About Religion

Question:

http://cagle.com/news/PopeRemarks/main.asp

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > http://cagle.com/news/PopeRemarks/main.asp

Response:

> http://cagle.com/news/PopeRemarks/main.asp

Well i think if the world suddenly found itself absent of islam, I really dont think it would be too sorely missed, the religion Oh so sorry i insulted islam, please dont blow me up.

Response:

AGA please

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> http://cagle.com/news/PopeRemarks/main.asp

Response:

> http://cagle.com/news/PopeRemarks/main.asp

Stop peddling your shit around this newsgroup. Do you have nothing better to do with your life than post banal and totally irrelevant crap here. FFS get a life Angof

Response:

> > http://cagle.com/news/PopeRemarks/main.asp > Stop peddling your shit around this newsgroup. Do you have nothing better to > do with your life than post banal and totally irrelevant crap here. > FFS get a life

C’mon.  Give ol’ Pat a break.  He can’t figure out why nobody likes him.  He doesn’t know that Pat isn’t short for Patrick in his case. Pathetic is more like it. rct

Response:

> http://cagle.com/news/PopeRemarks/main.asp

What a butt pupet! CA

Response:

> > http://cagle.com/news/PopeRemarks/main.asp > Well i think if the world suddenly found itself absent of islam,

there would be some other ideology to complain about. The current powers can’t keep that power without and external emeny with which to unite the rabble.

Response:

> > http://cagle.com/news/PopeRemarks/main.asp > What a butt pupet! > CA

yo, expert on butt puppetry, you forgot a pee. (are your puppets hand, finger or string puppets)

Response:

But what are your deeper real honest thoughts? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Well i think if the world suddenly found itself absent of christianity, > I really dont think it would be too sorely missed, the religion > Oh so sorry i insulted christians, please dont invade my country and blow me up.

Response:

> > http://cagle.com/news/PopeRemarks/main.asp > Well i think if the world suddenly found itself absent of islam, > there would be some other ideology to complain about. The current > powers can’t keep that power without and external emeny with which to > unite the rabble.

Who fucking cares.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>> http://cagle.com/news/PopeRemarks/main.asp >> Well i think if the world suddenly found itself absent of islam, > there would be some other ideology to complain about. The current > powers can’t keep that power without and external emeny with which to > unite the rabble. > Who fucking cares.

Right on! Fuck religion. It’s private. Politics is public. The end.

Response:

> But what are your deeper real honest thoughts? > Well i think if the world suddenly found itself absent of christianity, > I really dont think it would be too sorely missed, the religion > Oh so sorry i insulted christians, please dont invade my country and blow me up.

Yup, Islam has been so defiled, oppressed, persecuted, hunted, that the only recourse for them is to lash out in ultra violence at any and every thing perceived to be a threat to the expansionist doctrine of one world under allah.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> But what are your deeper real honest thoughts? >> Well i think if the world suddenly found itself absent of christianity, >> I really dont think it would be too sorely missed, the religion >> Oh so sorry i insulted christians, please dont invade my country and > blow me up. > Yup, Christianity has been so defiled, oppressed, persecuted, hunted, that > the only recourse for us is to lash out in ultra violence at Iraq and every > thing perceived to be a threat to the expansionist doctrine of one world > under Jesus. Hey! Let’s sing "My God is an Awesome God" together!

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> But what are your deeper real honest thoughts? >>> Well i think if the world suddenly found itself absent of christianity, >>> I really dont think it would be too sorely missed, the religion >>> Oh so sorry i insulted christians, please dont invade my country and > Yup, Christianity has been so defiled, oppressed, persecuted, hunted, > that the only recourse for us is to lash out in ultra violence at Iraq and > everything perceived to be a threat to the expansionist doctrine of one world > under the U.S. $ and the Pentagon. Hey! Let’s sing "My God is an Awesome God" together!

Lyrics: Bass: My God is an awesome God He reigns from heaven above With wisdom power and love Our God is an awesome God Soprano, Alto, and Tenor (come in one round at a time, with each part continuing): Our God is awesome He reigns from heaven With power and wisdom Our God is an awesome God Chorus (with four parts in background): Our God is an awesome God He reigns from heaven above With wisdom power and love Our God is an awesome God Now when He rolled up His sleeves He wasn

Question:

Scientists Say They’re Being Gagged by Bush     By Juliet Eilperin     The Washington Post     Sunday 16 April 2006 White House monitors their media contacts.     Washington – Scientists doing climate research for the federal government say the Bush administration has made it hard for them to speak forthrightly to the public about global warming. The result, the researchers say, is a danger that Americans are not getting the full story on how the climate is changing.     Employees and contractors working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, along with a U.S. Geological Survey scientist working at an NOAA lab, said in interviews that over the past year administration officials have chastised them for speaking on policy questions; removed references to global warming from their reports, news releases and conference Web sites; investigated news leaks; and sometimes urged them to stop speaking to the media altogether. Their accounts indicate that the ideological battle over climate-change research, which first came to light at NASA, is being fought in other federal science agencies as well.     These scientists – working nationwide in research centers in such places as Princeton, N.J., and Boulder, Colo. – say they are required to clear all media requests with administration officials, something they did not have to do until the summer of 2004. Before then, climate researchers – unlike staff members in the Justice or State departments, which have long-standing policies restricting access to reporters – were relatively free to discuss their findings without strict agency oversight.     "There has been a change in how we’re expected to interact with the press," said Pieter Tans, who measures greenhouse gases linked to global warming and has worked at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder for two decades. He said that although he often "ignores the rules" the administration has instituted, when it comes to his colleagues, "some people feel intimidated – I see that."     Christopher Milly, a hydrologist at the U.S. Geological Survey, said he had problems twice while drafting news releases on scientific papers describing how climate change would affect the nation’s water supply.     Once in 2002, Milly said, Interior officials declined to issue a news release on grounds that it would cause "great problems with the department." In November 2005, they agreed to issue a release on a different climate-related paper, Milly said, but "purged key words from the releases, including ‘global warming,’ ‘warming climate’ and ‘climate change.’ ”     Administration officials said they are following long-standing policies that were not enforced in the past. Kent Laborde, a NOAA public affairs officer who flew to Boulder last month to monitor an interview Tans did with a film crew from the BBC, said he was helping facilitate meetings between scientists and journalists.     "We’ve always had the policy, it just hasn’t been enforced," Laborde said. "It’s important that the leadership knows something is coming out in the media, because it has a huge impact. The leadership needs to know the tenor or the tone of what we expect to be printed or broadcast."     Several times, however, agency officials have tried to alter what these scientists tell the media. When Tans was helping to organize the Seventh International Carbon Dioxide Conference near Boulder last fall, his lab director told him participants could not use the term "climate change" in conference paper’s titles and abstracts. Tans and others disregarded that advice.     None of the scientists said political appointees had influenced their research on climate change or disciplined them for questioning the administration. Several researchers have received bigger budgets in recent years because President Bush has focused on studying global warming rather than curbing greenhouse gases. NOAA’s budget for climate research and services is now $250 million, up from $241 million in 2004.     The assertion that climate scientists are being censored first surfaced in January when James Hansen, who directs NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told the New York Times and the Washington Post that the administration sought to muzzle him after he gave a lecture in December calling for cuts in emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. (NASA Administrator Michael Griffin issued new rules recently that make clear that its scientists are free to talk to members of the media about their scientific findings, including personal interpretations.)     Two weeks later, Hansen suggested to an audience at the New School University in New York that his counterparts at NOAA were experiencing even more severe censorship. "It seems more like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union than the United States," he told the crowd.     NOAA Administrator Conrad Lautenbacher responded by sending an agency-wide e-mail that said he is "a strong believer in open, peer-reviewed science as well as the right and duty of scientists to seek the truth and to provide the best scientific advice possible."     "I encourage our scientists to speak freely and openly," he added. "We ask only that you specify when you are communicating personal views and when you are characterizing your work as part of your specific contribution to NOAA’s mission."     NOAA scientists, however, cite repeated instances in which the administration played down the threat of climate change in their documents and news releases. Although Bush and his top advisers have said that Earth is warming and human activity has contributed to this, they have questioned some predictions and caution that mandatory limits on carbon dioxide could damage the nation’s economy.     In 2002, NOAA agreed to draft a report with Australian researchers aimed at helping reef managers deal with widespread coral bleaching that stems from higher sea temperatures. A March 2004 draft report had several references to global warming, including "Mass bleaching … affects reefs at regional to global scales, and has incontrovertibly linked to increases in sea temperature associated with global change."     A later version, dated July 2005, drops those references and several others mentioning climate change.     NOAA has yet to release the coral bleaching report. James Mahoney, assistant secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere, said he decided in late 2004 to delay the report because "its scientific basis was so inadequate." Now that it is revised, he said, he is waiting for the Australian Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to approve it. "I just did not think it was ready for prime time," Mahoney said. "It was not just about climate change – there were a lot of things."     On other occasions, Mahoney and other NOAA officials have told researchers not to give their opinions on policy matters. Konrad Steffen directs the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder, a joint NOAA-university institute with a $40 million annual budget. Steffen studies the Greenland ice sheet, and when his work was cited last spring in a major international report on climate change in the Arctic, he and another NOAA lab director from Alaska received a call from Mahoney in which he told them not to give reporters their opinions on global warming.     Steffen said that he told him that although Mahoney has considerable leverage as "the person in command for all research money in NOAA … I was not backing down."     Mahoney said he had "no recollection" of the conversation, which took place in a conference call. "It’s virtually inconceivable that I would have called him about this," Mahoney said, though he added: "For those who are government employees, our position is they should not typically render a policy view."     The need for clearance from Washington, several NOAA scientists said, amounts to a "pocket veto" allowing administration officials to block interviews by not giving permission in time for journalists’ deadlines.     Ronald Stouffer, a climate research scientist at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, estimated his media requests have dropped in half because it took so long to get clearance to talk from NOAA headquarters. Thomas Delworth, one of Stouffer’s colleagues, said the policy means Americans have only "a partial sense" of what government scientists have learned about climate change.     "American taxpayers are paying the bill, and they have a right to know what we’re doing," he said.

Response:

Does Lysenko mean anything to anyone???? Michurin’s views on evolution found favor with the party leadership in the Soviet Union. When the rest of the scientific world were pursuing the ideas of Mendel and developing the new science of genetics, Russia led the way in the effort to prevent the new science from being developed in the Soviet Union. Thus, while the rest of the scientific world could not conceive of understanding evolution without genetics, the Soviet Union used its political power to make sure that none of their scientists would advocate a genetic role in evolution. It was due to Lysenko’s efforts that many real scientists, those who were geneticists or who rejected Lamarckism in favor of natural selection, were sent to the gulags or simply disappeared from the USSR. Lysenko rose to dominance at a 1948 conference in Russia where he delivered a passionate address denouncing Mendelian thought as "reactionary and decadent" and declared such thinkers to be "enemies of the Soviet people" (Gardner 1957). He also announced that his speech had been approved by the Central Committee of the Communist Party. Scientists either groveled, writing public letters confessing the errors of their way and the righteousness of the wisdom of the Party, or they were dismissed. Some were sent to labor camps. Some were never heard from again. Under Lysenko’s guidance, science was guided not by the most likely theories, backed by appropriately controlled experiments, but by the desired ideology. Science was practiced in the service of the State, or more precisely, in the service of ideology. The results were predictable: the steady deterioration of Soviet biology. Lysenko’s methods were not condemned by the Soviet scientific community until 1965, more than a decade after Stalin’s death. Could something similar happen in the U.S.? Well, some might argue that it already has. First, there is the creationist movement which has tried, and at times been successful, in banning the teaching of evolution in public schools. With Duane Gish leading the way, who knows what would happen if Pat Robertson became President of the United States and Jerry Falwell his secretary of education. Then, of course, there are several well-known and well-financed scientists in America who also seem to be doing science in the name of ideology: not the ideology of fundamentalist Christianity but the ideology of racial superiority. Lysenko was opposed to the use of statistics, but had he been clever enough to see how useful statistics can be in the service of ideology, he might have changed his mind. Had he seen what J. Philippe Rushton, Arthur Jensen, Richard Lynn, Richard Herrnstein or Charles Murray have done with statistical data to support their ideology of racial superiority, Lysenko might have created a department of Supreme Soviet Statistics and proven with the magic of numbers the superiority of Lamarckism to natural selection and genetics. http://skepdic.com/lysenko.html

Response:

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>> February 07, 2006 >>> Bush budget a tough row >>> His plan to trim Medicare and other programs may hit an >>> election-year wall. >>> By Peter Grier | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor >>> WASHINGTON – The coming debate over the 2007 budget may be the most >>> difficult fiscal discussion President Bush has yet faced. >>> Mr. Bush’s proposed $2.77 trillion spending plan, released Monday, >>> contains some controversial provisions – notably, a $35.9 billion >>> reduction in Medicare spending over five years. >>> But it’s an election year, and GOP leaders are worried about >>> maintaining control of Congress. Rank-and-file Republicans may have >>> little enthusiasm for tough budget cuts, while Democrats will almost >>> certainly oppose them…. >>> The Department of Defense would get a 6.9 percent increase, under >>> the Bush plan. This would pay for a big boost in the Army’s budget, >>> from $99 billion to $112 billion, and a 15 percent increase in the >>> size of US special forces, among other things. >>> The Department of Homeland Security would get a 9.8 percent >>> increase, under the plan… >>> http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0207/p01s01-usec.html >> Rich people don’t need Medicare. They do, however, own munitions >> companies and >> pieces of Haliburton. > And in most likelyhood so does anyone else who owns mutual funds…. Rich > people I would think do not have a whole lot of mutual fund > holdings….. > bush,jr’s budget proposal is DOA. > He’s a lame duck and congress needs to face the electorate

That is usually true with most lame ducks….  But if he fails, then someone is going to pay the price, and it is not likely going to be those of us who are on Social Security…..

Response:

The change charge the upper 10% of retired households full price for for medicare insurance starting 2007.  There is no inflation adjustment, so in 15 year 50% of retirees will paying full price for medicare insurance.

Response:

How many are going to vote for anyone that voted George Orwell’s Patriot Act in Congress? How many are going to vote for anyone that voted for VISA’s Loan sharking Power and eliminated our rights to go to Court in Congress? It seems that all the Republicans are in lock step  with these and similar agendas. Many Democrats betrayed us too.

Response:

Interesting that I could not determine from the article whether it was a real cut, i.e. spending from one year to the next was actually going to decrease, or this was another Washington version of what a cut is, i.e. that it is below the rate of increase from one year to the next….

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> February 07, 2006 > Bush budget a tough row > His plan to trim Medicare and other programs may hit an election-year > wall. > By Peter Grier | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor > WASHINGTON – The coming debate over the 2007 budget may be the most > difficult fiscal discussion President Bush has yet faced. > Mr. Bush’s proposed $2.77 trillion spending plan, released Monday, > contains some controversial provisions – notably, a $35.9 billion > reduction in Medicare spending over five years. > But it’s an election year, and GOP leaders are worried about > maintaining control of Congress. Rank-and-file Republicans may have > little enthusiasm for tough budget cuts, while Democrats will almost > certainly oppose them…. > The Department of Defense would get a 6.9 percent increase, under the > Bush plan. This would pay for a big boost in the Army’s budget, from > $99 billion to $112 billion, and a 15 percent increase in the size of > US special forces, among other things. > The Department of Homeland Security would get a 9.8 percent increase, > under the plan… > http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0207/p01s01-usec.html

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->February 07, 2006 >Bush budget a tough row >His plan to trim Medicare and other programs may hit an election-year >wall. >By Peter Grier | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor >WASHINGTON – The coming debate over the 2007 budget may be the most >difficult fiscal discussion President Bush has yet faced. >Mr. Bush’s proposed $2.77 trillion spending plan, released Monday, >contains some controversial provisions – notably, a $35.9 billion >reduction in Medicare spending over five years. >But it’s an election year, and GOP leaders are worried about >maintaining control of Congress. Rank-and-file Republicans may have >little enthusiasm for tough budget cuts, while Democrats will almost >certainly oppose them…. >The Department of Defense would get a 6.9 percent increase, under the >Bush plan. This would pay for a big boost in the Army’s budget, from >$99 billion to $112 billion, and a 15 percent increase in the size of >US special forces, among other things. >The Department of Homeland Security would get a 9.8 percent increase, >under the plan… >http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0207/p01s01-usec.html > Rich people don’t need Medicare. They do, however, own munitions companies > and > pieces of Haliburton.

And in most likelyhood so does anyone else who owns mutual funds….   Rich people I would think do not have a whole lot of mutual fund holdings…..

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> February 07, 2006 >> Bush budget a tough row >> His plan to trim Medicare and other programs may hit an >> election-year wall. >> By Peter Grier | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor >> WASHINGTON – The coming debate over the 2007 budget may be the most >> difficult fiscal discussion President Bush has yet faced. >> Mr. Bush’s proposed $2.77 trillion spending plan, released Monday, >> contains some controversial provisions – notably, a $35.9 billion >> reduction in Medicare spending over five years. >> But it’s an election year, and GOP leaders are worried about >> maintaining control of Congress. Rank-and-file Republicans may have >> little enthusiasm for tough budget cuts, while Democrats will almost >> certainly oppose them…. >> The Department of Defense would get a 6.9 percent increase, under >> the Bush plan. This would pay for a big boost in the Army’s budget, >> from $99 billion to $112 billion, and a 15 percent increase in the >> size of US special forces, among other things. >> The Department of Homeland Security would get a 9.8 percent >> increase, under the plan… >> http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0207/p01s01-usec.html > Rich people don’t need Medicare. They do, however, own munitions > companies and > pieces of Haliburton. > And in most likelyhood so does anyone else who owns mutual funds…. Rich > people I would think do not have a whole lot of mutual fund > holdings…..

bush,jr’s budget proposal is DOA. He’s a lame duck and congress needs to face the electorate

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > February 07, 2006 > Bush budget a tough row > His plan to trim Medicare and other programs may hit an election-year > wall. > By Peter Grier | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor > WASHINGTON – The coming debate over the 2007 budget may be the most > difficult fiscal discussion President Bush has yet faced. > Mr. Bush’s proposed $2.77 trillion spending plan, released Monday, > contains some controversial provisions – notably, a $35.9 billion > reduction in Medicare spending over five years. > But it’s an election year, and GOP leaders are worried about > maintaining control of Congress. Rank-and-file Republicans may have > little enthusiasm for tough budget cuts, while Democrats will almost > certainly oppose them…. > The Department of Defense would get a 6.9 percent increase, under the > Bush plan. This would pay for a big boost in the Army’s budget, from > $99 billion to $112 billion, and a 15 percent increase in the size of > US special forces, among other things. > The Department of Homeland Security would get a 9.8 percent increase, > under the plan… > http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0207/p01s01-usec.html

Plus the $128 billion Supplemental Spending Bill he’ll ask for to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (wonder how much more Iran will cost?) Now cuts for Medicare, a system paid into by the vast majority of those benefiting from it.  He still wants to damage Social Security as much as possible. But keep tax cuts for the wealthy, make it easier for corporations to move jobs overseas while sheltering even more corporate income from taxes, and asking Congress to raise the debt limit. Oh yeah, keep sending the troops over to the sandbox, the same ones over and over because we’re going to draw down personnel some more, and cut VA benefits and health care.  And those damned retirees, make them cough up more for their health care, double or triple. Prescription Drug Plan that is difficult to navigate and steers more profits to Big Pharmaceuticals, and make sure that the HMO’s and other insurance companies aren’t hurt by cutting Medicare. For crying’ out loud, can’t you numb-nuts on here see that even if he didn’t bugger you this time, your turn is coming? Every time the Republicans have gotten into a little power in recent memory they’ve made things worse for regular folks.  And they laugh all the way to the bank because the con the unwashed masses into putting them there.  They try to shift the arguments to crap like abortion, gay marriage, creationism, flag burning amendments, and how whacked out they think "the Left" is. Wake up!  The Republican Party cares not one wit about any of these issues beyond their use for keeping the evangelicals voting Republican like lemmings. They claim to be for small government.  The government has grown more under Bush than any time in recent memory.  What they are really for is their own self-interest.  Power and money. For those who profess Christianity I would have you consider the Republican culture of power and greed in the context of trying to serve God and the flesh.  Republicans are Mammon personified.

Response:

February 07, 2006 Bush budget a tough row His plan to trim Medicare and other programs may hit an election-year wall. By Peter Grier | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor WASHINGTON – The coming debate over the 2007 budget may be the most difficult fiscal discussion President Bush has yet faced. Mr. Bush’s proposed $2.77 trillion spending plan, released Monday, contains some controversial provisions – notably, a $35.9 billion reduction in Medicare spending over five years. But it’s an election year, and GOP leaders are worried about maintaining control of Congress. Rank-and-file Republicans may have little enthusiasm for tough budget cuts, while Democrats will almost certainly oppose them…. The Department of Defense would get a 6.9 percent increase, under the Bush plan. This would pay for a big boost in the Army’s budget, from $99 billion to $112 billion, and a 15 percent increase in the size of US special forces, among other things. The Department of Homeland Security would get a 9.8 percent increase, under the plan… http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0207/p01s01-usec.html

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->February 07, 2006 >Bush budget a tough row >His plan to trim Medicare and other programs may hit an election-year >wall. >By Peter Grier | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor >WASHINGTON – The coming debate over the 2007 budget may be the most >difficult fiscal discussion President Bush has yet faced. >Mr. Bush’s proposed $2.77 trillion spending plan, released Monday, >contains some controversial provisions – notably, a $35.9 billion >reduction in Medicare spending over five years. >But it’s an election year, and GOP leaders are worried about >maintaining control of Congress. Rank-and-file Republicans may have >little enthusiasm for tough budget cuts, while Democrats will almost >certainly oppose them…. >The Department of Defense would get a 6.9 percent increase, under the >Bush plan. This would pay for a big boost in the Army’s budget, from >$99 billion to $112 billion, and a 15 percent increase in the size of >US special forces, among other things. >The Department of Homeland Security would get a 9.8 percent increase, >under the plan… >http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0207/p01s01-usec.html

Rich people don’t need Medicare. They do, however, own munitions companies and pieces of Haliburton. "Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." — Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> February 07, 2006 > Bush budget a tough row > His plan to trim Medicare and other programs may hit an election-year > wall. > By Peter Grier | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor > WASHINGTON – The coming debate over the 2007 budget may be the most > difficult fiscal discussion President Bush has yet faced. > Mr. Bush’s proposed $2.77 trillion spending plan, released Monday, > contains some controversial provisions – notably, a $35.9 billion > reduction in Medicare spending over five years. > But it’s an election year, and GOP leaders are worried about > maintaining control of Congress. Rank-and-file Republicans may have > little enthusiasm for tough budget cuts, while Democrats will almost > certainly oppose them…. > The Department of Defense would get a 6.9 percent increase, under the > Bush plan. This would pay for a big boost in the Army’s budget, from > $99 billion to $112 billion, and a 15 percent increase in the size of > US special forces, among other things. > The Department of Homeland Security would get a 9.8 percent increase, > under the plan… > http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0207/p01s01-usec.html > Rich people don’t need Medicare. They do, however, own munitions > companies and pieces of Haliburton.

bush,jr doesn’t need to run for reelection. Every Congressman and one third of the Senate is up for election. This stuff will never pass in an election year. Never.

Response:

I would be happy to see these pass, because it would send home the message to americans that republiconism and conservatism is an excuse for greed, selfishness, and unfairness

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> February 07, 2006 > Bush budget a tough row > His plan to trim Medicare and other programs may hit an election-year > wall. > By Peter Grier | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor > WASHINGTON – The coming debate over the 2007 budget may be the most > difficult fiscal discussion President Bush has yet faced. > Mr. Bush’s proposed $2.77 trillion spending plan, released Monday, > contains some controversial provisions – notably, a $35.9 billion > reduction in Medicare spending over five years. > But it’s an election year, and GOP leaders are worried about > maintaining control of Congress. Rank-and-file Republicans may have > little enthusiasm for tough budget cuts, while Democrats will almost > certainly oppose them…. > The Department of Defense would get a 6.9 percent increase, under the > Bush plan. This would pay for a big boost in the Army’s budget, from > $99 billion to $112 billion, and a 15 percent increase in the size of > US special forces, among other things. > The Department of Homeland Security would get a 9.8 percent increase, > under the plan… > http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0207/p01s01-usec.html

Response:

Question:

It was just another day ‘Cept the registers stopped singin’ Next day’s all returns ‘n Phat Dollah the Johnson keeps swingin’ Christianity is hocus pocus And no, that’s not news Jews are fucking selfish And Muslims need more booze Niggers hate spics & Whitey hates ‘em all You suck rotten cock You phuctarded half ball! The planet has a cancer Organic life of every kind Lives by killing others Same ‘ol same ‘ol grind! So when I lay on my back ‘n Throttle chicken pup tent I Cross my eyes and pray for a Mass Extinction Event I know the last to starve or Wretch in spasms from thirst Will be people like you The AGA cursed, That means you, you vacuum-skulled hicks  From up the cosmic sleeve it’s coming, -Event # 06 http://www.well.com/user/davidu/sixthextinction.html

Response:

How to begin setting your software filter for 2006: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> It was just another day > ‘Cept the registers stopped singin’ > Next day’s all returns ‘n > Phat Dollah the Johnson keeps swingin’ > Christianity is hocus pocus > And no, that’s not news > Jews are fucking selfish > And Muslims need more booze > Niggers hate spics & > Whitey hates ‘em all > You suck rotten cock > You phuctarded half ball! > The planet has a cancer > Organic life of every kind > Lives by killing others > Same ‘ol same ‘ol grind! > So when I lay on my back ‘n > Throttle chicken pup tent > I Cross my eyes and pray > for a Mass Extinction Event > I know the last to starve or > Wretch in spasms from thirst > Will be people like you > The AGA cursed, > That means you, you vacuum-skulled hicks >  From up the cosmic sleeve it’s coming, > -Event # 06 > http://www.well.com/user/davidu/sixthextinction.html

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > How to begin setting your software filter for 2006: > It was just another day > ‘Cept the registers stopped singin’ > Next day’s all returns ‘n > Phat Dollah the Johnson keeps swingin’ > Christianity is hocus pocus > And no, that’s not news > Jews are fucking selfish > And Muslims need more booze > Niggers hate spics & > Whitey hates ‘em all > You suck rotten cock > You phuctarded half ball! > The planet has a cancer > Organic life of every kind > Lives by killing others > Same ‘ol same ‘ol grind! > So when I lay on my back ‘n > Throttle chicken pup tent > I Cross my eyes and pray > for a Mass Extinction Event > I know the last to starve or > Wretch in spasms from thirst > Will be people like you > The AGA cursed, > That means you, you vacuum-skulled hicks >  From up the cosmic sleeve it’s coming, > -Event # 06 > http://www.well.com/user/davidu/sixthextinction.html

Thanks, I LOVE irony!

Response:

Question:

> The "wrath of God" is on all unbelievers. 3:36

so, because adam and eve listened to a "talking snake" (lmao), the wrath of god is on all people for all eternity. wow, this god sure is a "loving, caring" god isn’t he? two people fuck up and the loving, caring god sentences all mankind to hell for all eternity. thanks loving, caring creator. ,

Response:

he has confessed to being a mass murderer. I think we can all do just fine without a "loving, caring" god trying to MURDER us all.

Response:

> Messiah is God because > only God is eternal life. > The only one who can give you eternal life > is the one who is eternal life. > For the LORD is your life, > (Deuteronomy 30:20 NIV) > I and the Father are one. > (John 10:30)

John People are damned or saved depending only on what they believe. 3:18, 36 The "wrath of God" is on all unbelievers. 3:36 Jesus believes people are crippled by God as a punishment for sin. He tells a crippled man, after healing him, to "sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." 5:14 Those who do not believe in Jesus will be cast into a fire to be burned. 15:6 Jesus says we must eat his flesh and drink his blood if we want to have eternal life. This idea was just too gross for "many of his disciples" and "walked no more with him." 6:53-66 You flaming Christian Taliban morons rape our children, murder people, and expect that we will believe this cult garbage? Go straight to your imaginary HELL and don’t pass GO!

Response:

> Messiah is God because > only God is eternal life. > The only one who can give you eternal life > is the one who is eternal life. > For the LORD is your life, > (Deuteronomy 30:20 NIV) > I and the Father are one. > (John 10:30) > — > http://roines.home.mindspring.com

Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only atheists and fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests; but so far as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here or hereafter. [Thomas Paine]

Response:

Messiah is God because only God is eternal life. The only one who can give you eternal life is the one who is eternal life. For the LORD is your life, (Deuteronomy 30:20 NIV) I and the Father are one. (John 10:30) — http://roines.home.mindspring.com

Response:

Question:

Scanlon, Abramoff `Backroom Guy,’ Points Probers at DeLay, Ney By Jonathan D. Salant (Bloomberg) For more than a year, Michael Scanlon has been a shadowy presence behind former partner Jack Abramoff, the Republican lobbyist at the center of a corruption probe. Now, Scanlon may help prosecutors raise the investigation to a higher level. Scanlon, a former aide to Representative Tom DeLay, is scheduled to appear today in U.S. District Court to present a plea bargain with the Justice Department likely to lead to his cooperation with investigators. His testimony would ratchet up the pressure on Abramoff and aid prosecutors in widening the investigation to members of Congress, such as Republicans DeLay and Representative Robert Ney of Ohio. Scanlon, 35, is the second person to face criminal charges in connection with the Justice Department-led probe of the 46- year-old Abramoff. In October, a federal grand jury indicted the White House’s former chief procurement officer, David Safavian, once an Abramoff associate, for obstruction and making false statements. Beyond the potential legal concerns, Scanlon’s cooperation with authorities may spell political jeopardy for Republicans leading into next year’s elections, especially if he helps draw other lawmakers into the investigation. “He knows where all the bodies are buried,” said a congressional aide who worked with Scanlon.

Response:

Yeah & he’s going to cooperate with investigators!  My house of cards is falling. Mr Soul

Response:

> Yeah & he’s going to cooperate with investigators!

I hope that he does cooperate, if for no other reason than to show Susan MacDougal and her ilk that exposing corruption is the proper thing to do. See ya, John

Response:

Other than hating Clinton, you really don’t have any ideas at all, do you…

Response:

> Other than hating Clinton, you really don’t have any ideas at all, do > you…

You are complete vacant of any intellect what so ever. When the DeLay stories first came out I was one of the first to say that if he broke the law, he should suffer the consequences. When the Rove/Libby stories first came out I was one of the first to say that if he broke the law, they should suffer the consequences. I clearly stated that it is a good thing that Scanlon is cooperating. I have stated many, many times that what is true, right, and correct is what I quest for, and with all of that said, if you had any interest in the truth why haven’t you ever said that Susan MacDougal should have testified to the Grand Jury? Bye, John

Response:

>Susan MacDougal and her ilk that exposing corruption is the proper thing to do.

You’re so funny.  Susan MacDougal was a hero!!!  She refused to LIE just so Starr could get Clinton. Mr Soul

Response:

> >Susan MacDougal and her ilk that exposing corruption is the proper thing >to do.

You’re so funny.  Susan MacDougal was a hero!!!  She refused to LIE > just so Starr could get Clinton.

Another post in complete disregard of the facts. Susan MacDougal went to prison for Contempt exactly like Judith Miller did. All that was asked was that she testify in front of a Grand Jury. She could have gone in there and said anything, but she chose to go to prison rather than testify. She obviously did NOT want to testify under oath, so that leaves you to wonder what she knew that she would rather take to prison than speak under oath about. See ya, John

Response:

But you spend far more energy bashing former democratic administrations than you do criticizing the current one… whose corruption and dishonesty is far beyond anything that Clinton did. This is your essential hypocrisy… being a closet Repub while claiming to be "Libertarian".

Response:

They asked her to LIE to a Grand Jury.  Star was out to get the Clinton’s over Whitewater.  Susan M. had said Star wanted her to claim things that were a lie.  The information that they had on Clinton & McDougal was from David Hale, a known liar. McDougal went to prison for more than just contempt of court.  It’s you who doesn’t know the facts. Mr Soul

Response:

> They asked her to LIE to a Grand Jury.  Star was out to get the > Clinton’s over Whitewater.  Susan M. had said Star wanted her to claim > things that were a lie.  The information that they had on Clinton & > McDougal was from David Hale, a known liar. > McDougal went to prison for more than just contempt of court.  It’s you > who doesn’t know the facts. > Mr Soul

more on lying before the court here http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/the_whole_truth.htm The truth of the matter is, ironically, that the truth doesn’t really matter much anymore. This is especially true when people are involved with lawyers and legal proceedings. Stretching the truth in the legal arena to a lawyer is as American as apple pie, since many lawyers fervently believe that the truth has very little to do with the law anyway – or getting paid for that matter. The legal field is replete with lawyers who have become virtual virtuosos in the fine art of deception and deceit. And as far as their profound propensity for obfuscating, prevaricating and equivocating at every turn, aren’t we being a little picky? When you get right down to the nitty-gritty, fabricating the facts, twisting the truth and finagling the figures are requisite tricks of their trade and no self-respecting lawyer would leave home without them. Whether we like it or not, lying has become an integral facet of our legal system. And lawyers, by and large, wouldn’t have it any other way.

Response:

more on Susan McDougal here: http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/02/14_McDougal.html Susan faced three trials, including one involving the wife of the famous conductor Zubin Mehta, in a few short years. It is difficult to explain how the trials related to each other without reading "The Woman Who Wouldn’t Talk," her account of "why I refused to testify against the Clintons and what I learned in jail." (The book, by the way, is climbing to the top of the New York Times bestseller list.) BuzzFlash will let this interview stand for itself. Susan’s candor and integrity comes through loud and clear. You can clarify the details for yourself by reading the book. (BuzzFlash is offering "The Woman Who Wouldn’t Talk as premium at http://www.buzzflash.com/premiums/Wouldnttalk.html.) SUSAN MCDOUGAL: That is really the entire book. It’s one reason I wrote the book is it’s so hard to explain in a short, pithy way — you know, for television newscasts. I met with the Independent Counsel’s office for the first time when I got my first subpoena. And I went with the hope that they would ask me questions, and I would answer them, and I would be able to shed light on what I thought was an honest investigation. Buy when I got to the first meeting, they were not interested in asking me any questions — they told me that was not what the meeting was about. Even though they had never met me before, they said that they would trade global immunity for a proffer against the target of their investigation, Bill and Hillary Clinton. I told them then that I didn’t know anything that I could give them in a proffer. I didn’t say, "Oh, gosh, I would never say anything bad about the Clintons." Or, "I’m the Clintons’ friend." Or anything like that. I said, "Look, I don’t know anything they’ve done that’s illegal. I can’t help you there." So the pressure escalated, and they started to threaten me and told me that they would prosecute me and they would put me in jail. They expected my cooperation. I repeated that I was willing to cooperate again. I said, "You have documents in front of you. Why don’t you let me see them, and I’ll answer any questions you have about them." And the prosecutor for the Independent Counsel took his hand and he pushed them aside. And he said, "No. You’ve heard our offer. That’s what we have on the table. We are very good at our jobs, and that’s what we’re telling you. You give us a proffer we can use, and you get to have your life back." And we left the meeting. Well, Bobby McDaniel, who had never come up against anything like this before, said, "You know, this is the strangest system I’ve ever seen." BUZZFLASH: And he was your attorney? MCDOUGAL: Yes. He said, "I’ve never come into a prosecutor before, offered to answer any question, look at any document, and have them turn me away. This is the most unusual meeting I have ever had with a prosecutor." He said most prosecutors, when they get somebody in who’s willing to talk, are just delighted. He said he had never seen anything like it. So the investigation progressed. And it became more and more adversarial with them, because every time I dealt with them, they were threatening me. And when that didn’t work, they threatened my brothers. I had three brothers who had worked with me and [my former husband] Jim McDougal. And they were bringing them before the grand jury and threatening to indict them. And they were still telling me, "Look, you know, life can get a lot easier if you come up with this proffer." I was not going to give them a lie. So I decided I would go to trial, and I’d be found innocent. I wasn’t. I was found guilty. Well, let me just tell you, I believe to this day that they knew that the charges that they were trying to prove against the Clintons were not true. I think that they knew all along that the story David Hale had told them — that Clinton had come to him and told him he wanted to borrow $300,000, but he couldn’t have his name on the document, so Susan McDougal should come and sign the documents and give him the money — was not true. They had the checks from the $300,000 loan. They knew where the money had gone. David Hale had stolen millions of dollars through this SBA, and he was trading that story for leniency. And when he lied at my trial, I believe the Independent Counsel knew that that was perjured testimony. So I’m now at the point where they have convicted me with my husband’s perjured testimony piggybacked on the testimony of a man who admitted stealing millions of dollars from the U.S. government. He put fake names on there and kept the money for himself. He would send the loan forms back to the SBA with made-up companies. And he was keeping the money, and he got caught by the FBI. And he made up this story and went to them and told them: I can give you Bill Clinton if you’ll cut me a deal. And in fact, he was very smart. He did less time in jail than I did — in spite of stealing millions of dollars from the SBA.

Response:

read her book and pay special attention to the way she was treated in jail. MCDOUGAL: And you could see that they were so out of step with the regular person that when they began it, and the evidence started coming out of what they were trying to smear him with, people were shocked. They just wanted it over with. They wanted it stopped. The great thing about my mail that would come to the jail is it came from all across the board — Republicans, Democrats. People said this is unbelievable, that in America, all this money was spent, and we are talking about this man’s sex life. But see, they thought that it would outrage people. Do you remember the speeches that they gave during the impeachment — that this man has defiled the Oval Office? The mainstream of America did not want to hear it. He used to come out during my trial — Starr — and talk to the press. And I remember once he came out and he said, "You know, I went jogging today. And I stopped at a red light and sang a hymn." And I would be standing behind him knowing that Jim McDougal had been making up the lies that he was going to tell about the President of the United States, and I would be sickened to hear how he was proselytizing his Christianity while destroying innocent people. BUZZFLASH: Do you think that in their own minds — Kenneth Starr and all these prosecutors who shared a similar religious and right-wing outlook felt that no matter what — the ends justify the means? MCDOUGAL: Absolutely. BUZZFLASH: So they were entitled to… MCDOUGAL: Oh, I was road kill. Do you think they cared one moment what happened to me? Or what they were doing when they were threatening my brothers, or Monica Lewinsky’s mother, or any of those people that they threatened that they knew had not done anything? We were just like hitting a possum in the road, because the road led to saving America and the moral fiber of Americans. And they did not care one whit about us. BUZZFLASH: So it didn’t matter if innocent victims got destroyed in the process. They felt that the means justifies the end from your perspective, and that’s the price that had to be paid to save America. MCDOUGAL: That’s exactly right. I don’t think it mattered to them one bit what the means were, because the end was so important to them: that they win. That’s always what happens to us, isn’t it? You’ve read that — be very careful, because you will become what you so hate. And that is I think exactly what happened to them. They became the liars. They became the ones that were breaking the law.

Response:

> But you spend far more energy bashing former democratic administrations > than you do criticizing the current one…

I was applauding those that are cooperating with the Prosecutors, and stated that everyone in similar circumstance should do the same. Why are you unable to acknowledge that FACT? whose corruption and > dishonesty is far beyond anything that Clinton did.

Check the history of all of the convictions, you’ll find that your last comment was illuminating as far as how ignorant you truly are on the issue that YOU brought up. Go read and learn Lemming. This is your > essential hypocrisy… being a closet Repub while claiming to be > "Libertarian".

Only ignorant Lemmings have made that commment especially when I continually post many area’s where my feelings are different than the Repubs. You still have NOT answered teh earlier question that was put to you. " you had any interest in the truth why haven’t you ever said that Susan MacDougal should have testified to the Grand Jury?" See ya, John

Response:

Her initial meeting with Starr’s office, at which she contends she was eager to cooperate. When the prosecutors offered global immunity in return for a proffer about "the Clintons’ role in Whitewater," she indicated she would make such a proffer, but she knew of nothing illegal the Clintons had done. At that point, "the smiles disappeared." Jim McDougal’s pestering of Susan, after their conviction, to fabricate a story that would satisfy the prosecutors: "If you’ll just say you had sex with Bill Clinton," he allegedly told her, "they’ll give you anything you want." "That’s just great, Jim," she replied. "Now you just want me to be a whore. … That is one story my mother will never see in print." She never talked to her husbandf again after that conversation. Ultimately, she never cooperated with Starr’s office because "I despised the OIC [Office of the Independent Counsel] and all its hypocrisy." She was convinced that if she told the truth about the Clintons’ involvement, that they had virtually no role and did nothing wrong, Starr would "accuse me of perjury." Whatever one may think about the rationality of that decision, it is clear that Susan McDougal believed that the investigation was a "witch hunt" that would ensnare her one way or another. In 1999, Starr brought a second round of charges against this recalcitrant witness, but an Arkansas jury acquitted her of obstruction of justice.

Response:

> They asked her to LIE to a Grand Jury.

Now that was the true Lefty Lemming response. She went to prison for refusing to testify before a Grand Jury. Period. > Star was out to get the > Clinton’s over Whitewater.  Susan M. had said Star wanted her to claim > things that were a lie.

Lefty Lemming bullshit. She went to prison for Contempt for refusing to testify under oath, exactly the same as Judith Miller. The information that they had on Clinton & > McDougal was from David Hale, a known liar.

Ever more reason for her to testify infront of the Grand Jury and set the record straight. Rather than take the opportunity to set clear the record, she chose instead to go to prison. She was even offered IMMUNITY to testify, and she chose prison instead. Starr had wanted McDougal to tell the grand jury about a $5,081.82 check on which she had written "payoff Clinton." When she refused, the Whitewater grand jury indicted her for criminal contempt. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/05/14/mcdougal.api/ Her critics are skeptical, noting that she has been granted immunity against self-incrimination in exchange for her testimony. http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/1998/04/22feature.html Susan McDougal is not being asked to perjure herself. Starr has offered her limited immunity to answer one simple question: Did Bill Clinton know about an illegal $300,000 Small Business Administration loan the McDougals received in 1986, or about the property it helped buy for Whitewater Development Corporation? Knowing the answer to this question would help Starr determine whether President Clinton lied under oath during the first Whitewater trial, when he denied knowledge of the loan or pressuring anyone to approve it. "Yes" or "no" is all Susan McDougal would have to say. It isn’t about "telling Ken Starr what he wants to hear," as she has claimed. It’s telling the grand jury what she heard from Bill Clinton. Did he or did he not know about the loan? What could be simpler than telling the truth? http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas042898.html > McDougal went to prison for more than just contempt of court.

Bullshit. In the Whitewater Investigation she went to prison for refusing to testify if front of the Grand Jury under oath. She was also a convicted felon in other matters, which would give her even MORE reason to get on the right side of the law. She chose prison instead of the opportunity to set the record straight in front of the Grand Jury. > It’s you who doesn’t know the facts.

If I have missed any facts, please enlighten us! :0) See ya, John

Response:

> Her initial meeting with Starr’s office, at which she contends she was > eager to cooperate. When the prosecutors offered global immunity in > return for a proffer about "the Clintons’ role in Whitewater," she > indicated she would make such a proffer, but she knew of nothing > illegal the Clintons had done. At that point, "the smiles disappeared."

Exerpts from her book that was nothing more than another criminal saying I didn’t do it. Starr’s office publically announced the offer of Immunity, so she could have had a free ride to absolve herself. Starr had wanted McDougal to tell the grand jury about a $5,081.82 check on which she had written "payoff Clinton." When she refused, the Whitewater grand jury indicted her for criminal contempt. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/05/14/mcdougal.api/ Her critics are skeptical, noting that she has been granted immunity against self-incrimination in exchange for her testimony. http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/1998/04/22feature.html Susan McDougal is not being asked to perjure herself. Starr has offered her limited immunity to answer one simple question: Did Bill Clinton know about an illegal $300,000 Small Business Administration loan the McDougals received in 1986, or about the property it helped buy for Whitewater Development Corporation? Knowing the answer to this question would help Starr determine whether President Clinton lied under oath during the first Whitewater trial, when he denied knowledge of the loan or pressuring anyone to approve it. "Yes" or "no" is all Susan McDougal would have to say. It isn’t about "telling Ken Starr what he wants to hear," as she has claimed. It’s telling the grand jury what she heard from Bill Clinton. Did he or did he not know about the loan? What could be simpler than telling the truth? http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas042898.html

Response:

>From Susan McDougal:

"I met with the Independent Counsel’s office for the first time when I got my first subpoena. And I went with the hope that they would ask me questions, and I would answer them, and I would be able to shed light on what I thought was an honest investigation. Buy when I got to the first meeting, they were not interested in asking me any questions — they told me that was not what the meeting was about. Even though they had never met me before, they said that they would trade global immunity for a proffer against the target of their investigation, Bill and Hillary Clinton. I told them then that I didn’t know anything that I could give them in a proffer. I didn’t say, "Oh, gosh, I would never say anything bad about the Clintons." Or, "I’m the Clintons’ friend." Or anything like that. I said, "Look, I don’t know anything they’ve done that’s illegal. I can’t help you there." So the pressure escalated, and they started to threaten me and told me that they would prosecute me and they would put me in jail. They expected my cooperation. I repeated that I was willing to cooperate again. I said, "You have documents in front of you. Why don’t you let me see them, and I’ll answer any questions you have about them." And the prosecutor for the Independent Counsel took his hand and he pushed them aside. And he said, "No. You’ve heard our offer. That’s what we have on the table. We are very good at our jobs, and that’s what we’re telling you. You give us a proffer we can use, and you get to have your life back… There was no evidence against me at all except the word of David Hale. " Come on John – time to pull to start saying that Clinton had Vince Foster murdered.  That’s the next thing you’re going to say – correct? Mr Soul

Response:

> >From Susan McDougal:

Exactly, from Susan McDougal. > There was no evidence against me at all except the word of David Hale.

That was NOT true at all. Starr had wanted McDougal to tell the grand jury about a $5,081.82 check on which she had written "payoff Clinton." When she refused, the Whitewater grand jury indicted her for criminal contempt. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/05/14/mcdougal.api/ > Come on John –

Come on yourself. Susan McDougal was offered Immunity to testify. She had an offer of a free ride. All she had to do what speak under oath to the Grand Jury, and rather than testify, under oath and protected by immunity, she chose to go to prison. Her critics are skeptical, noting that she has been granted immunity against self-incrimination in exchange for her testimony. http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/1998/04/22feature.html Susan McDougal is not being asked to perjure herself. Starr has offered her limited immunity to answer one simple question: Did Bill Clinton know about an illegal $300,000 Small Business Administration loan the McDougals received in 1986, or about the property it helped buy for Whitewater Development Corporation? Knowing the answer to this question would help Starr determine whether President Clinton lied under oath during the first Whitewater trial, when he denied knowledge of the loan or pressuring anyone to approve it. "Yes" or "no" is all Susan McDougal would have to say. It isn’t about "telling Ken Starr what he wants to hear," as she has claimed. It’s telling the grand jury what she heard from Bill Clinton. Did he or did he not know about the loan? What could be simpler than telling the truth? http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas042898.html

Response:

> McDougal went to prison for more than just contempt of court.  It’s you > who doesn’t know the facts.

What facts am I unaware of? See ya, John

Response:

> If I have missed any facts

That would take way too fucking long.

Response:

> That was NOT true at all.

Yes it was.

Response:

> What facts am I unaware of?

Got a few years?

Response:

The fact is, John "red herring" Wheaton once again deflects a discussion of the current, obvious, criminal shortcomings of Republican politician to a discussion of really old news, the Clinton administration, actually, not even the Clinton administration since the whole Whitewater thing happened well before Clinton was in the white house.  Talk about beating a dead horse. Get over it John.  The next group of jailbirds are gonna be Republicans yet where is your outrage? Hypocrite.

Response:

>  The next group of jailbirds are gonna be Republicans yet where is your > outrage? > Hypocrite.

You are a NO BALLS MORON. I have repeatedly said that ANYONE that breaks the law should go to jail. EVERYONE MORON. GOT THAT? EVERYONE. When the DeLay stuff hit, I was clear when I said that if he broke the law, he should pay. Note that you DISHONESTLY ignore that. When the Plame stuff first mention Rove & Libby, I clearly said that if they broke the law they should go to jail. Note that you dishonestly ignore that and even lie about what I have said. When the Scanlon stuff hit, I said that it was good that he was co-operating, and that it was a same that in similar circumstances Susan McDougal went to prison before she would testify, and she was even offered immunity. You consistently LIE about my positions when they have been equal for ALL CRIMINALS. Why are you such a dishonesty hypocrite who will rage on Repubs, and give Dems a free ride? When are you going to answer the question that I put to you about Susan McDougal? Don’t you think that she should have testified? Have you gone back to see that there were far more Dems under indictment in the Clinton Administration than in the Bush? No you won’t do that because YOU are the resident HYPOCRITE here. You have ZERO interest in truth, or the law, or are purely a Lefty Lemming. What about verifying your previous wild assed posts? What about Susan McDougal? Have you yet checked to see that there were more indictments in the Clinton era? Grow up MORON.

Response:

> What about verifying your previous wild assed posts?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Response:

Question:

>Out of all the religions in this world, why is Christianity the most hated >and the most attacked religion in the world?

Because of the behaviour of many of its adherents, driven by the fact that the most fundamental principle of Christianity, uniquely amongst all religions, is proselytisation, since all of humanity is allegedly either saved or bound for hell. That’s a pretty powerful reason for all non-Christians to resist it with the utmost ferocity. Whether or not this is necaessary depends on the attitude of you cuddly, sweet Christians towards those who do not share your _beliefs_. Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be resolved, since there are no facts to go on. D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN AA #2208

Response:

>>Out of all the religions in this world, why is Christianity the most hated >and the most attacked religion in the world? > Because of the behaviour of many of its adherents, driven by the fact > that the most fundamental principle of Christianity, uniquely amongst > all religions, is proselytisation, since all of humanity is allegedly > either saved or bound for hell.

So you don’t think the Muslims are proselytizing right now? > That’s a pretty powerful reason for > all non-Christians to resist it with the utmost ferocity. Whether or > not this is necaessary depends on the attitude of you cuddly, sweet > Christians towards those who do not share your _beliefs_.

At least Christians of today don’t saw off the heads of people who do not share their beliefs.

Response:

> No problem.  We went to war for the same reason Bill Clinton went to war > against Saddam on December 16, 1998.  To rid him of his chemical, nuclear > and biological weapons programs, and this time we vowed to take him out > of power and we succeeded.  Bill Clinton didn’t have the balls to go > through with this and this is why he cut and ran after lobbing a few > bombs into some buildings. > But Iraq had NO Chemical, Nuclear or Biological weapons. Why did we waste > 2100 American plus approximatly 25,000 Iraqi lives?

So you’re saying that Bill Clinton lied on December 16, 1998 when he said: http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/ > In addition there are 15,000 American wounded and many with perminent > disbilites.

Have you spoken to one single soldier wounded in this war, or have you been reinterating what you hear on Air America? >We also wasted over $200 BILLION of borrowed taxpayer dollars.

Wasted?  How? > Casualities on the part to Iraqi’s are estimated to be several hundred > thousand and the country is in turmoil.

You mean several hundred thousand INSURGENTS? How is the country in turmoil?  Explain exactly.

Response:

> Where is all this "oil?" > A better question is where are the WMDs??

Answer my question, then I’ll answer yours. > How many OIL NAZIs have come home in body bags??

None. > You do realize that you, your children and their children will still be > paying for this inane war for the next fifty years.

And if we didn’t go to war we might very well have paid with our lives.  I’d rather work through this. > Let’s face it, the good old US of A can’t afford the war!!

Can the US of A afford a nuclear winter for the next 10,000 years instead? > And over the next few years, that will become clear to everyone!!

Over the next few years, the Democrat party will have egg all over their lying faces.

Response:

>>> You obviously don’t know the reason for the war in Iraq. >> Can you say OIL!! > Where is all this "oil?" > Are you a fucking idiot? Or do you not read the newspapers?

Oh you mean the left-wing Liberal mainstream media?  Or do you mean a fair and balanced Fox News? > Maybe you don’t own a car? Maybe you don’t drive? Maybe you have not heard > about the secret energy meetings between Cheney and the OIL executives? > Yes, the meetings that they lied about attending.

ROFL!! > Wake the fuck up, don’t be a dumb ass looking for attention.

Oh that was intelligent.

Response:

>>> You obviously don’t know the reason for the war in Iraq. >> Can you say OIL!! > Where is all this "oil?" > In the ground. Apparently you are not aware that Iraq’s oil reserves are > the second largest in the world exceeded only by Saudi Arabia.

Thankyou for making my point that Bush never stole any oil.  It is still safe and sound in Iraq and controlled by the Iraqi’s.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Where is all this "oil?" > A better question is where are the WMDs?? > Something about a smoking gun?? > How many OIL NAZIs have come home in body bags?? > You do realize that you, your children and their children will still be > paying for this inane war for the next fifty years. > Let’s face it, the good old US of A can’t afford the war!! > And over the next few years, that will become clear to everyone!!

Until you stop using cars and other motors completely and heat and cook in your home using non-fossil based energy, you have no opinion worth stating either way.

Response:

> Where is all this "oil?"

A better question is where are the WMDs?? Something about a smoking gun?? How many OIL NAZIs have come home in body bags?? You do realize that you, your children and their children will still be paying for this inane war for the next fifty years. Let’s face it, the good old US of A can’t afford the war!! And over the next few years, that will become clear to everyone!!

Response:

> Why do you avoid posting "your reason" for the war in Iraq? Are you > afraid > it is nonsensical? > No problem.  We went to war for the same reason Bill Clinton went to war > against Saddam on December 16, 1998.  To rid him of his chemical, nuclear > and biological weapons programs, and this time we vowed to take him out of > power and we succeeded.  Bill Clinton didn’t have the balls to go through > with this and this is why he cut and ran after lobbing a few bombs into > some buildings.

You mother-fucking anti-american neocon-nazi christian taliban liars think you have the perfect answers to justify a war that has already murdered over 50,000 people. You motherfuckers are the same crowd that says "drop the bomb on the towel-heads". Go Fuck yourself.

Response:

>> You obviously don’t know the reason for the war in Iraq. > Can you say OIL!! > Where is all this "oil?"

Are you a fucking idiot? Or do you not read the newspapers? Maybe you don’t own a car? Maybe you don’t drive? Maybe you have not heard about the secret energy meetings between Cheney and the OIL executives? Yes, the meetings that they lied about attending. Wake the fuck up, don’t be a dumb ass looking for attention.

Response:

> Why do you avoid posting "your reason" for the war in Iraq? Are you > afraid > it is nonsensical? > No problem.  We went to war for the same reason Bill Clinton went to war > against Saddam on December 16, 1998.  To rid him of his chemical, nuclear > and biological weapons programs, and this time we vowed to take him out of > power and we succeeded.  Bill Clinton didn’t have the balls to go through > with this and this is why he cut and ran after lobbing a few bombs into > some buildings.

But Iraq had NO Chemical, Nuclear or Biological weapons. Why did we waste 2100 American plus approximatly 25,000 Iraqi lives? In addition there are 15,000 American wounded and many with perminent disbilites. We also wasted over $200 BILLION of borrowed taxpayer dollars. Casualities on the part to Iraqi’s are estimated to be several hundred thousand and the country is in turmoil. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

>> You obviously don’t know the reason for the war in Iraq. > Can you say OIL!! > Where is all this "oil?"

In the ground. Apparently you are not aware that Iraq’s oil reserves are the second largest in the world exceeded only by Saudi Arabia.

Response:

> You mother-fucking anti-american neocon-nazi christian taliban liars think > you have the perfect answers to justify a war that has already murdered > over 50,000 people. You motherfuckers are the same crowd that says "drop > the bomb on the towel-heads". > Go Fuck yourself.

Well I see you’ve made it to third grade.  Keep trying, you might make it to middle school someday.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Out of all the religions in this world, why is Christianity the most >> hated >> and the most attacked religion in the world? > The reason is very simple. Christianity started attacking other religions > early on. Once the church eliminated all the pagan sects, and the so > called > heretics, they lived in relative peace for a few hundred years. > Certainly, there were Jews to bash every now and then, but the next real > outbreak was the Albigensian crusade, when the church decided to > eliminate > other christians. > Of course, once the reformation took place, christians rejoiced, as they > now > had each other to attack. > And today, christains are attacked often, but it is not by > non-christians, > but by other christians. > Admittedly, sometimes non-christians will ask thought provoking > questions, > that religionists cannot answer, but that hardly is attacking them. > Religionists do have a persecution complex, but that comes from them > having > been the persecutors for so many years. > The source of this complex, is having no basis for their beliefs. So when > asked for proof of their God, they immediately cover this lack of proof, > by > screaming that they are hated!! > Don’t you know that when you ask for proof, it is attacking them. > Not in my eyes.  However, when someone from alt.atheism comes into the > Christian newsgroups, then cross-posts messages into alt.atheism so those > messages can be ridiculed by hundreds if not thousands of atheists, that’s > an attack. > The Bible cannot be proven nor disproven.  That is a fact. > Why don’t you check the war in Iraq, and see a religion actually being > attacked. And once again, by christians. > You obviously don’t know the reason for the war in Iraq.

Why do you avoid posting "your reason" for the war in Iraq? Are you afraid it is nonsensical?

Response:

> You obviously don’t know the reason for the war in Iraq.

Can you say OIL!!

Response:

> For me, an atheist, the reason is simple: Christianity is an outward > directed religion; it must constantly seek new members. A small minority > of Christians has taken that to mean > My God > Your face > Get used to it > and that is not just rude, it’s f—ing rude.

That is the HERD EFFECT. They want everyone to believe like they do, then no one will be around to point out how totally illogical religion is!! BEER is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy!!

Response:

> Why do you avoid posting "your reason" for the war in Iraq? Are you afraid > it is nonsensical?

No problem.  We went to war for the same reason Bill Clinton went to war against Saddam on December 16, 1998.  To rid him of his chemical, nuclear and biological weapons programs, and this time we vowed to take him out of power and we succeeded.  Bill Clinton didn’t have the balls to go through with this and this is why he cut and ran after lobbing a few bombs into some buildings.

Response:

> You obviously don’t know the reason for the war in Iraq. > Can you say OIL!!

Where is all this "oil?"

Response:

> Out of all the religions in this world, why is Christianity the most > hated and the most attacked religion in the world?

Hatred is probably too strong a word, but anger is not. For me, an atheist, the reason is simple: Christianity is an outward directed religion; it must constantly seek new members. A small minority of Christians has taken that to mean My God Your face Get used to it and that is not just rude, it’s f—ing rude.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Out of all the religions in this world, why is Christianity the most >> hated >> and the most attacked religion in the world? > The reason is very simple. Christianity started attacking other religions > early on. Once the church eliminated all the pagan sects, and the so > called > heretics, they lived in relative peace for a few hundred years. > Certainly, there were Jews to bash every now and then, but the next real > outbreak was the Albigensian crusade, when the church decided to > eliminate > other christians. > Of course, once the reformation took place, christians rejoiced, as they > now > had each other to attack. > And today, christains are attacked often, but it is not by > non-christians, > but by other christians. > Admittedly, sometimes non-christians will ask thought provoking > questions, > that religionists cannot answer, but that hardly is attacking them. > Religionists do have a persecution complex, but that comes from them > having > been the persecutors for so many years. > The source of this complex, is having no basis for their beliefs. So when > asked for proof of their God, they immediately cover this lack of proof, > by > screaming that they are hated!! > Don’t you know that when you ask for proof, it is attacking them. > The poor babys!! > Why don’t you check the war in Iraq, and see a religion actually being > attacked. And once again, by christians. > Nice post! I think you got his head spinning!

You better think again.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Out of all the religions in this world, why is Christianity the most > hated > and the most attacked religion in the world? > The reason is very simple. Christianity started attacking other religions > early on. Once the church eliminated all the pagan sects, and the so > called > heretics, they lived in relative peace for a few hundred years. > Certainly, there were Jews to bash every now and then, but the next real > outbreak was the Albigensian crusade, when the church decided to eliminate > other christians. > Of course, once the reformation took place, christians rejoiced, as they > now > had each other to attack. > And today, christains are attacked often, but it is not by non-christians, > but by other christians. > Admittedly, sometimes non-christians will ask thought provoking questions, > that religionists cannot answer, but that hardly is attacking them. > Religionists do have a persecution complex, but that comes from them > having > been the persecutors for so many years. > The source of this complex, is having no basis for their beliefs. So when > asked for proof of their God, they immediately cover this lack of proof, > by > screaming that they are hated!! > Don’t you know that when you ask for proof, it is attacking them. > The poor babys!! > Why don’t you check the war in Iraq, and see a religion actually being > attacked. And once again, by christians.

Nice post! I think you got his head spinning!

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Out of all the religions in this world, why is Christianity the most > hated > and the most attacked religion in the world? > The reason is very simple. Christianity started attacking other religions > early on. Once the church eliminated all the pagan sects, and the so > called > heretics, they lived in relative peace for a few hundred years. > Certainly, there were Jews to bash every now and then, but the next real > outbreak was the Albigensian crusade, when the church decided to eliminate > other christians. > Of course, once the reformation took place, christians rejoiced, as they > now > had each other to attack. > And today, christains are attacked often, but it is not by non-christians, > but by other christians. > Admittedly, sometimes non-christians will ask thought provoking questions, > that religionists cannot answer, but that hardly is attacking them. > Religionists do have a persecution complex, but that comes from them > having > been the persecutors for so many years. > The source of this complex, is having no basis for their beliefs. So when > asked for proof of their God, they immediately cover this lack of proof, > by > screaming that they are hated!! > Don’t you know that when you ask for proof, it is attacking them.

Not in my eyes.  However, when someone from alt.atheism comes into the Christian newsgroups, then cross-posts messages into alt.atheism so those messages can be ridiculed by hundreds if not thousands of atheists, that’s an attack. The Bible cannot be proven nor disproven.  That is a fact. > Why don’t you check the war in Iraq, and see a religion actually being > attacked. And once again, by christians.

You obviously don’t know the reason for the war in Iraq.

Response:

Out of all the religions in this world, why is Christianity the most hated and the most attacked religion in the world?

Response:

> Out of all the religions in this world, why is Christianity the most hated > and the most attacked religion in the world?

I’m not sure it is. I’m also not sure why you directed this question only to "non-Christians." Over the centuries (and continuing up ’til today), Christians of different sects have spent a lot of time attacking EACH OTHER. This is probably the most common form of "hatred and attack on" Christianity that you’ll find.

Response:

> Out of all the religions in this world, why is Christianity the most hated > and the most attacked religion in the world?

The reason is very simple. Christianity started attacking other religions early on. Once the church eliminated all the pagan sects, and the so called heretics, they lived in relative peace for a few hundred years. Certainly, there were Jews to bash every now and then, but the next real outbreak was the Albigensian crusade, when the church decided to eliminate other christians. Of course, once the reformation took place, christians rejoiced, as they now had each other to attack. And today, christains are attacked often, but it is not by non-christians, but by other christians. Admittedly, sometimes non-christians will ask thought provoking questions, that religionists cannot answer, but that hardly is attacking them. Religionists do have a persecution complex, but that comes from them having been the persecutors for so many years. The source of this complex, is having no basis for their beliefs. So when asked for proof of their God, they immediately cover this lack of proof, by screaming that they are hated!! Don’t you know that when you ask for proof, it is attacking them. The poor babys!! Why don’t you check the war in Iraq, and see a religion actually being attacked. And once again, by christians.

Response:

Question:

> Problem is you’re assuming the alien’s level of technical and scientific > knowledge is no greater than ours.  What if they’re millions if not > billions > of years more advanced than us. > what, then the laws of physics would not apply to them?  I doubt it. > Another criticism of your idea is that from what we can tell, evolution > has no goal, it just happens based on what variations come up in the > organisms, how organisms interact, and conditions in local > environments.  So if it were an experiment it appears to be completely > uncontrolled.

Exactly.  The conditions of their evolvement would have to be the same if they want to arrive at a scientific conclusion.

Response:

>> Problem is you’re assuming the alien’s level of technical and scientific >> knowledge is no greater than ours.  What if they’re millions if not >> billions >> of years more advanced than us. > what, then the laws of physics would not apply to them?  I doubt it. > That’s the point I’m trying to make.  You’re assuming we know all there is > to know about physics.  Throughout human history things that were once > thought impossible turned out later to be wrong.

Exactamendo!

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >> Do you really believe that there may be intelligent life on other > >> planets? > > I believe it is certainly a possibility. > >> If so, what about the possibility that THEY may have created us, > >> the universe did evolve, and they were here first? > > It is highly doubtful. The distances between stars is so great as to > > make such a thing very difficult. Why travel to a distant planet to > > creat new life, when you can simply create is on your own world, or on > > a world closer to your own? You cannot travel faster than light. It is > > technically unfeasable. If you could travel 1/2 the speed of light, > > you’re still talking about at least an 8-to-10-year voyage just to get > > to earth from another star system. > Problem is you’re assuming the alien’s level of technical and scientific > knowledge is no greater than ours.  What if they’re millions if not > billions > of years more advanced than us. > what, then the laws of physics would not apply to them?  I doubt it.

That’s the point I’m trying to make.  You’re assuming we know all there is to know about physics.  Throughout human history things that were once thought impossible turned out later to be wrong. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Another criticism of your idea is that from what we can tell, evolution > has no goal, it just happens based on what variations come up in the > organisms, how organisms interact, and conditions in local > environments.  So if it were an experiment it appears to be completely > uncontrolled. > Jim

Response:

Oh, no offence taken. My brother is unfortunately off his rocker.

Response:

> Oh come on. There are mountains of evidence that we evolved from > earlier life forms over millions and millions of years.

Exactly!  Thankyou!  These space alians would have also evolved from earlier life forms and thus would have evolved into believs far more intelligent than we are now.  Remember that this theory states that we are millions of years behind then if the process of evolution. > Are you really > saying that aliens came here in the past 30,000 years and cleverly > planted modern homo sapiens amongst all the other existing species > including some that we share 97% of our DNA with?

Nope.  I’m suggesting that they may have planted the micro-organisms nessessary to begin the process of evolution exactly as it is now theorized. They then sat back and watched us evolve.  These UFO sightings just might be them checking up on us to note the progress we are making . > That being said, your explanation is WAY MORE plausible than the > stories cooked up by theists; at least in YOUR theory the aliens would > have had to evolve too.

Exactly, and they may wonder where they came from and how long they have been around.  If they could keep watch on us and note the time period between first life and the discovery of how to create life, this may give them a ballpark estimate of when life began for them. > I would give your theory several decimal places > more likely odds than, say, christianity, which hovers at zero percent.

Well hey, the odds of us evolving by accident from nothing is about the same as taking a rifle at one end of the universe, firing a bullet to the other end of the universe and nailing a one inch target.  I’m simply trying to provide a theory that would fill the gap if it could be proven. > My idiot brother believes in the Book of Urantia, which is more or less > what you have theoried. Check it out! The world needs more lunatic > cultists.

Albert Einstein was once thought of as a lunatic cultist.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Do you really believe that there may be intelligent life on other >> planets? > I believe it is certainly a possibility. >> If so, what about the possibility that THEY may have created us, >> the universe did evolve, and they were here first? > It is highly doubtful. The distances between stars is so great as to > make such a thing very difficult. Why travel to a distant planet to > creat new life, when you can simply create is on your own world, or on > a world closer to your own? You cannot travel faster than light. It is > technically unfeasable. If you could travel 1/2 the speed of light, > you’re still talking about at least an 8-to-10-year voyage just to get > to earth from another star system. > Problem is you’re assuming the alien’s level of technical and scientific > knowledge is no greater than ours.  What if they’re millions if not billions > of years more advanced than us.

what, then the laws of physics would not apply to them?  I doubt it. Another criticism of your idea is that from what we can tell, evolution has no goal, it just happens based on what variations come up in the organisms, how organisms interact, and conditions in local environments.  So if it were an experiment it appears to be completely uncontrolled. Jim

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Do you really believe that there may be intelligent life on other > planets? >        I don’t "believe" it.  I conclude that it’s a possibility.  We > already know that the universe sustains intelligent life– ourselves, > for example– and that the conditions that sustain us are not unique in > some way.  Adopting what is known as the principle of mediocrity– the > premise that the laws of physics are everywhere the same in the visible > universe– we can conclude that it is possible that intelligent life > exists elsewhere. >        The rest of your post is sophomoric conjecture straight out of a > Douglas Adams novel.  Where’s the evidence to suggest that you might be > right?

The fact that many people have claimed to have sighted UFO’s and raised the real possibility that these may be alians from another planet. > You could get a science fiction novel out of it– oh, wait, > that’s been done– but otherwise you’re not saying anything thousands of > stoned college kids haven’t said before.

Bill Gates was a stoned high school dropout, and look at him now?  Woul;d you have had any expectation for him when he dropped out of high school? What if I had told you then that he would someday be a billionair by making a dream come true?

Response:

> Do you really believe that there may be intelligent life on other planets? > If so, what about the possibility that THEY may have created us, the > universe did evolve, and they were here first? > After all, we have successfully cloned animals and are very close to cloning > human beings.  This is the first step in learning how to CREATE humans.  How > do you know that these space aliens on a distant planet that we have been > long searching for are not simply millions of years ahead of us in > technology and they created us as a long-term science experiment in their > search to explain THEIR existence? > That would be a plausible scientific explanation for our existence, would it > not?

It’s elephants all the way down. -chib — Member of SMASH Sarcastic Middla Aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor

Response:

> My idiot brother believes in the Book of Urantia, which is more or less > what you have theoried. Check it out! The world needs more lunatic > cultists.

Holy shit!  Is that stuff serious?  How delusional would you need to be to believe that?  (No offense to your family.) Hey, all you xians: google Urantia and read some of that crap.  When you dismiss it as utter nonsense, come back here and let us know. Because now you know how atheists feel about your bible.

Response:

Once upon a time in alt.atheism,  dear sweet Bill Gamelson > Do you really believe that there may be intelligent life on other > planets?

Sure. > If so, what about the possibility that THEY may have created us, the > universe did evolve, and they were here first?

Why not?  But then again, who created them? — Uncle Vic aa#2011 Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department —- "GARGOYLES, PSYCHICS, EVERYTHING UNGODLY, GET THE HELL OUT OF MY HOUSE, IN JESUS NAME I PRAY. THE DARK SIDE, SHE’s NOT A CHRISTIAN, SHE’S DARK-SIDED, SHE’S DARK-SIDED, THIS IS MY HOUSE, I WANT MY GOD AND I WANT MY FAMILY. I AM A GOD WARRIOR SHE’S A SPIRITUAL WARRIOR, SHE WAS THROWN IN THE PITS, OH NO THE HORRORS" Ain’t Christianity great?

Response:

> After all, we have successfully cloned animals and are very close to > cloning > human beings.  This is the first step in learning how to CREATE humans. > How > do you know that these space aliens on a distant planet that we have been > long searching for are not simply millions of years ahead of us in > technology and they created us as a long-term science experiment in their > search to explain THEIR existence? > We don’t know that. But we have no reason to think that this is the > case.

How about UFO sightings and the possibility that these may be alians from another planet?  And by Occam’s razor, we prefer the simpler answer that fits the > data. > That would be a plausible scientific explanation for our existence, would > it > not? > No. It’s simply speculation. You clearly, like most fundies, do not > understand the idea of science. Science involves drawing conclusions > from the evidence, not searching for evidence to fit your imaginings.

In order to draw a conclusion from the evidence, the evidence must first be found. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

> Do you really believe that there may be intelligent life on other > planets? > Personally, I would be very surprised if there wasn’t. > If so, what about the possibility that THEY may have created us, the > universe did evolve, and they were here first? > I can’t rule this out, but do you have any reason to think this has > happened? If not, then your brain might be better used speculating > about something which could conceivably be answered.

If we went through life speculating about something which could conceivably be answered, science would never advance. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> After all, we have successfully cloned animals and are very close to > cloning > human beings.  This is the first step in learning how to CREATE humans. > How > do you know that these space aliens on a distant planet that we have been > long searching for are not simply millions of years ahead of us in > technology and they created us as a long-term science experiment in their > search to explain THEIR existence? > That would be a plausible scientific explanation for our existence, would > it > not? > It’s not scientific because there isn’t a shred of evidence to support > the idea, even though it can’t be ruled out as a possibility.

That’s what I’m saying, is that it may be a possibility.  The evidence would have to be discovered. > However, > space aliens is just as unsatisfying an answer to how we all got here > as God, because all it does is pose the question of where they came > from. If it is too incredible to you that humans could have evolved, > then why is it more rational to you to suppose life came from > elsewhere?

Is this not what NASA has been trying to do?  Finding evidence of life on Mars?  I’m just trying to "go with the flow" here. > Since we have fossil evidence for ancient hominids, there is reason to > think we evolved from a common ancestor with chimpanzees, so what is > the point of speculating about extraterrestrials?

That is exactly what I am saying!  We may have evolved from chimpanzees which evolved from fish which evolved from micro-organisms and so may have these space alians.  They of course being millions of years ahead of us in the course of life would have evolved into something even more intelligent and they might just have the process of life pegged.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Do you really believe that there may be intelligent life on other > planets? > I believe it is certainly a possibility. > If so, what about the possibility that THEY may have created us, > the universe did evolve, and they were here first? > It is highly doubtful. The distances between stars is so great as to > make such a thing very difficult. Why travel to a distant planet to > creat new life, when you can simply create is on your own world, or on > a world closer to your own?

Perhaps because this is the closest planet that can sustain human life. >You cannot travel faster than light.

Really?  How do you know this?  Because of today’s technology and science? Remember that we would be dealing with life forms that are millions of years ahead of us.  We did break the speed of sound after it was first believed that it could not be done.   We think we know that light speed cannot be broken, but how do you know that millions of years in technological advances won’t find a way to do it. > It is > technically unfeasible. If you could travel 1/2 the speed of light, > you’re still talking about at least an 8-to-10-year voyage just to get > to earth from another star system.

Ok, then if you went 20 times the speed of light, you could get there 40 times faster. > After all, we have successfully cloned animals and are very close to > cloning > human beings.  This is the first step in learning how to CREATE humans. > How > do you know that these space aliens on a distant planet that we have been > long searching for are not simply millions of years ahead of us in > technology and they created us as a long-term science experiment in their > search to explain THEIR existence? > Again — it sounds like they would be going far out of their way to do > that, when it would be easier to just do it closer to home.

Again, earth may be the closest planet that is capable of sustaining human life.  Have we found one yet even in our known galaxy? > That would be a plausible scientific explanation for our existence, would > it > not? > No. it is simply a wild speculation.

Scientific proof begins with wild speculation. > When you consider the realities of > space travel, the realities of speed and distance in space, and the > realities of PRACTICALITY, it doesn’t sound scientific at all.

Again, you are assuming this using today’s technology and science.  These critters would be millions of years ahead of us. > Besides, the facts does not lead in that direction. The facts suggest > that we, being made out of the same minerals that are spewed from > volcanoes, being made of the raw materials that cover the earth, > originated here, and that the earth itself provides the raw materials > to make us.

Yes!  These critters would know this and would create the micro-organisms necessary to begin the process of evolution.  We are assuming that evolution is true.

Response:

Oh come on. There are mountains of evidence that we evolved from earlier life forms over millions and millions of years. Are you really saying that aliens came here in the past 30,000 years and cleverly planted modern homo sapiens amongst all the other existing species including some that we share 97% of our DNA with? That being said, your explanation is WAY MORE plausible than the stories cooked up by theists; at least in YOUR theory the aliens would have had to evolve too. I would give your theory several decimal places more likely odds than, say, christianity, which hovers at zero percent. My idiot brother believes in the Book of Urantia, which is more or less what you have theoried. Check it out! The world needs more lunatic cultists.

Response:

> Do you really believe that there may be intelligent life on other > planets?

        I don’t "believe" it.  I conclude that it’s a possibility.  We already know that the universe sustains intelligent life– ourselves, for example– and that the conditions that sustain us are not unique in some way.  Adopting what is known as the principle of mediocrity– the premise that the laws of physics are everywhere the same in the visible universe– we can conclude that it is possible that intelligent life exists elsewhere.         The rest of your post is sophomoric conjecture straight out of a Douglas Adams novel.  Where’s the evidence to suggest that you might be right?  You could get a science fiction novel out of it– oh, wait, that’s been done– but otherwise you’re not saying anything thousands of stoned college kids haven’t said before.                 Elf — Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988 http://www.drizzle.com/~elf "You know how some people treat their body like a temple?      I treat mine like issa amusement park!" – Kei

Response:

Even before reading this, I can tell that it’s obviously slanted by a not-so-honest xian.  The use of the word "evolutionist" is a dead giveaway. Only xians trying to sell their myths use that word. > Do you really believe that there may be intelligent life on other > planets?

I believe that it could be possible. > If so, what about the possibility that THEY may have created us, the > universe did evolve, and they were here first?

There is no evidence of this and the physics of them traveling here and accomplishing such a task make the possiblity of it happening extremely small (about zero). > After all, we have successfully cloned animals and are very close to > cloning human beings.  This is the first step in learning how to > CREATE humans.  How do you know that these space aliens on a distant > planet that we have been long searching for are not simply millions of > years ahead of us in technology and they created us as a long-term > science experiment in their search to explain THEIR existence? > That would be a plausible scientific explanation for our existence, > would it not?

If you could show how they violated the laws of physics, then you might have a case.  Which leads to another interesting question.  Where did these alien intelligent designers come from?  Were they designed and created by an even older and more advanced group of aliens and then where did these aliens come from; were they designed by an even more older and advanced group of aliens, etc…?  Or did somewhere along the line did some of them evolve on their own planet? (In which case, if they could do it, why can’t we?)  The end result of this is at some point, you have to admit that you think some god did it (and your thinly veiled "intelligent design" shows its religious basis) or you have to accept evolution as resulting in intelligent life. — Woden "religion is a socio-political system for controlling people’s thoughts, lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."

Response:

> Do you really believe that there may be intelligent life on other planets?

"may be"? Yes. It’s entirely possible. > If so, what about the possibility that THEY may have created us, the > universe did evolve, and they were here first?

Also theoretically possible. > After all, we have successfully cloned animals and are very close to cloning > human beings.  This is the first step in learning how to CREATE humans.  How > do you know that these space aliens on a distant planet that we have been > long searching for are not simply millions of years ahead of us in > technology and they created us as a long-term science experiment in their > search to explain THEIR existence?

We don’t know that. But we have no reason to think that this is the case. And by Occam’s razor, we prefer the simpler answer that fits the data. > That would be a plausible scientific explanation for our existence, would it > not?

No. It’s simply speculation. You clearly, like most fundies, do not understand the idea of science. Science involves drawing conclusions from the evidence, not searching for evidence to fit your imaginings.

Response:

> Do you really believe that there may be intelligent life on other planets?

Personally, I would be very surprised if there wasn’t. > If so, what about the possibility that THEY may have created us, the > universe did evolve, and they were here first?

I can’t rule this out, but do you have any reason to think this has happened? If not, then your brain might be better used speculating about something which could conceivably be answered. > After all, we have successfully cloned animals and are very close to cloning > human beings.  This is the first step in learning how to CREATE humans.  How > do you know that these space aliens on a distant planet that we have been > long searching for are not simply millions of years ahead of us in > technology and they created us as a long-term science experiment in their > search to explain THEIR existence? > That would be a plausible scientific explanation for our existence, would it > not?

It’s not scientific because there isn’t a shred of evidence to support the idea, even though it can’t be ruled out as a possibility. However, space aliens is just as unsatisfying an answer to how we all got here as God, because all it does is pose the question of where they came from. If it is too incredible to you that humans could have evolved, then why is it more rational to you to suppose life came from elsewhere? Since we have fossil evidence for ancient hominids, there is reason to think we evolved from a common ancestor with chimpanzees, so what is the point of speculating about extraterrestrials? Science has been successful, because it had concentrated upon questions which can be addressed with some hope of getting an answer and leaving ineffabilities to religion; it is a method, not a doctrine. (-: Ian

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Do you really believe that there may be intelligent life on other > planets? > I believe it is certainly a possibility. > If so, what about the possibility that THEY may have created us, > the universe did evolve, and they were here first? > It is highly doubtful. The distances between stars is so great as to > make such a thing very difficult. Why travel to a distant planet to > creat new life, when you can simply create is on your own world, or on > a world closer to your own? You cannot travel faster than light. It is > technically unfeasable. If you could travel 1/2 the speed of light, > you’re still talking about at least an 8-to-10-year voyage just to get > to earth from another star system.

Problem is you’re assuming the alien’s level of technical and scientific knowledge is no greater than ours.  What if they’re millions if not billions of years more advanced than us. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> After all, we have successfully cloned animals and are very close to > cloning > human beings.  This is the first step in learning how to CREATE humans. > How > do you know that these space aliens on a distant planet that we have been > long searching for are not simply millions of years ahead of us in > technology and they created us as a long-term science experiment in their > search to explain THEIR existence? > Again — it sounds like they would be going far out of their way to do > that, when it would be easier to just do it closer to home. > That would be a plausible scientific explanation for our existence, would > it > not? > No. it is simply a wild speculation. When you consider the realities of > space travel, the realities of speed and distance in space, and the > realities of PRACTICALITY, it doesn’t sound scientific at all. > Besides, the facts does not lead in that direction. The facts suggest > that we, being made out of the same minerals that are spewed from > volcanoes, being made of the raw materials that cover the earth, > originated here, and that the earth itself provides the raw materials > to make us.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Do you really believe that there may be intelligent life on other planets? >If so, what about the possibility that THEY may have created us, the >universe did evolve, and they were here first? >After all, we have successfully cloned animals and are very close to cloning >human beings.  This is the first step in learning how to CREATE humans.  How >do you know that these space aliens on a distant planet that we have been >long searching for are not simply millions of years ahead of us in >technology and they created us as a long-term science experiment in their >search to explain THEIR existence? >That would be a plausible scientific explanation for our existence, would it >not? >Would it satisfy you?

The moron reduces it to "believe in", and then tacks on something there is no reason to consider. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->— Jim07D5

Response:

> Do you really believe that there may be intelligent life on other planets?

I believe it is certainly a possibility. > If so, what about the possibility that THEY may have created us, > the universe did evolve, and they were here first?

It is highly doubtful. The distances between stars is so great as to make such a thing very difficult. Why travel to a distant planet to creat new life, when you can simply create is on your own world, or on a world closer to your own? You cannot travel faster than light. It is technically unfeasable. If you could travel 1/2 the speed of light, you’re still talking about at least an 8-to-10-year voyage just to get to earth from another star system. > After all, we have successfully cloned animals and are very close to cloning > human beings.  This is the first step in learning how to CREATE humans.  How > do you know that these space aliens on a distant planet that we have been > long searching for are not simply millions of years ahead of us in > technology and they created us as a long-term science experiment in their > search to explain THEIR existence?

Again — it sounds like they would be going far out of their way to do that, when it would be easier to just do it closer to home. > That would be a plausible scientific explanation for our existence, would it > not?

No. it is simply a wild speculation. When you consider the realities of space travel, the realities of speed and distance in space, and the realities of PRACTICALITY, it doesn’t sound scientific at all. Besides, the facts does not lead in that direction. The facts suggest that we, being made out of the same minerals that are spewed from volcanoes, being made of the raw materials that cover the earth, originated here, and that the earth itself provides the raw materials to make us.

Response:

> Do you really believe that there may be intelligent life on other planets?

Yes I do, and this is the important part, I _believe_ there’s intellegent life on other planets somewhere out there in the universe.  I’d be real surpised if there wasn’t. > If so, what about the possibility that THEY may have created us, the > universe did evolve, and they were here first?

It’s called Raelism.  http://www.answers.com/topic/raelism I think it’s nonsense since there’s no emperical evidence to support it. > After all, we have successfully cloned animals and are very close to > cloning human beings.  This is the first step in learning how to CREATE > humans.  How do you know that these space aliens on a distant planet that > we have been long searching for are not simply millions of years ahead of > us in technology and they created us as a long-term science experiment in > their search to explain THEIR existence? > That would be a plausible scientific explanation for our existence, would > it not?

Again, this is the important part, it’s a _belief_ not a scientific theory since there’s no empirical evidence to support it.  Therefore, it should never be taught in a science class. nafc

Response:

>Do you really believe that there may be intelligent life on other planets? >If so, what about the possibility that THEY may have created us, the >universe did evolve, and they were here first? >After all, we have successfully cloned animals and are very close to cloning >human beings.  This is the first step in learning how to CREATE humans.  How >do you know that these space aliens on a distant planet that we have been >long searching for are not simply millions of years ahead of us in >technology and they created us as a long-term science experiment in their >search to explain THEIR existence? >That would be a plausible scientific explanation for our existence, would it >not?

Would it satisfy you? — Jim07D5

Response:

> Do you really believe that there may be intelligent life on other > planets?

I’m not convinced there is intelligent life on *this* planet. Given how retarded your troll is, and how many repsonses it will, no doubt, get. — "So there is no third law of Terrydynamics."               — William Hyde Terry Austin www.hyperbooks.com

Response:

Do you really believe that there may be intelligent life on other planets? If so, what about the possibility that THEY may have created us, the universe did evolve, and they were here first? After all, we have successfully cloned animals and are very close to cloning human beings.  This is the first step in learning how to CREATE humans.  How do you know that these space aliens on a distant planet that we have been long searching for are not simply millions of years ahead of us in technology and they created us as a long-term science experiment in their search to explain THEIR existence? That would be a plausible scientific explanation for our existence, would it not?

Response:

Question:

> Devotional Guide > For the week of October 2, 2005 > CHRISTIANITY IS MORE THAN SIZZLE > The limit of faith

The right orange too, God bless you!  Somethin’s going on.  8-)  It has to be.

Response:

Devotional Guide For the week of October 2, 2005 CHRISTIANITY IS MORE THAN SIZZLE The limit of faith To Read: Nehemiah 12,13 To Know:

Question:

>Jesus loves you. >Ken Wilson >Proud Owner of Lord Valve, PMG, John Wheaton, Claude Lucas, >Freep the Xenophobe, Chuck, pseudobacker, and the rest of the >Union of Rightwing Idiots Needing Explanations (URINE) >and, at his own request, Karl Rovershank (aka Lars from Mars) >Supporting the Troops at http://www.resisters.ca http://www.criticalhistory.com/

Kenny: I’d be grateful if you would stop telling me "Jesus loves you." You don’t know shit about me. I could be a Jew, a Muslim, a Budhist, a Zen Taoist, a Sorastrian. In each and every case your presumptuous blessing would be offensive. As it happens, I’m a Calvinist and that makes your impertinent "blessing" ten times more offensive than if I were a pagan. My place in heaven is reserved by birth and resolute action in life, without any help from you, thank you. More, I have this horrid nightmare that I turn up before the pearly gates and Peter says, "You let that sick fuck Ken Wilson speak on our behalf? You had it made in life and the afterlife, you risked everything for the poor and downtrodden, and *then* you let that sick fuck Wilson speak for us!" Clunk goes the trapdoor. Down the chute into the hot place goes I. Go be limp somewhere else, Kenny; don’t wish on me what will surely befall you for all the damage you do to rationality. You see, by any rationality, and particularly by the rationality of Jesus himself as reported in the Gospels, you, Ken Wilson, are no more a Christian than an idiot like Soul can be a Muslim because he thinks it fashionable. The "Christianity" you preach is the perversion of the mob, a self-entitled mob, a smug mob, to be sure, but still just a mob. Jesus preached that there was a private conscience even within Judaic Law. He did not pronounce (as you daily presume to do) on morality; he did not make normative statements on ethics. Instead he sent people away to think for themselves. He was a radical; you are a limp reactionary despite the leftwing slogans you mouth without meaning, spewing hatred for the satisfaction of spewing hatred, covering your evil with a thin veneer of "concern" for those less privileged; the entire politically correct left is a reactionary fascist movement, very destructive of those foundations of society that Jesus honored and strenuously promoted. So, if you don’t mind, I cringe with revulsion when someone like you says to me "Jesus loves you". You have no right to speak for Jesus. Please don’t. Andre Jute PS If you had taken the trouble actually to read the bible rather than swallow some predigested myths without first examining them, you would know that what you pretend is your Christianity has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. You clearly haven’t the faintest idea of who Jesus was and what he stood for, or what his memory stands for among those blessed with the ability to think for themselves.

Response:

courageously avow: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Jesus loves you. >Ken Wilson >Proud Owner of Lord Valve, PMG, John Wheaton, Claude Lucas, >Freep the Xenophobe, Chuck, pseudobacker, and the rest of the >Union of Rightwing Idiots Needing Explanations (URINE) >and, at his own request, Karl Rovershank (aka Lars from Mars) >Supporting the Troops at http://www.resisters.ca http://www.criticalhistory.com/ >Kenny: >I’d be grateful if you would stop telling me "Jesus loves you." You >don’t know shit about me. I could be a Jew, a Muslim, a Budhist, a Zen >Taoist, a Sorastrian. In each and every case your presumptuous blessing >would be offensive. >As it happens, I’m a Calvinist and that makes your impertinent >"blessing" ten times more offensive than if I were a pagan. My place in >heaven is reserved by birth and resolute action in life, without any >help from you, thank you. More, I have this horrid nightmare that I >turn up before the pearly gates and Peter says, "You let that sick fuck >Ken Wilson speak on our behalf? You had it made in life and the >afterlife, you risked everything for the poor and downtrodden, and >*then* you let that sick fuck Wilson speak for us!" Clunk goes the >trapdoor. Down the chute into the hot place goes I. Go be limp >somewhere else, Kenny; don’t wish on me what will surely befall you for >all the damage you do to rationality. >You see, by any rationality, and particularly by the rationality of >Jesus himself as reported in the Gospels, you, Ken Wilson, are no more >a Christian than an idiot like Soul can be a Muslim because he thinks >it fashionable. The "Christianity" you preach is the perversion of the >mob, a self-entitled mob, a smug mob, to be sure, but still just a mob. >Jesus preached that there was a private conscience even within Judaic >Law. He did not pronounce (as you daily presume to do) on morality; he >did not make normative statements on ethics. Instead he sent people >away to think for themselves. He was a radical; you are a limp >reactionary despite the leftwing slogans you mouth without meaning, >spewing hatred for the satisfaction of spewing hatred, covering your >evil with a thin veneer of "concern" for those less privileged; the >entire politically correct left is a reactionary fascist movement, very >destructive of those foundations of society that Jesus honored and >strenuously promoted. >So, if you don’t mind, I cringe with revulsion when someone like you >says to me "Jesus loves you". You have no right to speak for Jesus. >Please don’t. >Andre Jute >PS If you had taken the trouble actually to read the bible rather than >swallow some predigested myths without first examining them, you would >know that what you pretend is your Christianity has nothing to do with >Jesus Christ. You clearly haven’t the faintest idea of who Jesus was >and what he stood for, or what his memory stands for among those >blessed with the ability to think for themselves.

So go away and think for yourself and I’ll think for myself.  BTW, Jesus loves you. Ken Wilson Proud Owner of Lord Valve, PMG, John Wheaton, Claude Lucas,  Freep the Xenophobe, Chuck, pseudobacker, and the rest of the  Union of Rightwing Idiots Needing Explanations (URINE)  and, at his own request, Karl Rovershank (aka Lars from Mars) Supporting the Troops at http://www.resisters.ca http://www.criticalhistory.com/

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > courageously avow: >>Jesus loves you. >>Ken Wilson >>Proud Owner of Lord Valve, PMG, John Wheaton, Claude Lucas, >>Freep the Xenophobe, Chuck, pseudobacker, and the rest of the >>Union of Rightwing Idiots Needing Explanations (URINE) >>and, at his own request, Karl Rovershank (aka Lars from Mars) >>Supporting the Troops at http://www.resisters.ca http://www.criticalhistory.com/ >Kenny: >I’d be grateful if you would stop telling me "Jesus loves you." You >don’t know shit about me. I could be a Jew, a Muslim, a Budhist, a Zen >Taoist, a Sorastrian. In each and every case your presumptuous blessing >would be offensive. >As it happens, I’m a Calvinist and that makes your impertinent >"blessing" ten times more offensive than if I were a pagan. My place in >heaven is reserved by birth and resolute action in life, without any >help from you, thank you. More, I have this horrid nightmare that I >turn up before the pearly gates and Peter says, "You let that sick fuck >Ken Wilson speak on our behalf? You had it made in life and the >afterlife, you risked everything for the poor and downtrodden, and >*then* you let that sick fuck Wilson speak for us!" Clunk goes the >trapdoor. Down the chute into the hot place goes I. Go be limp >somewhere else, Kenny; don’t wish on me what will surely befall you for >all the damage you do to rationality. >You see, by any rationality, and particularly by the rationality of >Jesus himself as reported in the Gospels, you, Ken Wilson, are no more >a Christian than an idiot like Soul can be a Muslim because he thinks >it fashionable. The "Christianity" you preach is the perversion of the >mob, a self-entitled mob, a smug mob, to be sure, but still just a mob. >Jesus preached that there was a private conscience even within Judaic >Law. He did not pronounce (as you daily presume to do) on morality; he >did not make normative statements on ethics. Instead he sent people >away to think for themselves. He was a radical; you are a limp >reactionary despite the leftwing slogans you mouth without meaning, >spewing hatred for the satisfaction of spewing hatred, covering your >evil with a thin veneer of "concern" for those less privileged; the >entire politically correct left is a reactionary fascist movement, very >destructive of those foundations of society that Jesus honored and >strenuously promoted. >So, if you don’t mind, I cringe with revulsion when someone like you >says to me "Jesus loves you". You have no right to speak for Jesus. >Please don’t. >Andre Jute >PS If you had taken the trouble actually to read the bible rather than >swallow some predigested myths without first examining them, you would >know that what you pretend is your Christianity has nothing to do with >Jesus Christ. You clearly haven’t the faintest idea of who Jesus was >and what he stood for, or what his memory stands for among those >blessed with the ability to think for themselves. > So go away and think for yourself and I’ll think for myself.  BTW, > Jesus loves you. > Ken Wilson

Jesus! Is that guy clueless!   –E

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Jesus loves you. >Ken Wilson >Proud Owner of Lord Valve, PMG, John Wheaton, Claude Lucas, >Freep the Xenophobe, Chuck, pseudobacker, and the rest of the >Union of Rightwing Idiots Needing Explanations (URINE) >and, at his own request, Karl Rovershank (aka Lars from Mars) >Supporting the Troops at http://www.resisters.ca http://www.criticalhistory.com/ >Kenny: >I’d be grateful if you would stop telling me "Jesus loves you." You >don’t know shit about me. I could be a Jew, a Muslim, a Budhist, a Zen >Taoist, a Sorastrian. In each and every case your presumptuous blessing >would be offensive. >As it happens, I’m a Calvinist and that makes your impertinent >"blessing" ten times more offensive than if I were a pagan. My place in >heaven is reserved by birth and resolute action in life, without any >help from you, thank you. More, I have this horrid nightmare that I >turn up before the pearly gates and Peter says, "You let that sick fuck >Ken Wilson speak on our behalf? You had it made in life and the >afterlife, you risked everything for the poor and downtrodden, and >*then* you let that sick fuck Wilson speak for us!" Clunk goes the >trapdoor. Down the chute into the hot place goes I. Go be limp >somewhere else, Kenny; don’t wish on me what will surely befall you for >all the damage you do to rationality. >You see, by any rationality, and particularly by the rationality of >Jesus himself as reported in the Gospels, you, Ken Wilson, are no more >a Christian than an idiot like Soul can be a Muslim because he thinks >it fashionable. The "Christianity" you preach is the perversion of the >mob, a self-entitled mob, a smug mob, to be sure, but still just a mob. >Jesus preached that there was a private conscience even within Judaic >Law. He did not pronounce (as you daily presume to do) on morality; he >did not make normative statements on ethics. Instead he sent people >away to think for themselves. He was a radical; you are a limp >reactionary despite the leftwing slogans you mouth without meaning, >spewing hatred for the satisfaction of spewing hatred, covering your >evil with a thin veneer of "concern" for those less privileged; the >entire politically correct left is a reactionary fascist movement, very >destructive of those foundations of society that Jesus honored and >strenuously promoted. >So, if you don’t mind, I cringe with revulsion when someone like you >says to me "Jesus loves you". You have no right to speak for Jesus. >Please don’t. >Andre Jute >PS If you had taken the trouble actually to read the bible rather than >swallow some predigested myths without first examining them, you would >know that what you pretend is your Christianity has nothing to do with >Jesus Christ. You clearly haven’t the faintest idea of who Jesus was >and what he stood for, or what his memory stands for among those >blessed with the ability to think for themselves.

Thanks Andre.  That was good. I especially loved the St. Peter part: "You let that sick fuck Ken Wilson speak on our behalf?" My hat’s off to Jute! Pete — Oh look, the exploding circus is coming to town. One night only. –Brak’s Dad

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> courageously avow: > >>Jesus loves you. > >>Ken Wilson > >>Proud Owner of Lord Valve, PMG, John Wheaton, Claude Lucas, > >>Freep the Xenophobe, Chuck, pseudobacker, and the rest of the > >>Union of Rightwing Idiots Needing Explanations (URINE) > >>and, at his own request, Karl Rovershank (aka Lars from Mars) > >>Supporting the Troops at http://www.resisters.ca http://www.criticalhistory.com/ > >Kenny: > >I’d be grateful if you would stop telling me "Jesus loves you." You > >don’t know shit about me. I could be a Jew, a Muslim, a Budhist, a Zen > >Taoist, a Sorastrian. In each and every case your presumptuous blessing > >would be offensive. > >As it happens, I’m a Calvinist and that makes your impertinent > >"blessing" ten times more offensive than if I were a pagan. My place in > >heaven is reserved by birth and resolute action in life, without any > >help from you, thank you. More, I have this horrid nightmare that I > >turn up before the pearly gates and Peter says, "You let that sick fuck > >Ken Wilson speak on our behalf? You had it made in life and the > >afterlife, you risked everything for the poor and downtrodden, and > >*then* you let that sick fuck Wilson speak for us!" Clunk goes the > >trapdoor. Down the chute into the hot place goes I. Go be limp > >somewhere else, Kenny; don’t wish on me what will surely befall you for > >all the damage you do to rationality. > >You see, by any rationality, and particularly by the rationality of > >Jesus himself as reported in the Gospels, you, Ken Wilson, are no more > >a Christian than an idiot like Soul can be a Muslim because he thinks > >it fashionable. The "Christianity" you preach is the perversion of the > >mob, a self-entitled mob, a smug mob, to be sure, but still just a mob. > >Jesus preached that there was a private conscience even within Judaic > >Law. He did not pronounce (as you daily presume to do) on morality; he > >did not make normative statements on ethics. Instead he sent people > >away to think for themselves. He was a radical; you are a limp > >reactionary despite the leftwing slogans you mouth without meaning, > >spewing hatred for the satisfaction of spewing hatred, covering your > >evil with a thin veneer of "concern" for those less privileged; the > >entire politically correct left is a reactionary fascist movement, very > >destructive of those foundations of society that Jesus honored and > >strenuously promoted. > >So, if you don’t mind, I cringe with revulsion when someone like you > >says to me "Jesus loves you". You have no right to speak for Jesus. > >Please don’t. > >Andre Jute > >PS If you had taken the trouble actually to read the bible rather than > >swallow some predigested myths without first examining them, you would > >know that what you pretend is your Christianity has nothing to do with > >Jesus Christ. You clearly haven’t the faintest idea of who Jesus was > >and what he stood for, or what his memory stands for among those > >blessed with the ability to think for themselves. > So go away and think for yourself and I’ll think for myself.  BTW, > Jesus loves you. > Ken Wilson > Jesus! Is that guy clueless! >   –E

Nah, Ether, we can’t condemn Ken Wilson simply because he appears to be a congenital idiot. What I’m condemning him for is his constant malice and of course his insolence in presuming he can be a messenger for Jesus. And now for his foul manners: I ask him not to curse me with his "blessing", and his answer is deliberately to do it again. Ken Wilson isn’t only stupid, malicious and blasphemous, he’s an ill-mannered lout as well. Andre Jute Zero tolerance for the enemies of society

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > courageously avow: > > >>Jesus loves you. > > >>Ken Wilson > > >>Proud Owner of Lord Valve, PMG, John Wheaton, Claude Lucas, > > >>Freep the Xenophobe, Chuck, pseudobacker, and the rest of the > > >>Union of Rightwing Idiots Needing Explanations (URINE) > > >>and, at his own request, Karl Rovershank (aka Lars from Mars) > > >>Supporting the Troops at http://www.resisters.ca http://www.criticalhistory.com/ > > >Kenny: > > >I’d be grateful if you would stop telling me "Jesus loves you." You > > >don’t know shit about me. I could be a Jew, a Muslim, a Budhist, a Zen > > >Taoist, a Sorastrian. In each and every case your presumptuous blessing > > >would be offensive. > > >As it happens, I’m a Calvinist and that makes your impertinent > > >"blessing" ten times more offensive than if I were a pagan. My place in > > >heaven is reserved by birth and resolute action in life, without any > > >help from you, thank you. More, I have this horrid nightmare that I > > >turn up before the pearly gates and Peter says, "You let that sick fuck > > >Ken Wilson speak on our behalf? You had it made in life and the > > >afterlife, you risked everything for the poor and downtrodden, and > > >*then* you let that sick fuck Wilson speak for us!" Clunk goes the > > >trapdoor. Down the chute into the hot place goes I. Go be limp > > >somewhere else, Kenny; don’t wish on me what will surely befall you for > > >all the damage you do to rationality. > > >You see, by any rationality, and particularly by the rationality of > > >Jesus himself as reported in the Gospels, you, Ken Wilson, are no more > > >a Christian than an idiot like Soul can be a Muslim because he thinks > > >it fashionable. The "Christianity" you preach is the perversion of the > > >mob, a self-entitled mob, a smug mob, to be sure, but still just a mob. > > >Jesus preached that there was a private conscience even within Judaic > > >Law. He did not pronounce (as you daily presume to do) on morality; he > > >did not make normative statements on ethics. Instead he sent people > > >away to think for themselves. He was a radical; you are a limp > > >reactionary despite the leftwing slogans you mouth without meaning, > > >spewing hatred for the satisfaction of spewing hatred, covering your > > >evil with a thin veneer of "concern" for those less privileged; the > > >entire politically correct left is a reactionary fascist movement, very > > >destructive of those foundations of society that Jesus honored and > > >strenuously promoted. > > >So, if you don’t mind, I cringe with revulsion when someone like you > > >says to me "Jesus loves you". You have no right to speak for Jesus. > > >Please don’t. > > >Andre Jute > > >PS If you had taken the trouble actually to read the bible rather than > > >swallow some predigested myths without first examining them, you would > > >know that what you pretend is your Christianity has nothing to do with > > >Jesus Christ. You clearly haven’t the faintest idea of who Jesus was > > >and what he stood for, or what his memory stands for among those > > >blessed with the ability to think for themselves. > > So go away and think for yourself and I’ll think for myself.  BTW, > > Jesus loves you. > > Ken Wilson > Jesus! Is that guy clueless! >   –E > Nah, Ether, we can’t condemn Ken Wilson simply because he appears to be > a congenital idiot. What I’m condemning him for is his constant malice > and of course his insolence in presuming he can be a messenger for > Jesus. And now for his foul manners: I ask him not to curse me with his > "blessing", and his answer is deliberately to do it again. Ken Wilson > isn’t only stupid, malicious and blasphemous, he’s an ill-mannered lout > as well. > Andre Jute > Zero tolerance for the enemies of society

Actually, Andre, I was talking about you. But as Ken says, Jesus probably loves you. (Or at least finds your ridiculous indignation amusing.)   –E

Response:

<snip> > As it happens, I’m a Calvinist and that makes your impertinent > "blessing" ten times more offensive than if I were a pagan. My place > in > heaven is reserved by birth and resolute action in life, without any > help from you, thank you. More, I have this horrid nightmare that I > turn up before the pearly gates and Peter says, "You let that sick > fuck > Ken Wilson speak on our behalf? You had it made in life and the > afterlife, you risked everything for the poor and downtrodden, and > *then* you let that sick fuck Wilson speak for us!" Clunk goes the > trapdoor. Down the chute into the hot place goes I. Go be limp > somewhere else, Kenny; don’t wish on me what will surely befall you > for > all the damage you do to rationality.

Some thoughts: 1). Your theology is flakey if you think that St Peter is actually standing at the Pearly Gates with the keys to heaven letting you in, or denying you access. 2). Your theology is flakey if you think that your salvation is based on whether you let Ken speak on behalf of all christians – which he wasn’t. 3). And I am sure that Calvin would not support your foul language if he were alive today. 4). Jesus does indeed love you. The fact that Ken might be being ‘funny’ (to be generous here) doesn’t affect this. Peace, grol

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > <snip> > As it happens, I’m a Calvinist and that makes your impertinent > "blessing" ten times more offensive than if I were a pagan. My place > in > heaven is reserved by birth and resolute action in life, without any > help from you, thank you. More, I have this horrid nightmare that I > turn up before the pearly gates and Peter says, "You let that sick > fuck > Ken Wilson speak on our behalf? You had it made in life and the > afterlife, you risked everything for the poor and downtrodden, and > *then* you let that sick fuck Wilson speak for us!" Clunk goes the > trapdoor. Down the chute into the hot place goes I. Go be limp > somewhere else, Kenny; don’t wish on me what will surely befall you > for > all the damage you do to rationality. > Some thoughts: > 1). Your theology is flakey if you think that St Peter is actually > standing at the Pearly Gates with the keys to heaven letting you in, or > denying you access. > 2). Your theology is flakey if you think that your salvation is based on > whether you let Ken speak on behalf of all christians – which he wasn’t. > 3). And I am sure that Calvin would not support your foul language if he > were alive today. > 4). Jesus does indeed love you. The fact that Ken might be being ‘funny’ > (to be generous here) doesn’t affect this. > Peace, > grol

A friend of mine believes he has identified the humour centre in pig brains and is talking about transplants to people like you. Send your phone number so he can contact you. — Andre Jute

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> <snip> > > As it happens, I’m a Calvinist and that makes your impertinent > > "blessing" ten times more offensive than if I were a pagan. My > > place > > in > > heaven is reserved by birth and resolute action in life, without > > any > > help from you, thank you. More, I have this horrid nightmare that I > > turn up before the pearly gates and Peter says, "You let that sick > > fuck > > Ken Wilson speak on our behalf? You had it made in life and the > > afterlife, you risked everything for the poor and downtrodden, and > > *then* you let that sick fuck Wilson speak for us!" Clunk goes the > > trapdoor. Down the chute into the hot place goes I. Go be limp > > somewhere else, Kenny; don’t wish on me what will surely befall you > > for > > all the damage you do to rationality. > Some thoughts: > 1). Your theology is flakey if you think that St Peter is actually > standing at the Pearly Gates with the keys to heaven letting you in, > or > denying you access. > 2). Your theology is flakey if you think that your salvation is based > on > whether you let Ken speak on behalf of all christians – which he > wasn’t. > 3). And I am sure that Calvin would not support your foul language if > he > were alive today. > 4). Jesus does indeed love you. The fact that Ken might be being > ‘funny’ > (to be generous here) doesn’t affect this. > Peace, > grol > A friend of mine believes he has identified the humour centre in pig > brains and is talking about transplants to people like you. Send your > phone number so he can contact you. — Andre Jute

Perhaps you need to when you read Ken’s posts in future?

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > > courageously avow: > > > >>Jesus loves you. > > > >>Ken Wilson > > > >>Proud Owner of Lord Valve, PMG, John Wheaton, Claude Lucas, > > > >>Freep the Xenophobe, Chuck, pseudobacker, and the rest of the > > > >>Union of Rightwing Idiots Needing Explanations (URINE) > > > >>and, at his own request, Karl Rovershank (aka Lars from Mars) > > > >>Supporting the Troops at http://www.resisters.ca http://www.criticalhistory.com/ > > > >Kenny: > > > >I’d be grateful if you would stop telling me "Jesus loves you." You > > > >don’t know shit about me. I could be a Jew, a Muslim, a Budhist, a Zen > > > >Taoist, a Sorastrian. In each and every case your presumptuous blessing > > > >would be offensive. > > > >As it happens, I’m a Calvinist and that makes your impertinent > > > >"blessing" ten times more offensive than if I were a pagan. My place in > > > >heaven is reserved by birth and resolute action in life, without any > > > >help from you, thank you. More, I have this horrid nightmare that I > > > >turn up before the pearly gates and Peter says, "You let that sick fuck > > > >Ken Wilson speak on our behalf? You had it made in life and the > > > >afterlife, you risked everything for the poor and downtrodden, and > > > >*then* you let that sick fuck Wilson speak for us!" Clunk goes the > > > >trapdoor. Down the chute into the hot place goes I. Go be limp > > > >somewhere else, Kenny; don’t wish on me what will surely befall you for > > > >all the damage you do to rationality. > > > >You see, by any rationality, and particularly by the rationality of > > > >Jesus himself as reported in the Gospels, you, Ken Wilson, are no more > > > >a Christian than an idiot like Soul can be a Muslim because he thinks > > > >it fashionable. The "Christianity" you preach is the perversion of the > > > >mob, a self-entitled mob, a smug mob, to be sure, but still just a mob. > > > >Jesus preached that there was a private conscience even within Judaic > > > >Law. He did not pronounce (as you daily presume to do) on morality; he > > > >did not make normative statements on ethics. Instead he sent people > > > >away to think for themselves. He was a radical; you are a limp > > > >reactionary despite the leftwing slogans you mouth without meaning, > > > >spewing hatred for the satisfaction of spewing hatred, covering your > > > >evil with a thin veneer of "concern" for those less privileged; the > > > >entire politically correct left is a reactionary fascist movement, very > > > >destructive of those foundations of society that Jesus honored and > > > >strenuously promoted. > > > >So, if you don’t mind, I cringe with revulsion when someone like you > > > >says to me "Jesus loves you". You have no right to speak for Jesus. > > > >Please don’t. > > > >Andre Jute > > > >PS If you had taken the trouble actually to read the bible rather than > > > >swallow some predigested myths without first examining them, you would > > > >know that what you pretend is your Christianity has nothing to do with > > > >Jesus Christ. You clearly haven’t the faintest idea of who Jesus was > > > >and what he stood for, or what his memory stands for among those > > > >blessed with the ability to think for themselves. > > > So go away and think for yourself and I’ll think for myself.  BTW, > > > Jesus loves you. > > > Ken Wilson > > Jesus! Is that guy clueless! > >   –E > Nah, Ether, we can’t condemn Ken Wilson simply because he appears to be > a congenital idiot. What I’m condemning him for is his constant malice > and of course his insolence in presuming he can be a messenger for > Jesus. And now for his foul manners: I ask him not to curse me with his > "blessing", and his answer is deliberately to do it again. Ken Wilson > isn’t only stupid, malicious and blasphemous, he’s an ill-mannered lout > as well. > Andre Jute > Zero tolerance for the enemies of society > Actually, Andre, I was talking about you.

I knew that, Ether. But it was an opportunity to send up another pompous self-righteous snit (you), and of course to reprint my analysis of Kenny’s tacky brand of "Christianity". Thanks for the chance. > But as Ken says, Jesus probably loves you.

You’re another lout with foul manners. > (Or at least finds your > ridiculous indignation amusing.)

Wow! And the presumption to speak for a god, just like that insolent nobody Wilson. There’s zero indignation in my original post, sonny, though one needs some sophistication to understand how I manipulated the material to give the impression of righteous and sincere anger to pompous twits while at the same time signalling to my peers that I’m leading some not overly bright enemies of society around by the nose. If English isn’t your mother tongue I can recommend a good reading comprehension course at a community college near you. See also my post to Grolschie about pig brain transplants for the terminally humourless. >   –E

I note that you haven’t been brave, or informed, enough to argue my points. Do you actually have anything to add, except personal abuse? Or do you know as little about Christianity as that poseur Wilson? Andre Jute

Response:

> do you know as little about Christianity as that poseur Wilson?

Please enlighten us with your expert knowledge of Christianity. I have seen no evidence thus far.

Response:

>Nah, Ether, we can’t condemn Ken Wilson simply because he appears to be >a congenital idiot. What I’m condemning him for is his constant malice >and of course his insolence in presuming he can be a messenger for >Jesus. And now for his foul manners: I ask him not to curse me with his >"blessing", and his answer is deliberately to do it again. Ken Wilson >isn’t only stupid, malicious and blasphemous, he’s an ill-mannered lout >as well. >Andre Jute >Zero tolerance for the enemies of society

LV, you were right.  Jute’s good at this. Pete — Oh look, the exploding circus is coming to town. One night only. –Brak’s Dad

Response:

Thanks for your support gentlemen.  As far as Andre goes I think I’ve got that floater flushed. Ken Wilson Proud Owner of Lord Valve, PMG, John Wheaton, Claude Lucas,  Freep the Xenophobe, Chuck, pseudobacker, and the rest of the  Union of Rightwing Idiots Needing Explanations (URINE)  and, at his own request, Karl Rovershank (aka Lars from Mars) Supporting the Troops at http://www.resisters.ca http://www.criticalhistory.com/

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Nah, Ether, we can’t condemn Ken Wilson simply because he appears to be >a congenital idiot. What I’m condemning him for is his constant malice >and of course his insolence in presuming he can be a messenger for >Jesus. And now for his foul manners: I ask him not to curse me with his >"blessing", and his answer is deliberately to do it again. Ken Wilson >isn’t only stupid, malicious and blasphemous, he’s an ill-mannered lout >as well. >Andre Jute >Zero tolerance for the enemies of society > LV, you were right.  Jute’s good at this. > Pete

A true flame-meister. He’s a professional author, so his language skills are excellent. Like me, he can spot who the snotty little assholes are by reading a very small amount of their output.  Wilson et al would do well to steer clear of him, but none of them are that smart.  Sit back and watch the show.  ;-) Lord Valve Globally Warm

Response:

did courageously avow: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >Nah, Ether, we can’t condemn Ken Wilson simply because he appears to be > >a congenital idiot. What I’m condemning him for is his constant malice > >and of course his insolence in presuming he can be a messenger for > >Jesus. And now for his foul manners: I ask him not to curse me with his > >"blessing", and his answer is deliberately to do it again. Ken Wilson > >isn’t only stupid, malicious and blasphemous, he’s an ill-mannered lout > >as well. > >Andre Jute > >Zero tolerance for the enemies of society > LV, you were right.  Jute’s good at this. > Pete >A true flame-meister. >He’s a professional author, so his language skills are excellent. >Like me, he can spot who the snotty little assholes are by reading >a very small amount of their output.  Wilson et al would do well >to steer clear of him, but none of them are that smart.  Sit back >and watch the show.  ;-) >Lord Valve >Globally Warm

Jesus love you. Ken Wilson Proud Owner of Lord Valve, PMG, John Wheaton, Claude Lucas,  Freep the Xenophobe, Chuck, pseudobacker, and the rest of the  Union of Rightwing Idiots Needing Explanations (URINE)  and, at his own request, Karl Rovershank (aka Lars from Mars) Supporting the Troops at http://www.resisters.ca http://www.criticalhistory.com/

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >Nah, Ether, we can’t condemn Ken Wilson simply because he appears to be > >a congenital idiot. What I’m condemning him for is his constant malice > >and of course his insolence in presuming he can be a messenger for > >Jesus. And now for his foul manners: I ask him not to curse me with his > >"blessing", and his answer is deliberately to do it again. Ken Wilson > >isn’t only stupid, malicious and blasphemous, he’s an ill-mannered lout > >as well. > >Andre Jute > >Zero tolerance for the enemies of society > LV, you were right.  Jute’s good at this. > Pete > A true flame-meister. > He’s a professional author, so his language skills are excellent. > Like me, he can spot who the snotty little assholes are by reading > a very small amount of their output.  Wilson et al would do well > to steer clear of him, but none of them are that smart.  Sit back > and watch the show.  ;-) > Lord Valve > Globally Warm

Nope.  He’s just another racist white supremacist asshole like you. Enlisted by you to the job a coward like you can’t finish.  Typical republican.  Wars fun if you can get someone else to fight it for you.

Response:

> do you know as little about Christianity as that poseur Wilson? > Please enlighten us with your expert knowledge of Christianity. I have > seen no evidence thus far.

Perhaps you might lighten up a tad. I’ve seen many challenge Mr. Jute. For the most part it is akin to Caspar Milquetoast unknowingly taking on Mike Tyson.  Just be careful my good fellow. west – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

> I’d be grateful if you would stop telling me "Jesus loves you."

He’s referring to Jesus Alou, the baseball player, who does love you. > As it happens, I’m a Calvinist and that makes your impertinent > "blessing" ten times more offensive than if I were a pagan.

You worship the little cartoon guy? Way cool. > My place in heaven is reserved by birth

Sort of like George W. Bush getting into Harvard? > I have this horrid nightmare that I > turn up before the pearly gates and Peter says, "You let that sick fuck > Ken Wilson speak on our behalf?

Do you really think that Saint Peter would use the term "sick fuck"? > You clearly haven’t the faintest idea of who Jesus was > and what he stood for, or what his memory stands for among those > blessed with the ability to think for themselves.

He a career batting average of .280.

Response:

> 3). And I am sure that Calvin would not support your foul language if he > were alive today.

Then how do you explain all those stickers of him pissing on things stuck to the back of pick-up trucks?

Response:

> > do you know as little about Christianity as that poseur Wilson? > Please enlighten us with your expert knowledge of Christianity. I have > seen no evidence thus far.

Whoa, Grolschie. I am not trying to convert you or that heathen mouthfoamer Ken Wilson to Christianity.  The boot is on the other foot. Wilson presumes to set himself up as an intermediary between Jesus and me. I reject his impertinence. Therefore it is not up to me to prove I know anything at all about Chirstianity; it is up to Wilson and his equally dim little street corner gang to prove that a) they have a right to consider themselves Christians and b) that they have a right to speak for Jesus to other Christians (or anyone else) who reject Wilson and all his malicious kin out of hand as enemies of society. By all means start a discussion with me on Christianity, if you are feeling reckless. A good start would be to contest a single one of the facts stated in my original post, which I give again below my signature. It is significant to everyone with brains on AGA and RAT that Wilson’s little street corner gang of jeerers and sneerer have not even attempted to argue a single one of my points. You know you can’t, so you do the only thing you’re even half-good at, you jeer and you sneer. Notice how few of Kenny’s little helpers have jumped into the fray this time? It is because some of them know more about Christianity than Islam, and are therefore qualified in some small way to know that I am perfectly right and Kenny Wilson is perfectly wrong, in short that Wilson is no sort of a Christian, that his ostentatious "Christianity" is a ludicrous veneer over his omnidirectional malice. Looking forward to hearing that you quarterwits between put one brain cell together to argue with. Andre Jute HERE’S MY ORIGINAL POST: >Jesus loves you. >Ken Wilson >Proud Owner of Lord Valve, PMG, John Wheaton, Claude Lucas, >Freep the Xenophobe, Chuck, pseudobacker, and the rest of the >Union of Rightwing Idiots Needing Explanations (URINE) >and, at his own request, Karl Rovershank (aka Lars from Mars) >Supporting the Troops at http://www.resisters.ca http://www.criticalhistory.com/

Kenny: I’d be grateful if you would stop telling me "Jesus loves you." You don’t know shit about me. I could be a Jew, a Muslim, a Budhist, a Zen Taoist, a Sorastrian. In each and every case your presumptuous blessing would be offensive. As it happens, I’m a Calvinist and that makes your impertinent "blessing" ten times more offensive than if I were a pagan. My place in heaven is reserved by birth and resolute action in life, without any help from you, thank you. More, I have this horrid nightmare that I turn up before the pearly gates and Peter says, "You let that sick fuck Ken Wilson speak on our behalf? You had it made in life and the afterlife, you risked everything for the poor and downtrodden, and *then* you let that sick fuck Wilson speak for us!" Clunk goes the trapdoor. Down the chute into the hot place goes I. Go be limp somewhere else, Kenny; don’t wish on me what will surely befall you for all the damage you do to rationality. You see, by any rationality, and particularly by the rationality of Jesus himself as reported in the Gospels, you, Ken Wilson, are no more a Christian than an idiot like Soul can be a Muslim because he thinks it fashionable. The "Christianity" you preach is the perversion of the mob, a self-entitled mob, a smug mob, to be sure, but still just a mob. Jesus preached that there was a private conscience even within Judaic Law. He did not pronounce (as you daily presume to do) on morality; he did not make normative statements on ethics. Instead he sent people away to think for themselves. He was a radical; you are a limp reactionary despite the leftwing slogans you mouth without meaning, spewing hatred for the satisfaction of spewing hatred, covering your evil with a thin veneer of "concern" for those less privileged; the entire politically correct left is a reactionary fascist movement, very destructive of those foundations of society that Jesus honored and strenuously promoted. So, if you don’t mind, I cringe with revulsion when someone like you says to me "Jesus loves you". You have no right to speak for Jesus. Please don’t. Andre Jute PS If you had taken the trouble actually to read the bible rather than swallow some predigested myths without first examining them, you would know that what you pretend is your Christianity has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. You clearly haven’t the faintest idea of who Jesus was and what he stood for, or what his memory stands for among those blessed with the ability to think for themselves.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >Nah, Ether, we can’t condemn Ken Wilson simply because he appears to be > >a congenital idiot. What I’m condemning him for is his constant malice > >and of course his insolence in presuming he can be a messenger for > >Jesus. And now for his foul manners: I ask him not to curse me with his > >"blessing", and his answer is deliberately to do it again. Ken Wilson > >isn’t only stupid, malicious and blasphemous, he’s an ill-mannered lout > >as well. > >Andre Jute > >Zero tolerance for the enemies of society > LV, you were right.  Jute’s good at this. > Pete >A true flame-meister. >He’s a professional author, so his language skills are excellent. >Like me, he can spot who the snotty little assholes are by reading >a very small amount of their output.  Wilson et al would do well >to steer clear of him, but none of them are that smart.  Sit back >and watch the show.  ;-) >Lord Valve >Globally Warm

Careful….  don’t warn them! Yeah, I imagine they’ll think they can take Jute on.  Look at all the arguments they think they won here on aga. Pete — Oh look, the exploding circus is coming to town. One night only. –Brak’s Dad

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >Nah, Ether, we can’t condemn Ken Wilson simply because he appears to be > >a congenital idiot. What I’m condemning him for is his constant malice > >and of course his insolence in presuming he can be a messenger for > >Jesus. And now for his foul manners: I ask him not to curse me with his > >"blessing", and his answer is deliberately to do it again. Ken Wilson > >isn’t only stupid, malicious and blasphemous, he’s an ill-mannered lout > >as well. > >Andre Jute > >Zero tolerance for the enemies of society > LV, you were right.  Jute’s good at this. >A true flame-meister. >He’s a professional author, so his language skills >are excellent.

The one doesn’t mean the other. >Like me, he can spot who the snotty little assholes >are by reading a very small amount of their output.  

Translation: "I can spot people who disagree with me, and they’re idiots." >Wilson et al would do well to steer clear of him, but >none of them are that smart.  Sit back and watch the >show.  ;-)

The points in Monsieur Jute’s accusation could apply to you just as well. The Repair Guy http://repairguy1993.netfirms.com/

Response:

>> > do you know as little about Christianity as that poseur Wilson? > Please enlighten us with your expert knowledge of Christianity. I have > seen no evidence thus far. >Whoa, Grolschie. I am not trying to convert you or that heathen >mouthfoamer Ken Wilson to Christianity.  The boot is on the other foot. >Wilson presumes to set himself up as an intermediary between Jesus and >me.

Yo, Andre – Ken does it for the same reason the Valvulator does it: to insult and annoy. He wasn’t intermediating anything. The Repair Guy http://repairguy1993.netfirms.com/

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > courageously avow: >>Jesus loves you. >>Ken Wilson >>Proud Owner of Lord Valve, PMG, John Wheaton, Claude Lucas, >>Freep the Xenophobe, Chuck, pseudobacker, and the rest of the >>Union of Rightwing Idiots Needing Explanations (URINE) >>and, at his own request, Karl Rovershank (aka Lars from Mars) >>Supporting the Troops at http://www.resisters.ca http://www.criticalhistory.com/ >Kenny: >I’d be grateful if you would stop telling me "Jesus loves you." You >don’t know shit about me. I could be a Jew, a Muslim, a Budhist, a Zen >Taoist, a Sorastrian. In each and every case your presumptuous blessing >would be offensive. >As it happens, I’m a Calvinist and that makes your impertinent >"blessing" ten times more offensive than if I were a pagan. My place in >heaven is reserved by birth and resolute action in life, without any >help from you, thank you. More, I have this horrid nightmare that I >turn up before the pearly gates and Peter says, "You let that sick fuck >Ken Wilson speak on our behalf? You had it made in life and the >afterlife, you risked everything for the poor and downtrodden, and >*then* you let that sick fuck Wilson speak for us!" Clunk goes the >trapdoor. Down the chute into the hot place goes I. Go be limp >somewhere else, Kenny; don’t wish on me what will surely befall you for >all the damage you do to rationality. >You see, by any rationality, and particularly by the rationality of >Jesus himself as reported in the Gospels, you, Ken Wilson, are no more >a Christian than an idiot like Soul can be a Muslim because he thinks >it fashionable. The "Christianity" you preach is the perversion of the >mob, a self-entitled mob, a smug mob, to be sure, but still just a mob. >Jesus preached that there was a private conscience even within Judaic >Law. He did not pronounce (as you daily presume to do) on morality; he >did not make normative statements on ethics. Instead he sent people >away to think for themselves. He was a radical; you are a limp >reactionary despite the leftwing slogans you mouth without meaning, >spewing hatred for the satisfaction of spewing hatred, covering your >evil with a thin veneer of "concern" for those less privileged; the >entire politically correct left is a reactionary fascist movement, very >destructive of those foundations of society that Jesus honored and >strenuously promoted. >So, if you don’t mind, I cringe with revulsion when someone like you >says to me "Jesus loves you". You have no right to speak for Jesus. >Please don’t. >Andre Jute >PS If you had taken the trouble actually to read the bible rather than >swallow some predigested myths without first examining them, you would >know that what you pretend is your Christianity has nothing to do with >Jesus Christ. You clearly haven’t the faintest idea of who Jesus was >and what he stood for, or what his memory stands for among those >blessed with the ability to think for themselves. > So go away and think for yourself and I’ll think for myself.  BTW, > Jesus loves you. > Ken Wilson

That’s the whole point of my polite request for you to fuck out of my face, Kenny, that you clearly can’t think for yourself, and that therefore your presumption to think for me is impertinent. Not to mention that your claim to make Jesus’s choices for him would be blasphemous even if you were a hundred times more intelligent than you are. Since you obviously haven’t taken the point from my polite request, I don’t want your good wishes because I think you are a malicious enemy of society, a tearer down, a sneerer and jeerer, counterproductive, just another useless runner in the mob of the undistinguished and indistinguisable, in short scum. I don’t tell you what you can say and believe. I don’t even ask you to believe what I do. I don’t want to stop you doing anything, anything at all: I don’t care where a useless little man like you sticks his dildo. In return I ask only that you don’t try to rub up against me. You see, I fear that the slime on you will rub off on me and pass your disease to me. Is that clear enough for you? Andre Jute Darwinian

Response: