramblings here.)
Not a problem. You don’t have to give a human name. We already have one such profile there. Just when you request to the group, tell the ladies who you are.
The fb group is ‘closed’–you need to be approved to join, and until that time, you can’t read/identify anything in or about the group–a deciding factor for myself, also work-related. Which keeps out trolls other than BT.
JAC, if you wish to act as if you’re having an honest discussion, you might want to refrain from saying such things as ‘the atheist’ says etc etc. That’s about as accurate as saying ‘the Christain’ and meaning all Christians.
I know very few atheists who care enough about your god to even contemplate whether or not they would call him a murderer. Ditto for all my friends of non-Christian beliefs. I am content in my beliefs and have no interest in others except from a theological (ie intellectual) standpoint. (Eg I still struggle to understand the Holy Trinity from my Catholic friends’ point of view.)
My language was equally sloppy. I did not mean to imply that all of my fellow atheists flame me, but rather that there are fellow atheists who will flame me.
As for the Holy Trinity, you should try talking to a Hindu about their Holy Trinity. It might not make any more sense to you, but at least you’ll know it’s not a single religion’s (or subset of a religion’s) concept. I was amazed at the similarities between how my Hindu friends thought of their Godhead with the concept of the Holy Trinity in Christianity (for those denominations which hold such a concept). Of course, as varying as Christians are in their beliefs (even including Mormons), Hindus are even more so as they don’t have a single holy book or agreed upon set of books.
Actually, I did have the Hindu version explained to me, and it made quite a bit of sense, but that may have been because it was by a professor of art history who studied the eastern religions so as to gain a better understanding of the art from that region. People who belong to a religion, especially if they were raised in it, tend to believe very well, but not explain terribly well.
I am not trying to be pissy about the language, but words matter. Otherwise PK wouldn’t block the n-word.
I must add that I keep having visions of a flame-broiled Nebton….
Flame broiled Nebton? That sounds like it would be tasty on a fresh-baked roll, with a side of beer!
Oh, bite me!
I believe that was the idea.
Yup!
Forgive me for not wording that right. And we both struggle to understand holy trinity from the catholic point of view. I do my best, but in all the education I have ever had, writing skills has never been one that I do well with. And until I got involved in PK, really hadn’t practiced much since school. How much writing do you do rebuilding transmissions and driving trucks/forklifts?
When I took the ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Apptitude Battery) for the Air Force in 1987, I broke the record. (In SC) I scored a perfect in 3 out of 4 sections. The one I didn’t get? You guessed it. I do much better orally, but have a hard time with written.
So, for honesty’s sake, let me change it to this, (which is what I was thinking) “the atheist detractor.” I’m also open for a better wording to describe the atheist who is out to detract from persons of faith.
HOw about just ‘some detractors’? Surely you are aware that there are many detractors of any religion from any number of other belief systems, including within its own.
no there is not, and if you tell bitter troll different or try to back it up with your so called “facts” bitter troll will stick bitter troll’s fingers in bitter troll’s ears and go LALALALALALALLALALLALA
I’m sorry, Bitter Troll. I keep forgetting to allow for the troll religion — of course it has NO detractors, either within or without. I apologize. Leftover Christmas cookies?
I’ve never had a Buddhist try to convert me, or tell me that God/Christianity is wrong. Or a Hindu, and many such religions. I’ve had a lot of polite, well, “Ok, that’s your way” conversations with them. It’s always been the anti-religious atheist, with the exception of one Pagan. Maybe it would be better stated as the anti-religious?
Anti-religious? To me that sounds non-inflammatory, but pretty descriptive. There are of course some inflammatory anti-religious…we’ve certainly seen them here. But since I’m more agnostic than atheist, I should step back to allow for an atheist to judge on the wording.
I suspect that the average atheist is like the average person of any religion–non-militant and therefore not part of the flame wars.
bitter troll is a miltant agnostic, not sure of anything..but ready to blow up schools to enforce it!
BELIEVE THE SAME THINGS WE MAY OR MAY NOT BELIEVE IN, WE ARE NOT SURE!!!! OR ELSE!!!!!!!
*wipes sweat off brow* Whew. Cookies anyone?
Cookies? Yay!
*offers chocolates*
Does anyone have some tea to go with our desserts?
I have never had anyone from any religion other than Christianity try to convert me or get me to change any of my religious beliefs in any way. I apologize in advance to Christians that don’t behave like this, but in my opinion it’s all the proselytizing that so many Christians do that makes so many people feel anti-Christian. I can see why some people’s response is to spend time finding fault with Christianity.
As a whole, Christianity is reaping what it sows. Which is not fair to nice, polite Christians who don’t spend their time trying to stuff their religion down others’ throats, but is nevertheless.
I’d say that Christianity and Islam are both pretty big on the whole conversion thing. Theoretically, they do it because they’re trying to save your soul. Similarly, some atheists do it because they’re trying to save you from (what they consider) stupid. Of course, in the US you’re not going to encounter many Muslims trying to convert you, both due to there being fewer of them and due to those that are here not wanting to bring wrath down upon themselves. Similarly, you probably wouldn’t find too many Christians trying to convert you in Turkey (although you will find some and the repercussions there are frequently much worse).
Regardless, jerks exist in all religions, including atheism, whether or not you consider that a religion (which is really a semantic argument not worth having, in my opinion). Yes, you’ll even find militant Hindus (just look at the VHP) and militant Buddhists (just ask Myanmar).
Yes, I do realize that my experience with evangelists is limited due to where I have lived and traveled (OMG, I never thought I’d have a reason to be glad to have traveled LESS). I was speaking of the US and probably should have said so. I really feel that a lot of the anti-Christian sentiment in the US is due to the obnoxious Christians who keep trying to put prayer in the schools and things like that. I mean, I spent six years while my son was in public school being very nice responding to arguments such as “Well, everyone here is Catholic; why can’t we just have Catholic prayer?”* After a while, you get tired of being nice.
*My Southern Baptist friend always responded with, “Whose prayer? Do I get to pick or will it be the Muslim family or the Jewish family?”
I like your friend!
Me too! She’s actually a very liberal Southern Baptist — plays cards, dances, goes to movies. A lot of the Southern Baptist churches don’t allow any of those things, as I discovered when I taught in Texas. Can you imagine trying to teach probability to students who’ve NEVER played cards?
Dang! I guess you’d have to work off of likeliness that your friend is ‘friended’ by a classmate on facebook?
Gah! English! Grr.
“likeliHOOD”!!11!elebenty!!!
*glances around* Um, this was a WEE bit before facebook…or email.
One more thought on jerks being in all religions: it really boils down more to political issues than religious issues, in my opinion. If you look at all of the murder in the name of Christianity, Islam, etc., you’ll find a political motive under the surface (assuming it’s even buried at all).
Of course, politically, jerks only exist on the conservative side of the spectrum.
Wha– Hey!
Oh, wait, you mean there’s another term for jerk-type people on the liberal side of the spectrum, right?
(As an aside here, does anyone else giggle a little every time they encounter “Caribbean Jerk seasoned” food? “Caribbean Jerk” just always brings to mind an image of some guy from the islands cutting you off in traffic….)
Yes, I’ve the same response to the ‘Caribbean Jerk seasoned’…until I smell it. After smelling it, my only response is ‘Please?!’
No, someone please bite obama. on the neck. preferably a vampire..so that way we never have to see him again…
Unless the vampire turns him into a vampire and he lives forever? Just a thought.
Maybe because if he’s a vampire, he won’t photograph?
I guess most of us don’t see the President in person….
Do the sparkly vampires photograph?
I think they do. Certain other types of vampires photograph too, like the Trueblood vampires…
I don’t know if this was in the Trueblood show or just the books, but the author explained that by saying that they showed up with digital technology and not with the film cameras because of the silver used in developing solutions. I thought that was a pretty clever workaround.
I didn’t actually see much of the series, but I remember when they came out to the world they did so on TV and therefore could be captured on TV. I didn’t like the show over much, Sookie seemed really dumbed down to me
The books are better, IMO. The show just became bizarre. And I agree about Sookie. Of course, I listened to most of the books, and I have a higher tolerance for what I’ll listen to over what I’ll read.
Yeah, the books themselves are just brain candy. They give you cavities if you read to many of them without flossing.
*weird image of DU ‘flossing’ her brain*
Uh huh.
I could just read mental floss magazine…It’s less painful than trying to thread the floss in my brain.
May I present you with this shiny internets for that engaging comment?
[How many does that make, now?]
I think this is actually the first internets I’ve ever been officially awarded. I have a few I’ve um..commandeered when people left theirs lying around, but you know, someone has to do the cleaning up around here.
It’s fun down here, what can I say? Now I see why Ivan and VNV and mabsaba and all them do it…
you must be the one without sin huh? cause you certainly love to cast the first stone
If you think I’m first, you either need to scroll up, or get a bigger monitor…
awww is butthurt conservatroll feeling a wee bit butthurt?
Yeah, a little — street tacos were a bad lunch choice.
I’m just saying, if I’m going to get labeled a troll no matter what I do, why not have some fun with the *actual* trolls?
ahhh….-coughs-…yeah….or wait that was not an awkward attempt to be funny?
The having fun with the real trolls part fell a bit flat, but the tacos things was brilliant.
You’d admit that if you weren’t just as butthurt.
no no the taco bit was amusing, bitter troll didnt miss that.
In that case proceed.
my god man, how could you put those two together with something like that…your a dirty dirty person DU…dirty…
I know. I need help. I texted Cpt. Wow to ask her if her texting rehab could help people like me, but last I heard they were trying to take her cell phone away so she couldn’t text anymore.