Yup, for almost 6 years I had a link to pdxradio.com from one of my websites and as of 10 minutes ago, it was deleted. While I only have a modest number of people visit the site daily (100-150), pdxradio.com was at the top of a very short list of radio links. I also have some links to this site on my live365 pages and those will be gone shortly. This site no doubt will drop a notch or so on google.com

While it may seem unfair to second guess what is on the owner of this website's mind, enough evidence (a site adminstrator locked some threads and afterwards a known liar was still able to post) is present to make this conclusion: The admin deemed it not worthy to take any actions against a person who lied about another member (libel).

Kind of hard to recommend this site now eh? Send your friends here and they're face to face with a lying troll with unfettered access to create chaos. Ugh. Another long time poster was spot-on about not contributing money to this site.

There you go. Perhaps checking out other forums is the ticket now. It would be nice to have discussions with the "other side" without hearing about Jesus and made-up-facts, never mind being lied to.

Who is this "lying troll with unfettered access to create chaos"?

Whoever he is, you're letting him make decisions over your life. Too bad.

Calling others names and using obscenity is unacceptable, too.

Herb

Gonna have to agree, up to a point. This site has good, if not great, intentions. Unfortunately, there have been too many meaningless posts of late, and it is becoming harder and harder to weed out the quality from the junk.

However, don't blame the site for its posters. I'm sure the administrator does not believe in censoring posts, unless they are completely over the line.

I will continue to use this site for good information about radio, and about "other things".
I would just hope that some posters, (and how do I say this politely, "get over themselves".)

Perhaps then we can move on to continue to make this site an integral part of the Oregon/Northwest media, politics and other things community.

dd sez: "you're letting him make decisions over your life."

actually it has to do with recommending people to the site. I can't do that anymore.

redford sez: "up to a point"

Thats part of the problem . . . its kinda difficult to tell when a threshold has been crossed. I give a heck of a lot of people the benefit of the doubt, including the site owner. Its all used up.

" using obscenity is unacceptable, too."

To you. It's not like biting my tongue, in the few cases in which I actually do, makes some point I am trying to make become clear and understandable to you or anyone else. So why not just let me talk the way I want to talk? You and Wayne do.

We put up with shitty fuckin' logic, poor information and downright lies. You have to hear a blue word evey once in a while. We deal with you two - you deal with us cussing. That's fair.

Or not.

We just bring out the worst in each other. That's EVERYBODY'S fault. Not mine or yours. Everyone.

Grr.

I'm so frustrated.

Skep, you're one of those taunting Wayne onward, and getting into battles with him. Then, you're the first to start bitching.

Redford,

I believe Wayne's posts ARE "completely over the line".

FYI, it has always been Dan's modous operandi (sp?) to dump threads aimed at specific posters. Closing those threads will probably do more good than harm. It is also notable that the original purpose of "Politics & Other Things" was to draw political ranting away from polluting the radio threads.

However, I agree that no one poster should have the right to constantly put words into others mouths, and make patently false accusations against anyone who isn't in 100 percent blind agreement with said poster's viewpoint.

While Dan rarely comments, it is becoming increasingly apparent that he wants the website to be essentially in it's present form where trolls have the run of the place. I'm very close to just saying "screw it" and deleting my account, but I have to admit to being addicted to the radio side.

Speaking of lines....

I crossed a few as of late. Was given a brief vacation to consider this. To be fair, I asked for it if warranted because I found myself quite lost and angry. It was warranted, to say the least.

Having stepped back and watched, I can honestly say we are feeding fire with gasoline!

Coupla things to consider going forward:

-how offended you are is really up to you
(Make something a big deal and it simply is a big deal)

-if your actions are defensible, you have no worries.
(And many of my actions were not defensible, despite being largely correct on the points I was trying to make.)

So, it goes this way. We have seen Dan close a few flaming threads. We have seen moderation default to a very permissive standard. Finally, we have seen those acting in a defensible way be allowed to continue, regardless of issues in form and reasoning.

This means:

-we must get along, tolerance goes both ways
-we are largely free to speak here, provided said speech is defensible.

I personally went back to core values. For me, these are equality, freedom, democracy and tolerance. A secondary realization is that reason does prevail. It takes time, can be frustrating, but in the end trumps failure to properly reason, lies, and other false expression.

Those who embrace reason, no matter their ideology, will prevail in the end, having earned the high ground through consideration and deliberation in their efforts here. Those who do not embrace reason will marginalize themselves in the end, or come to see reason for the position of strength it is.

Either way, it is up to each and every one of us to decide what credence we wish to have and how we want to be remebered and regarded among our peers.

So, what does it take to get there?

Conviction. Knowing reason will prevail, and our history shows us that it does, is different than having the strength of character to follow it through.

This forum is exactly what we want it to be. If we fall prey to petty temptations and gratifications too often, the forum suffers. If we do not, it grows strong and beautiful. We either improve one another, or we do not.

It is really that simple.

Its so simple its hard, Randy!

I didn't realize you were missing sorry.

As much as Wayne can at times get under my skin there are others here that are more annoying and a bigger nuiscence than Wayne. Anyone remember Newport? How bout' Jaquel? And the most annoying one will go unnamed and it is not Wayne.

"First of all, I'm not 100% in love with your tone right now."

Hey man - not cool - I'm standing right here.

I can hear you.

Stick with it Randy. Take the longer view. This will pass.

Wayne should be banned for spam.

Missing KBBT>> This will pass.

I just don't see anything passing other than still more poop.

Said troll trashed the "December 7, 1941" with the following:

>>You both probably think America deserved to be attacked don't you?

C'mon, how is anyone with a brain supposed to just tolerate something that vile?!

If Dan allows this to stand then he is a party to it too!

I know it's tough. Sheesh, look at me --I went essentially nuts!

Let me play devils advocate for a moment...

Picture yourself as objective admin and, answer this question:

Can you see bad intent in this person, or just a lotta ignorance?

The ones with clear intent got kicked. Heck, one of them got kicked a coupla times. Happened fairly quick too.

This particular matter is tough, because the bad intent is not a clear matter. Lacking this clarity, is it proper to nail someone and make a statement that would not otherwise be made?

Ok, to be fair. I am in your camp on this! Believe me. But, it's more complex than that, IMHO.

The posting history is gone right now, but if you think back to some of the really great exchanges seen here, you also see some people pushing right to the edge in order to have them.

One last thing. If what you want done is done, then a segment of the population here will get to cry "bias" until the end of time. --something to think about. Could make things worse actually!

I'm not sure what I would do...

Thank you Randy, I too thought that Wayne's comment was really out of line for the thread, it's just so wrong on so many levels.

>>Can you see bad intent in this person, or just a lotta ignorance?

Mostly the latter, but I believe the quote in my last post is an example that is partly the former. To be fair, there has been some of the former aimed at him also.

>>I'm not sure what I would do...

Yeah, I guess that puts Dan between the proverbial rock and a hard place, not an enviable position to be in. Even so, that one offending post alone should be good for a mandatory time out.

Perhaps I really do need to take a break, at least from the Politics side.

I highly recommend it.

Here's something you can do. Unset your username cookie in your browser, then in your profile, unset the option for PDXRadio to set the cookie in the first place.

That way, you will have to enter your username and password to actually post. For a post on the radio side, it's totally worth it. So you will easily do this.

On this side, for a time, it may or may not be worth it, so you likely won't.

After a day or two, just reading, you will see feeding fire with gas just as I did. From there it will get better as we lead by strong example.

Reason will prevail.

Still don't get why people can't simply ignore the trolls. Don't even read what they write - then you can't get upset about anything they say! Seriously - works for me.

The most annoying thing about the forum today, to be quite blunt, are the people who respond to the trolls, not the trolls themselves, because some of the people responding to them are intelligent posters whom I don't want to ignore. Now I have to wade through their discussion of the troll and responses to the troll to find their good posts about other topics.

Andrew

Yeah, it's a mess. It's hard to ignore the trolls, even though I've tried to do it and have failed miserably.

I would appreciate it if you would. Maybe what I said made an impact?

How am I doing so far?

The introduction of possible misinformation in a discussion thread is usually a critical point in the life a thread. The poster is usually asked to either provide sources or withdraw the statement and unless it was a honest mistake, the poster would be critized for poor research and urged to do better before posting again.

This is a type of troll that can't easily be ignored as not all readers here will know of the troll and the misinformation may get repeated elsewhere, or restated again.

This particular troll ignored facts posted IN THE VERY FIRST POST of the tread and introduced misinformation again and again in the thread even though several people tried to set the troll straight.

This was aptly described by reinstated: "the stupidity is astounding."

So, the question is how does one deal with the misinformation introduced by a troll?

How do you know the troll is introducing misinformation if you are READING his posts? ***STOP READING them***. STOP posting ANY sort of response to them. That's what I mean by ignoring. If some other clueless people keep responding to misinformation, ignore the thread and move on. It's not critical to life that we get every thread 100% accurately vetted.

Most of the noise here seems to be people responding to the troll or complaining about the troll who are well aware of his status. If only the people who weren't aware responded, almost all of our problem would be solved, I assure you.

Andrew

Andrew has got it people.

The majority here is all regulars. We know each other. This is hard, but must be done.

you people cants stop. If you are not reading his post and responding in his topics you are creating topics directed at him.

get over it and deal with it.

Getting it done Randy! One day at a time...

Cochise, it's about quality of discussion really.

If we see growth from those that need it, then it will all pass. Up to them.

If we don't see the growth, then we all learn a hard lesson, and again it will all pass.

Some of us are there at the latter, some of us are just beginning that process. Takes time.

Some discussion to frame the matter is not only healthy, but necessary for us as a whole to move forward.

Then there are also those who make frequent unnecessary post's (hand raised) that may not be pertinent to the topic at hand and who tries to be funny (sometimes succeeding but more often not). Promise to be a less schizophrenic poster in the future guys. Matter of fact think of it as a Christmas present for the board and one of my new years resolution's to boot!!!

Merry Christmas Everyone and Have a Happy New Year!!

Author: Cochise
Friday, December 08, 2006 - 1:21 pm


you people cants stop. If you are not reading his post and responding in his topics you are creating topics directed at him.

get over it and deal with it.

-----
I think those people want a forum that only has people that they agree with on it.

Right on, Wayne.

Congratulations on single handedly confusing the democrats on this board and spinning them into a tizzy. And they say they're so smart.

Wish I could take some credit. You are the man.

Herb

I'm going to ignore myself for a while. Take a break from me. See where it goes.

I'm a republican and the two of you make my head spin as well.
I hope you do not believe that all republican's feel the same as you because I do not on quite a few issue's.
I have some moderate in me as well and not any Liberal...least not that I know of.
I am sure there are also Liberal's that have some moderate or conservative in them as well.
I get tired of people stereo typing others based on their political affiliation when they know nothing of that person.
The book is usually better than the cover if you should ever decide to get past it and read what's inside.
I have liberal friend's but I chose not to discuss politics and religion as we differ on this subject and do not want to argue over it with them. We just agree to disagree and appreciate each others friendship all the more for that reason.
Quit with the finger pointing already.
Try not to lump people in categories.....Hitler did and you know the outcome of that.

BTW....I am in no way comparing you two to Hitler...just the example of what can happen when people are just simply catagorized based on one trait or belief.

Joamon4sure-I understand.

My main issue is with someone who is so tormented that they cannot accept others who discuss faith.

Anyone who does so is in the minority, as nearly 9 out of 10 Americans proclaim a belief in God.

I can understand how atheists are tortured souls. Without God, nothing makes sense, for what then is the purpose of life?

If they want to curse the darkness, they can. Just don't tell me to put a bushel over my candle.

Herb

Herb, you're such a joke. You really hurt your own credibility here by defending the resident idiot.

But then again, you're crediblity is already in the shitter after being destroyed in the election after all of your promises of your pathetic party gaining seats. Did you really believe what you wrote, are do you attend the George W Bush school of denial?

If a person has chosen not to believe and that point is made clear to me I would then no longer discuss, debate, or argue the point with them as it will be of no use. To do so is to only invite rudeness and profanity. Accept that this person is the way they are and get on with life. You cannot change anyone not wanting to be changed. Live and let live is a pretty decent motto to go by. As well as do unto others. By argueing your faith...they must argue against it in return.

Have a Good Night Everyone. Stormy weather coming and as usual right on time for the weekend!

Good ol NW liquid sun!!!!!!

"If a person has chosen not to believe and that point is made clear to me I would then no longer discuss, debate, or argue the point with them as it will be of no use."

To the upside down leftist democrats here, profanity is defended as sacred, and the sacred is attacked as profane.

It's true. But then again, leftists don't believe in Truth. No wonder they're upside down.

Herb

Author: Herb
Friday, December 08, 2006 - 3:32 pm


Joamon4sure-I understand.

My main issue is with someone who is so tormented that they cannot accept others who discuss faith.

Anyone who does so is in the minority, as nearly 9 out of 10 Americans proclaim a belief in God.

I can understand how atheists are tortured souls. Without God, nothing makes sense, for what then is the purpose of life?

If they want to curse the darkness, they can. Just don't tell me to put a bushel over my candle.

Herb

----
Pay no attention to Pete. You are my man. Pete's problem is that he can't handle anyone who has faith in God without insulting him. If you remember we were warned this would happen.

And we are blessed to have Bush as President.

Right There....

leftists don't believe in Truth.

Catagorizing an entire group based on the actions of a few or one. That is wrong! can't you see that?

They are not upside down.....some are...the same way some of us righties are as well!!!

Truth to them is relative. Their agenda is moral relativism. Anything but that is a threat to leftists.

jo,

http://feedback.pdxradio.com/show.cgi?tpc=2186&post=161023#POST161023

Who here is a "leftist"? Or do you just throw that term around as a way to categorize a group you disagree with, with false accusations to boot?

You are no rightie.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/leftist

Spin on.

Herb

Skep....

Message received and understood. I have some closing comment's then me and my angry other half will comply! (Will Try very hard to)

Using the term "leftist" is used by you to convey a derogatory meaning. Nobody here is a "leftist" in the manner you are using the word. So, sir, it's YOU that is spinning.

Actually it's a lot more orwellian than that.

The definition linked essentially qualifies anyone having support for any position, so characterized as being left leaning, as a leftist!

Frankly, that includes all of us!

This word is completely useless where any solid discussion is concerned.

Using that word is suppposed to lump us in with the likes of Castro or Chavez. That's his intention by using it.

Yep.

Could not agree more. That's why labels are bad for discussion.

We need to define what we mean here. If we had a scale of some kind we wouldn't be throwing words around that we don't know the meaning of.

That's the dictionary Wayne. There is nothing closer.

The definition Herb cited is a mutually accepted one. No biggie. However, that definition itself is general, thus the actual message conveyed with that word is only complete in context.

Therefore, the word itself cannot be used as the basis for any solid discussion, as it contributes essentially nothing of solid value.

Eg:

The sky is blue.

All four of these words have sufficient precision to convey an idea in a solid way. There are issues with this, but they are minor for a wide range of discussion.

Leftists believe the sky is blue.

Now this is where we get into some serious trouble with the word leftist. Messy, messy.

If you have any support at all for any position, that could be characterized as being left leaning, then you are a member of the group of people so identified by the word leftist. This is according to the mutually accepted definition Herb linked for us!

This sucks, but it is what it is.

We still have plenty of precision in the "believe the sky is blue" part. Really, it's more precise than simply saying the sky is blue, because the word belief highlights the matter of our perception. (Is the sky really blue, or is that just how we get to see it? --topic for another day...)

However, introducing the word leftist makes the statement essentially false because it is too general. This statement cannot be part of a solid supporting argument as a result, because the target of the statement, with said target being anyone who can be characterized as a leftist, is completely arbitrary number one, and is very wide in scope number two. So wide in scope, in fact, as to be essentially useless!

That's why labels of this kind are not considered worthy of solid discussion! They don't contribute any concrete value to be considered.

If you really want to make your point, labels are to be avoided. Additionally, if you cannot find yourself able to express your point without labels, you really have not fully realized what it is you are trying to say exactly!

This makes you a tool in that you are leveraging some mindshare that surrounds the label, thus advancing that agenda whatever it is, while not really being able to advance your own in any solid way.

***And yes, tool is interesting in that it is both a label and a concrete concept, as I am using it here.

We could have an entire thread on the use of tool in language and if said use is solid or not. To be perfectly clear, I'm using tool to characterize the unknown implications that occur with the use of labels. Work is getting done for somebody, which is what tools do, thus one that uses lables to try and make points is a tool. And this characterization is negative in general because nobody wants to be working without consideration.

Better to speak with clarity in this regard, or you will find yourself marginalized.

"The definition Herb cited is a mutually accepted one..."

Bottom line: Leftist is a mutually accepted word to describe those on the left.

But the truth isn't enough. So now here comes the spin with parsing that Mr. Clinton couldn't follow:

"...However, that definition itself is general, thus the actual message conveyed with that word is only complete in context.

Therefore, the word itself cannot be used as the basis for any solid discussion, as it contributes essentially nothing of solid value."

But wait! The nattering nabobs don't stop there:

"...However, introducing the word leftist makes the statement essentially false because it is too general. This statement cannot be part of a solid supporting argument as a result, because the target of the statement, with said target being anyone who can be characterized as a leftist, is completely arbitrary number one, and is very wide in scope number two. So wide in scope, in fact, as to be essentially useless!"

Blah, blah, blah.

Say what?

Wide in scope is useless?

Bologna.

Try this: How about narrow in scope is useless.

Nice spin.

Herb

OK. I'm a leftist. I always thought I was, but now I know.

Sooooo...that is bad for me how, again?

You're wrong Herb. I've never seen a newspaper in the US refer to any liberal US politician as a "leftist" like they do when talking about Chavez or Castro. When you use the term "leftist" you're not describing a liberal, you're attaching a derogatory label as a way to sway an argument. That's what people do when they lose! If you were to call people a "leftist" to their face, I would advise ducking.

Would you prefer being called a "Secular Progressive"?

"I've never seen a newspaper in the US refer to any liberal US politician as a "leftist" like they do when talking about Chavez or Castro."

You're the wrong one.

Of COURSE you're not going to see a leftist paper describe others as leftists. THAT'S BECAUSE TO JOURNALISTS [who voted 90% democrat is the last election], LEFT IS IN THE MIDDLE.

Their whole perception of left and right is skewed. I'll admit I'm right wing. But I'm not writing news for the newspaper. If I did, it would need to be an editorial.

Herb

The sky is blue.

All four of these words have sufficient precision to convey an idea in a solid way. There are issues with this, but they are minor for a wide range of discussion.

Leftists believe the sky is blue.
-------
A slight correction is in order MK. Leftists can't believe the sky is blue because it might offend somebody who thinks the sky is green. Actually the sky is black, it just looks blue to us.

Herb, let me remind you that it's YOU that is in the small minority of extreme beliefs. This is why candidates you like most, such as Santorum and Harris, got thumped.

Is the reason you don't like the term 'leftist' because some associate it with socialism?

Do you believe the US would be better off as a socialist country?

Herb

No.

Fortunately, nobody who has a brain is suggesting that that is a possiblity.

Nice deflection though Herb.

"Fortunately, nobody who has a brain is suggesting that that is a possiblity."

I don't think you're correct.

Look at all the Hollywood elitists who have travelled to see Castro and fawned all over the guy.

Herb

Like who? Who fawned all over Castro? Anybody LIVING?

And even if that were so, how does that translate to: Therefore we are at risk at becoming a Socialist society?

Let's see. I have two very good friends who don't know each and would be considered polar opposites of each other, and who have both gone to Cuba. One for humanitarian and educational reasons, the other for fly-fishing and probably cigars.

Neither returned a socialist or was politically changed or harmed in any observable way.

Maybe Herb's talking about the "Rat Pack" or Lucy and Desi, but aren't they all dead?

I challenge you on using the word "leftist" because I don't think it applies to anyone that posts here, yet you use it anyway.

No, I don't think the US should be socialist. I'm a capitalist and own two homes. Do you own property Herb, or do you rent?

And I think it's laughable that the right is so enamored with people from Hollywood, as if these people represent anybody other than themselves. What a joke!

Leftist is a slippery word. This, Herb, is why it took the parsing it did --and I don't even have it properly nailed down!

Words like that are double edged swords. They cut the one who utters them as much as they do whoever is the subject of them. Nobody gains.

Say what you want, but the definition you linked is plenty to completely marginalize this word. It's arbitrary and therefore useless.

So if you aren't God-hating socialists, what's your answer guys?

Herb

I think you've got it right.

We are not God hating and we are not socialists.

Damn! It's good to clear that up! Time to move on folks.

I don't hate god, I just don't thing one exists. Kinda hard to hate something you believe does not exist.

Do you hate ghosts?

I don't think they hate God but they are definately socialists.

"It's good to clear that up! Time to move on folks."

As Mrs. Clinton would say, "Not so fast."

Fine. You've said what you politically AREN'T.

Now tell us what you politically ARE.

Here come the parsing dodges, now folks.

Herbert Milhous Nixon the IIIrd

Freedom, democracy, equality, tolerance.

That's it.

Parse away!

Freedom, democracy, equality, tolerance.

As defined by whom?

You guys already noted you don't believe in the Bible, that text which helped shape our founding documents.

For example, you don't like the term leftist and say it 'doesn't mean anything.'

Who gets to say what YOUR terms even mean?

Prepare for the slippery slope....

Herb

Hmmmm...

Left-wing issues

The left has historically opposed the concentration of wealth and power, especially in an institutionalized form, in the hands of those who have traditionally controlled them. As such, the left often works to eliminate high levels of inequality. Outside the United States, which lacked a historical ruling class or nobility, this often included at the most basic level demands for democratization of the political system and land reform in agricultural areas.

The left has traditionally been concerned with the lower classes and with combating oppression. Thus the industrial revolution saw left-wing politics become associated with the conditions and rights of workers in the new industries. This led to movements around social democracy, socialism and trade unionism. More recently, the left has criticized what it perceives as the exploitative nature of current forms of globalization, e.g. the rise of sweatshops and the "race to the bottom", and either has sought to promote more just forms of globalizations, such as fair trade, or has sought to allow nation-states to "delink" or break free of the global economy.

Although specific means of achieving these ends are not agreed upon by different left-wing groups, almost all those on the left agree that some form of government or social intervention in economics is necessary, ranging from Keynesian economics and the welfare state through industrial democracy or the social market to nationalization of the economy and central planning.

As civil and human rights gained more attention during the twentieth century, the left allied itself with advocates of racial and gender equality and cultural tolerance. Most of the left has been opposed to imperialism, colonialism and war, and much of the left has allied itself to movements for national self-determination, especially in the colonial world. The left has also been both challenged and renewed in the later twentieth century through the emergence of the new social movements, such as the nuclear disarmament, feminist and green movements.

Advocacy of government or social intervention in the market puts those on the left at odds with advocates of the free market as well as corporations (who oppose democratic control of the markets but not necessarily all control) if they see their interests threatened.

The above strands of left wing thought come in many forms, and individuals who support some of the objectives of one of the above strands will not necessarily support all of the others. At the level of practical political policy, there are endless variations in the means that left wing thinkers advocate to achieve their basic aims, and they sometimes argue with each other as much as with the right.


Right Wing Issues

Outside the United States (where capitalism is supported by a broad range of politicians and people from the left and the right), the most notable distinction between left and right is in economic policy. The right advanced capitalism, whereas the left advocated socialism (often democratic socialism) or communism. Some on the right advocate laissez faire capitalism, tending toward minarchism, with little government intervention in the economy other than to control the money supply and little taxation except to support military and police functions. At the other extreme within what is usually considered right of centre, the centre-right Gaullists in post-World War II France advocated considerable social spending on education and infrastructure development, as well as extensive economic regulation and even a limited amount of the wealth redistribution measures more characteristic of social democracy.

More recently as new social issues arise, right wing views have been concerned with keeping "traditional" values (often Christian values) and the preservation of individual and corporate rights through constraints on government power. In a hard-line form the second and third of these priorities are associated with libertarianism, but some on the right reject the most ardent assumptions of libertarianism, especially outside of the United States. Many libertarians do not consider themselves to be right wing and reject the traditional one-dimensional political spectrum, preferring to think in terms of liberty vs. authority rather than socialism vs. capitalism.

A more obscure strand of right wing thought, often associated with the original right wing from the times of monarchy, supports the preservation of wealth and power in the hands that have traditionally held them, social stability, and national solidarity and ambition.

Strands of right wing thought come in many forms, and individuals who support some of the objectives of one of the above stands will not necessarily support all of the others. At the level of practical political policy, there are endless variations in the means that right wing thinkers advocate to achieve their basic aims.

The values and policy concerns of the right vary in different countries and eras. Also, individual right wing politicians and thinkers often have individual priorities. It is not always possible or helpful to try to work out which of two sets of beliefs or policies is more right-wing.


Something in both statements:

There are endless variations in the means that either wing thinkers advocate to achieve their basic aims.


I strongly disagree with anyone using the terms:
"LEFTIST" of "RIGHTIE"!


Not accusing anyone here of this but some may view the use of those phrases with the following definition from WIKIPEDIA:

For people named Bigot and other meanings, see Bigot (disambiguation).
A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own. The origin of the word in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of religious hypocrite, especially a woman.

Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to their prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views.


Good Day From The Outfield (Kind of all over on different issues so kind of hard to stay put in one position)

EDIT ADD:

You might say I am the only player on my own personal team so I need to make sure I cover every position. I cannot do that by only staying on one side of the playing field!

Note: Source for all above material was "Wikipedia"

I notice the word "socialism" keeps popping up in the explanation of the leftest viewpoint.

The other thing I noticed is the focus on "redistribution of wealth" (my words).

I suppose the question I might ask is this one. If you start out smart in the world, work very hard, sacrifice to get started, manage your money well, become wealthy, is it right the government should seek to take a portion of it away from you and give it to those who didn't work hard and smart?

No!!!!!

But it is the responsabilty of everyone to pay their fair share. It seem's that some (not all) wealthy people tend to find ways to get out of that responsibility. For those who don't I commend you. I feel (and this may be off topic) that the US needs to fix the world starting with itself first. We have way to many crisis in our own country to be of trapesing around the world and fixing everyone else's problem's. Sure if there is a threat then take care of it fast and efficient and be done with it. But what about our own homeless and hungry children. We are spending more money abroad on toilet paper and coffee than we are on them....(sorry bout that analogy but it is a sore subject with me)!

Back to DJ.

No it is not right. (The simple and direct answer to your question)

>>>"But what about our own homeless and hungry children."

I don't think any of us want to see these things exist. The problem is, what do you do about it? Throwing money at it doesn't help, it only creates more dependency. It only treats the symptoms, not the disease. Yet, we can't ignore the problem.

I won't go any further on this as it would divert this thread off in a whole new direction, which we shouldn't do.

"The left has historically opposed the concentration of wealth and power, especially in an institutionalized form, in the hands of those who have traditionally controlled them."

Really.

Like the wealthy Ted Kennedy, Hillary & Bill Clinton, Mr. Kerry and his uber-rich running mate, and all the other wealthy democrats in and out of politics, like Marc Rich who was pardoned?

Talk is cheap to these people.

Herb

These people are all about one thing "GREED"
The root of most problem's to date!

>>>"These people are all about one thing "GREED" "

Sort of "do as we say, not as we do".

I think that's right!

If ya "Talk the Talk....Then by gosh Walk the Walk"

"Lead by Example"

MBWA

Manage By Walking Around

Open your eye's to the real problem's facing this country! Instead of your own personal money agenda's. Pointed that at politicians...and any other who it need applied to!

Did John Kerry, Bill or Hillary Clinton, or any other "rich" Democrats support Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy?

You're right, talk is cheap, especially when you have no point.

It's about acting in accordance with what one represents as their beliefs.

If the left says taxes should be higher, then why don't Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Kerry offer more of their wealth to the government?

All talk.

Herb

"The left has historically opposed the concentration of wealth and power, especially in an institutionalized form, in the hands of those who have traditionally controlled them."

The founding Fathers of our republic belived this also:

From "Wealth and our Commonwealth"

by William H. Gates and Chuck Collins:

"The nation's founders and populace viewed excessive concentrations of wealth as incompatible with the ideals of the new nation. Revolutionary era visitors to Europe, including Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Ben Franklin, were aghast at the wide disparities of wealth and poverty they observed. They surmised that these great European inequalities were the result of an aristocratic system of land transfers, hereditary political power, and monopoly."

http://www.thinkingpeace.com/Lib/lib017.html

>>>"You're right, talk is cheap, especially when you have no point."

You said it Rein. I guess you must know.

Lots 'o stuff here!

For me, those four words are used as a point of comparison. Any given decision with either strengthen the four concepts or diminish them.

I'll have to add harm here to clarify what I mean.

The only reason any of these things are to be diminished is to address matters of harm and to manage issues of property, otherwise any given person is free to make their own choices.

There are two kinds of harm: Moral harm which is essentially being offended and physical harm where one's person is affected in a physical way. On this, tolerance demands we make law regarding moral harm only to the minimum extent possible.

Property is that which we consider owned, and thus not free. We should only allow ownership of that which does not cause harm. (Nobody owns things like our language, or knowledge beyond those limited terms we grant as an incentive to create more, for example.)

Essentially, if there were no harm, we would have almost no law. That would allow the four ideas I mentioned above to be embodied in our lives to the maximum extent possible.

If harm is known true, then law is just, period.

For me personally, many of the ideas found on the left fit well, but not all of them. In particular, I could be characterized as a rightie in that I think government itself can dimininsh freedom and encourage a lack of tolerance, even though it may well be democratic. Remember, the key is to fully embody all four ideals to the maximum extent possible, not favor one in lieu of the others.

The potential to address, what I have called moral harm above, is really dangerous in that the perception of harm, lacking any solid basis in fact, could sharply limit freedom and tolernace. This is exactly why I support a seperation between church and state. Religion is for all to decide their own path. And there is a *lot* of moral harm that comes as a result of religious differences. Tolerance is mandatory here if we are to get along at all.

Legislation can solve the which religion problem, but diminishes freedom sharply. Not the right answer --never is.

Government spending in excess limits freedom to make good use of property, for example. I'm never for that. Smaller government is good.

Where things are necessary for everyday life, and such things are of limited availability, and or require infrastructure to provide, I strongly lean toward well regulated means of providing them.

Utilities are one of these things where I see uninhibited profit to be harmful. Better to provide for a reasonable incentive for those willing to provide to actually do so. These infrastructure kinds of things increase freedom, and that's good. We all have more oppertunity as a result.

This is why I'm always against toll roads, unless there is some really special case. Better to distribute the cost of the roads as far as is possible so their benefit is the highest for everyone using them.

There are roads owned by parties outside the United States that consider them investments! Sorry, but that's something we the people should be handling.

Gay marriage would be something I do not oppose because I've not seen any concrete harm shown. In the absence of real physical harm, it should be permitted as freedom and tolerance demand.

Marriage to beasts and objects? No way. Physical harm is clear with the beasts (disease, etc...), and neither of them can be considered in our equality as beings, so law is clear and just here.

Those are some examples. Not throwing them out for advocacy, just some greater overall definition that Herb was asking for.

One other thing: This is not about things I personally like or do not like. I'll be frank and say I struggle with marriage between races and between gay people. It is something I find difficult to relate to. But, that is a moral harm in that it's really as big of a deal as I make it to be. No law, I could craft, would be just as I would be unable to bring solid reasons to the table for said law.

So in my view it is permitted, despite the fact that if I were king, it just might not be!

Edit: Which is also exactly why I oppose the idea of a king as well. If we are equal, and I believe the case for that is solid, then governance for the people by the people is the only way to go. This is essentially where equality more or less brings democracy into being actually!

Herb, when the tax cuts get rolled back, Mr Kerry and Mrs Clinton will be doing exactly that, by their own hand!

Wow ChickenJuggler!

I've lots too think about there. WIll do...


I strongly disagree with anyone using the terms:
"LEFTIST" of "RIGHTIE"! ---->>> Yep! See my usage above for a comprimize.

Herb, you are quite right!

Freedom and democracy are every bit as slippery as leftist is. There is a solid case for tolerance and equality not being easily characterized in this way.

But, this is a far better discussion in that we are focused on positive things from our own selves and how they compare, instead of those negative things and how they compare!


I'll be happy to parse those four, plus harm and the implications all day long.

Freedom and democracy are slippery, but not useless as leftist is! They both have scope problems, but at their core do not contain an idea that devalues people.

Working then to clarify and understand how these play amongst ourselves here will only bring a greater understanding --given we have a sufficient measure of tolerance in the mix!

Putting a label on a free person is almost always bad. Trying to wrap our brains around these four and what they really mean is not the same thing.

So Herb...
What IS an EXTREME neo-CONer like yourself called????
I mean if the rest of us here are LEFTISTS??
You way or the HIGHWAY huh? Bible thumpin' EXTREMEISTS is the only way? Because it's YOUR way???
CONservative EXTREME RIGHT is the ONLY way for America and there is NO middle ground???
Sounds a lot like your the one that wants to cozy up to Castro.
ONE WAY OR THE HIGHWAY! That's Herb's way...
I think that's Castro's, Ill's and if I'm NOT mistaken.... Hitler's way...
NICE!
Don't think your way will work Herb.....
Too many people DIE doing it YOUR way...

DD, I would personally prefer being called missing_kskd, or KSKD, or missing....

Better to not use the labels at all. Then we can talk about what DD, KSKD, HERB, Chicken, et al... think about things, and how those thoughts compare to the actions and overall view embodied in the political scene.

This way, we end up keeping a lotta anger at bay.

eg: Secular... Well, I was saved at one point. Bought the whole deal. Rejected that, for reasons posted here, but my mind remains open and free in this regard. The spiritual world is something I recognize and can relate to. Putting one word on it just does not do me justice. Does not do anyone justice! This is why labels are bad.

Progressive: Well, yes socially that kind of fits, but not completely. There are some elements of progress I find harmful. I'm also growing slowly more mimimilist in a lotta things. Simple is often a very viable position to take! These are not exactly the words of a progressive now are they?

The big problem with the labels is that they carry with them a bunch of preconceptions and expectations that some dilligent consideration will reveal to be in contradiction with said label. Additionally, points made with these labels, carry the contraditcions with them, thus making statements of truth not possible, despite what could be characterized as having good intentions!

You do yourself great harm in trying to leverage such gross catagorizations of the ideological world.

Missing said - "Wow ChickenJuggler!

I've lots too think about there. WIll do..."

Whatcha talkin' 'bout Willis?

Whoops! Too much Henry's last night I guess.

I mean Darktemper. You two are similar in style. Alter ego perhaps?

I stand duly corrected!

I still have lots to think about tho.

Me...What did I say...you still drinking that Henry's? I scrolled back and do not see a post were I mentioned you?

Plez Esplain!

nope, all done with that

Was just commenting on your fairly long post above, that's all.

"You do yourself great harm in trying to leverage such gross catagorizations of the ideological world."

If referring to the one were I posted the definitions of "Leftists" "Righties" and "Bigots"
I only meant to use those as examples of why labels are wrong. How when you are labeled as a Leftie it is implied by those who do so that your do not beleive in GOD. There are way to many issues for any one person to honestly say they are just right or left these days.

These words brought to you by:
Muck Raker

Base Republican with Moderate Opinions and Liberaly Minded to Others Thoughts and Beleifs.

Broken down:
Basically a Republican leaning towards center with an open mind to discuss others views with them!

Well most of the time with most people.....unless you catch me on a DARK DAY!

The term "secular progressive" is a label made up by Bill O'Reilly with the hopes that he can take credit for making up a derogatory label for those he hates.

Darktemper, I was really aiming at DD and his questions about who fits what label.

We just don't fit at all, and that's the point!

Your post was interesting in that it was long, proving the slippery nature of these words nicely, and in which direction you chose to "slide" in defining them!

Reinstatepete, I'll bet it just chaps O'Reilly's ass that Colbert will likely get "truthiness" into the dictionary!

"...secular progressive..derogatory label..."

Say what?

What would you prefer? Hard left? Far left? Secular regressive? You can't say non-secular, so what is the problem?

Secular progressive is as kind as it gets. And just because one doesn't like the high degree of accuracy, doesn't make it derogatory.

Real leftists cannot stand being called on what they are: A small, loud and largely atheistic group within a much larger democrat party.

Like any constituency, you definitely add voters. But trying to come up with a program to govern will be like herding cats.

But leftists have an even bigger problem. And it's a BIG problem. They're going to try to govern by stripping away any sense of God, and are therefore doomed to fail. One very good reason is that Americans overwhelmingly profess a belief in God.

As witnessed by their desire to control the very issue of who lives and dies through abortion, euthanasia and fetal stem cell experimentation, secular progressives want to act like God themselves.

S.P.'s exhibit the classic symptoms of being control freaks. And since they've fought so hard to remove God from the picture, it's easy to see why.

Herb

Author: Trixter
Sunday, December 10, 2006 - 12:47 pm


So Herb...
What IS an EXTREME neo-CONer like yourself called????


-----
Anyone who is more conservative than you are I would say. Thats why we need some scale and why we should't be tossing words around that we don't know the meaning of.

"Thats why we need some scale.."

Fine.

What's the quantification scheme, then?

I consider myself a moderate democrat, not a secular progressive.

Regardless, no matter what you try to spin, you can't get past the facts that what YOU believe in just got voted the hell out of the House and Senate. The reason is, the majority of voters didn't like what was offered.

"...not a secular progressive."

Why not?

Herb

The popular term for those left of center is "progressive". It is a label leftists chose for themselves. "Progressive" has a better conotation the leftist, leftwing and liberal.

There is leftwing magazine called "The Progressive." Thom Hartmann on his radio show uses the term "progressive" to describe himself and people who share his worldview.

So what is wrong with term "Secular Progressive"? There are probably people who call themselves "Religious Progressives".

If the person, being labeled, thinks it's wrong, then it is simply wrong.

Again, applying labels to people in this way, is a kind of forced identity. Why do that when it's not something that needs to be done at all, other than for others lazy thinking?

That's not an attack at all. We all are lazy, which is why we gravitate toward these kinds of things. However, don't we all deserve the minimum respect that comes with some greater consideration of who we are really as people?

Do you consider yourself a christian fundamentalist?

Since labels are wrong, lets stop labeling people we disagree with as "Neocons". That label is always used as a pejorative.

I don't see what is wrong with some of these labels ... and people truly have too thin of skin.

Ted Kennedy himself has referred to himself as an unabashed liberal. No shame there, he is what he is and as much as I dislike him, he is speaking the truth there.

Some Republicans who are clearly to the right have called themselves neo-cons. Again, the truth.

Herb and Wayne like to call people liberals and leftists and the like ... and I know they don't mean it in a kind sense. That's fine, I don't see what the big deal is myself. Now coming out and calling them socialists or Communists, that's a bit excessive. Bill Clinton was hardly that far to the left, he was a very moderate Democrat ... a "secular progressive" if you will.

I don't see in here what my father used to say, those "bed-wetting bleeding heart liberals" ... or conversely, my mother and her "racist intolerant Bible-thumping conservatives" going on. Wayne and Herb are Christian Fundamentalists.

Of course we are Fundamentalitsts. What in the world is wrong with that? You talk about that as though it were a crime.

"Of course we are Fundamentalitsts. What in the world is wrong with that? You talk about that as though it were a crime."

Read the post, buddy. Didn't I just say that there isn't anything wrong with some of these monikers we toss around like quarters?

Look, I personally don't agree with your Christian Coalition brethren, they are way too far right for my liking and want to take away rights of some and keep the rights away from those who don't have them already. That said, you are what you are and I respect that. YOU seem to think it's a crime for people to be liberal, and it isn't. ALL of us are what we are, and there isn't a damn thing wrong with that.

Thats fine if you don't agree. Nobody on my side is asking you to agree.But it should work both ways. Its not a crime to be a liberal. The only people who think it is one seems to be liberals. Why don't they want to admit that they are liberals? I think we need to find better terminology here. Some words ought to fit better that don't have such a derogatory meaning.

I consider myself a traditional conservative. Far right, but traditional.

Herb

I would label you a christian fundamentalist. Almost to the point of militancy.

Ouch!

See how that works Herb?

Leftist indeed!

*Plonk!*

"I would label you a christian fundamentalist. Almost to the point of militancy."

That's the difference between conservatives and leftists.

Unlike a leftist, I won't cry and whine about it.
I'm a Nixon man. Were I British, I would attempt to keep a stiff upper lip.

Herb

You and Wayne use the term "Leftist" like CC uses voice tracking! (Sorry could not help that one)! :~)

Can either one of you or both please give me your definition of what a leftist is?

And if you want the definition of a conservative!

Thanks

>>>"your definition is of a leftist"

Lenin would have been considered a leftist
Mao would be considered a leftist
Castro would be considered a leftist
Chavez would be considered a leftist

Does that help?

Herb, I'm not whining about it. I've only one major point on labels: namely, that they really are no good for making any kind of solid argument.

Unless, said point is general in nature, like the other thread. To complete a point worthy of some serious discussion, it really needs to be general or not. Mix 'n match and it's a quick slide into cherry picking!

Being called a leftist does not bother me personally. Heck, I identify as mostly left leaning anyway. I'm sure as heck socially Liberal, and very proud of it! (Took a long while for me to get there too.)

Deane's list is very revealing as well, as I really don't identify with those people much at all. In fact, I'm probably more conservative than I would like to admit on many other policy matters that are not social in nature.

That's exactly what makes broad labels like this useless, that's all. Not whining, just trying for solid discussion and learning.

>>>"Deane's list is very revealing as well, as I really don't identify with those people much at all."

To bring it into a more relevant picture, the following would be considered leftest.

Nancy Polosi
Howard Dean
Barbara Boxer
Chuck Schumar
Ted Kennedy
Hillary Clinton

I suspect you don't really identify with any of them either.

Howard Dean is one of my favorite people right now.

The others? Ehh. Glad they are in the party though.

Hmmm

I think I am definitely right of that list by quite a bit!

Missing kskd, what do you think about putting the label "neocon" to rest?

It's a lazy way to criticize people you disagree with. You don't have to make an argument. Just call them "neocons"?

I'm not saying you use the term. But there are some at this website who use it incessantly.

I wouldn't mind seeing all of them diminished, frankly.

Maybe we could list our individual preferences on life-matters, name our favorite color and a random number between 1 and 10, have some junior high kid make one of those folding Oragami label-assigner tetrahedron instruments, while waiting for the fire drill to be over.

The conclusion, for everyone though, will always be; " You're a fag."

Which, now that I think about it, is about as accurate as some of the other labels.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go forge a note from my mom about my being absent yesterday.

Deane, you're kidding right? You're comparing:

Nancy Polosi
Howard Dean
Barbara Boxer
Chuck Schumar
Ted Kennedy
Hillary Clinton

To:

Lenin
Mao
Chavez
Castro

Last time I checked, not one poster here has endorsed anything about the latter four, and neither has the list of current Democrats.

No wonder you guys got booted out of the Senate and House. Clearly, you're way of thinking is WAY off base.

"..not one poster here has endorsed anything about the latter four.."

Do you honestly believe that any democrat would try to directly foist such obvious leftists before the American public?

Of COURSE not.

It's more insidious. Naw, what they do is start with the Boy Scouts, the Pledge of Allegiance and the Ten Commandments.

The left isn't going to honour Castro openly. That is unless it's their Hollywood counterparts who are among fellow travelers.

Herbert Milhous

Touche' Chickenjuggler!

LMAO!!

You really have a thing for Hollywood. What are you so paranoid about?

Just as with cigarettes, promotion via Hollywood can sway impressionable young minds.

Herb

Why would anyone care what comes out of tinseltown? As far as I am concerned anything most of these people do is all about publicity....good or bad....and just material for the National Enquirer and other check out line RAGS! I do not pay any attention to their ramblings of going on's...I could care less about them!

One could say the same thing of the current administration as well.

Reduction of rights, one by one, reduced privacy expectations, etc....

Seems to me, nobody really wants any of the extreme stuff from any side.

Banning the Boy Scouts, the Pledge of Allegiance and the Ten Commandments is extreme to most Americans.

Herb

>>>"Deane, you're kidding right? You're comparing:

Nancy Polosi
Howard Dean
Barbara Boxer
Chuck Schumar
Ted Kennedy
Hillary Clinton

To:

Lenin
Mao
Chavez
Castro"

OK, who on the two lists is not a leftist.

"Just as with cigarettes, promotion via Hollywood can sway impressionable young minds."

And I feel the same way about right wing radio swaying people's minds. Problem is, I think you give these Hollywood types a bit too much credit.

"Banning the Boy Scouts, the Pledge of Allegiance and the Ten Commandments is extreme to most Americans."

Those are all lies. No one is advocating banning any of those things. You're paranoid, I'm afraid.

Deane, that's why Leftist is a lousy term! Completely useless in this context.

Herb, let's see some support for those things being banned huh?

>>>"Deane, that's why Leftist is a lousy term! Completely useless in this context."

I'm sure you actually mean something you'd prefer to hide.

Author: Digitaldextor
Monday, December 11, 2006 - 9:59 am


Missing kskd, what do you think about putting the label "neocon" to rest?

It's a lazy way to criticize people you disagree with. You don't have to make an argument. Just call them "neocons"?

I'm not saying you use the term. But there are some at this website who use it incessantly.

----
Trixter uses that term to describe anyone he doesn't agree with. Why use such a negative term? Its not against the law to be a Conservative!

Not at all Deane.

Since when have I hidden anything! In fact, I let too much loose in recent times.

I just don't see any solid point being made in this direction, other than a lotta people could be characterized as being leftist!

Ok. Point made. So?

(And that's where the useless part comes in, BTW.)

What are you getting at? Try it a different way and let's have at it.

Wayne: Trixter uses the term "neo-con" to describe the current administration as being a "new conservative", as in not well aligned with older conservatives. He's not happy with them because they have essentially redefined his party, thus leaving him either without a party, or having to support a bunch 'o crap he thinks is not worth supporting.

(This sentiment is shared by more Republicans than we are all willing to admit at this point.)

Many people are bothered by the "CON" part of this term as it has criminal connotations. Thom Hartmann uses just CON, because he believes the current administration is criminal.

Frankly, I agree with that element of it.

Being a conservative is not in, and of itself, criminal at all. However, many of the actions of the current administration are looking very criminal.

All in all, "neo-con" is pretty negative! IMHO, it's worse than "leftist" right now.

Finally, he does not use the term to describe anyone he does not agree with. He uses it to lump people in with the current administration. Specifically, Bush supporters.

That's the only use I've ever seen here.

It's wrong to define people with labels. The only exception is the label "neocon."

There you go again, Missing kskd, being inconsistent.

>>>"There you go again, Missing kskd, being inconsistent."

No, he's being a typical liberal on this forum. The liberals can do no wrong, the conservatives can do no right.

And What?....If liberals can do no wrong and conservatives can do no right then what do moderates do, nothing at all? Cmon with the labels......they just do not fit anymore. Things have gotten way to complex to be just left, right, or center!

If we were to label and judge each other based on race that is considered RACISM! Labeling and judging people based on these tags is a form of BIGOTRY!

Bigotry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own. The origin of the word in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of religious hypocrite, especially a woman.

Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to their prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views.


I think everyone in this forum is better than that. Why result to that when it is not necessary and often times just plain not true!

>>>"A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own."


Thanks for adding this. That would make some of the liberals on this forum who are totally intolerant of anything conservative, bigots.

"Banning the Boy Scouts, the Pledge of Allegiance and the Ten Commandments is extreme to most Americans."

"Those are all lies. No one is advocating banning any of those things."


From:
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2003/sept03/03-09-03.shtml

"The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and other anti-religious groups and atheists have instigated scores of lawsuits all over the country demanding that judges banish God from all public forums. The ACLU lost its efforts to remove the Ten Commandments from courthouses in Kentucky and suburban Philadelphia, but the Freedom From Religion Foundation got a federal judge to ban a Ten Commandments monument from a public park in LaCrosse, Wisconsin even though the city had sold the land it sat on to a private group.

The city of Everett, Washington is being sued by Americans United for Separation of Church and State to remove a Ten Commandments monument from city property. It is one of many Ten Commandments monuments donated to cities during the 1950s, '60s, and '70s by the Fraternal Order of Eagles.

The ACLU has already forced the removal of the Eagles' Ten Commandments monuments from eight Utah cities and has announced a scavenger hunt to track down a ninth which the ACLU thinks exists but can't find.

The ACLU intimidated the National Park Service into removing plaques from the Grand Canyon that contained verses from the book of Psalms. It was agreed that the Park Service can continue to use the names of Hindu gods for some of the trails and canyon formations.

The ACLU got the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to let stand a federal district court decision banning grace before meals at Virginia Military Institute. The Citadel then announced that it, too, would eliminate prayers before meals, and you can bet that the ACLU will now target prayers at our military and naval academies and on board ship.

The atheists and secularists are on the warpath to stop the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance because it contains the words "under God." Atheist Michael Newdow was successful in the Ninth Circuit, the ACLU won in Colorado, and we can expect similar lawsuits in all the 33 states that require recitation of the Pledge in public schools.

In Pennsylvania, a federal judge voided a state law that required teachers to lead students in reciting the Pledge or singing the National Anthem each morning. The animosity against the National Anthem is probably because its fourth stanza includes the words "our motto: 'in God is our trust.'"

Suing on behalf of agnostics and lesbians, the ACLU got a judge to banish the Boy Scouts from a San Diego city park where they have met since 1920. The Scouts' offense was that they include God in their membership oath.

The attempt to remove God from all state constitutions is at the heart of the Montgomery dispute. Judge Moore took an oath to uphold Alabama's constitution which, in order to "secure the blessings of liberty," invokes "the favor and guidance of Almighty God."

The silliness of the arguments against Judge Moore's Ten Commandments rock is shown by the repeated assertion that he is trying to establish the Christian religion. The secularists seem unaware that the Ten Commandments predate Christianity."

DJ...It's a two way street. Does not matter the spin you put on it it is still as the description says. Why are people that intollerant to others ways and means? It just seems so not right. I may point a finger once in a while but if I do I take aim at one person and not generalize everyone into a group and shoot blindly at them. I mean heck if you think like that then why not round up everyone who is different than you and put them in concentration camps.....wait someone did that once....Hitler I believe.

LABELS ARE WRONG!

Herb, Eagle Forum? C'mon, at least produce something that isn't so utterly partisan.

Regardless, it still doesn't prove your statement. Banning something from public property and banning it altogether are two different things.

Bottom line: The aclu is hostile to these values which many Americans hold dear.

This is where the left is marginalized and rightfully so.

It's also why leftists are described as godless and hateful.

To the aclu I say you can curse the darkness. I'm going to light my candle.

Herb

The ACLU protects everyone's rights, including yours. You just have a problem with the separation of church and state.

So, feel free to light your candle at your own house, but please don't disgrace a public forum with your candlelight that may not be the choice of your fellow taxpayers.

Rein, are you aware that the ACLU was founded to protect Communists in the United States.

So what? This is America, and if you are a communist, shouldn't you still have the same protections and rights of christians and so on?

I don't know Rein. Since the communist party was dedicated to the overthrow of the U.S. government, how much protection should they have?

The liberal naiveté never stops amazing me.

So if someone says they are a communist, they should be thrown in jail? How about jailing christians or jews for their belief systems? It's equally un-American.

The conservative stupidity never ceases to amaze me.

The founders of the ACLU were dermined to overthow the United States and replace it with a Communist government. Their aim is to destroy religious freedom. The liberal stupidity never ceases to amaze me.

Wayne: Trixter uses the term "neo-con" to describe the current administration as being a "new conservative", as in not well aligned with older conservatives. He's not happy with them because they have essentially redefined his party, thus leaving him either without a party, or having to support a bunch 'o crap he thinks is not worth supporting.

----
Thats not true MK. Trix uses neocon to deliberaty insult anyone who is a conservative. He thinks being a conservative is against the law. He would use that term against Reagan too.

No, the ACLU protects all Americans against violations of their civil liberties.

But, I can see why groups like yours, that seek to trample civil liberities, don't like the ACLU, just like thiefs don't like the police.

herb sez: "Bottom line: The aclu is hostile to these values which many Americans hold dear."


Bottom line rewritten to reflect the times: The right is hostile to values which many Americans hold dear which is why they were tossed out of office last month in preference to the values the ACLU supports.

Exactly!

"The liberal stupidity never ceases to amaze me."

Yet another pithy, well-thought-out opinion from the self-appointed Master of the Universe.

Feel the love, folks!

Bottom line rewritten to reflect the times: The right is hostile to values which many Americans hold dear which is why they were tossed out of office last month in preference to the values the ACLU supports.

---------

Bottom line rewritten to reflect the times: The left in America is hostile to everything that Americans hold dear to. One need only look at the lawsuits against Christianity by the ACLU. the only values that the ACLU cares about is moral relativism. Everything else is homophobia.

Author: Reinstatepete
Monday, December 11, 2006 - 3:51 pm


No, the ACLU protects all Americans against violations of their civil liberties.

But, I can see why groups like yours, that seek to trample civil liberities, don't like the ACLU, just like thiefs don't like the police.

----
You honestly think the ACLU really cares about civil liberties? That group cares about the freedom of all thiefs, no matter what their crime is.

Do you honestly think anyone here (besides Herb)really cares what YOU think?

Hey, I was only answering Waynes question. I already stated I would love to see all the labels diminished. DD, that includes neo-con.

Using it, in an answer to Wayne is not the same thing as tagging Wayne with it, ok?

I would like to see different labels used too. Which lables should we use that would fit better? I suggesed a scale of 0-10 thats similar to what we see on Channel 2 to describe the weather. the numbers 0 and 10 would describe militants who throw stones at buildings or who bomb abortion clinics. 1 and 9 would describe somebody who hates America. I am probably a 2 and a half. With numbers instead of names we have a more neutral way of expressing where we are politically. I used that at work and it worked very well. We knew exactly where we stood on issues. 0 would be the most conservative and 10 would be the most liberal.

Today the ACLU defends your rights, whatever you think they are, period.

Seems to me, the religious people not liking the ACLU, should start bringing some solid cases to the table. That's what the ACLU is there for --to make those cases a reality.

Missing kskd, Wayne copied and pasted my post to his, so you were responding to what I posted.

Bush supporters are neocons? That's alright to put that label on them?

How many people call themselves neocons? Not many I guess. I thought you said it is wrong to put a label on people who don't use that label to describe themselves. However, necon is an exception.

Wayne, you're a 10. Partly couldy with a chance of clearing.

Author: Missing_kskd
Monday, December 11, 2006 - 5:49 pm


Today the ACLU defends your rights, whatever you think they are, period.

Seems to me, the religious people not liking the ACLU, should start bringing some solid cases to the table. That's what the ACLU is there for --to make those cases a reality.

-----
The ACLU defends the rights of criminals. It has endless lawsuits against Christianity. We are the enemy of the ACLU. That group was formed to make America a Communist nation.

"Lenin would have been considered a leftist
Mao would be considered a leftist
Castro would be considered a leftist
Chavez would be considered a leftist"

Let's look at this conversely.

Hitler would have been considered someone to the extreme right.
Mussolini would have been considered someone to the extreme right.
Richard Butler, founder and leader of the Aryan Nations church, an extreme righty.

BOTH sides have had bad bad people on their side.

5. The ACLU's Slogan of "Keep America Safe and Free":

The Truth: What a joke! When 9-11 occurred what measures did the ACLU take to ensure our safety? None, zip, nada. This organization has done nothing to ensure our safety, in fact it has chosen to sue our government on behalf of terrorists outside of their legal jurisdiction while they were located in prisons on foreign soil.

They have since then demanded that the government release and make public top secret security information regarding not only the activities of our military, but also that of our intelligence forces. They have also initiated one lawsuit after another against the government to stop the searching of individuals for security purposes in mass transit situations, to stop what they call profiling (we will never see a Protestant white middle-aged woman as a terrorist working with an extremist Islamic organization) by race, sex and religion, and to stop the government from detaining and questioning or interrogating individuals who have ties or contact with known terrorist individuals and organizations.

They say they are for a safe and free America. Yet their actions speak very loudly the opposite of the lip service they give in this banner for a safe America.

4. They Defend the Oppressed and Helpless:

The Truth: If you count terrorists, child molesters, and murderers as oppressed and helpless, then you may think this one is true. The truly defensless are the very children being harmed by these perverts the ACLU defend. The ACLU don't believe children have any rights, unless it is to murder their own children without their parents ever knowing.

3. The word "American" in their name truly reflects what they are:

They are constantly stepping outside the bounds of America, reaching out to help the very enemy. They fight every effort by our government to protect us, and sue them every chance we get. For the ACLU, the mighty checkbook takes precendence over America's security, and many think they are rooting for the enemy. It isn't hard to believe when they try to get admitted terrorists off the hook.

2. The ACLU Was Founded On Noble Intentions:

The Truth: One of the great myths of the 20th - and now 21st - century is the belief that the American Civil Liberties Union was an organization that had a noble beginning, but somehow strayed off course.

That myth is untrue. The ACLU set a course to destroy America – her freedom and her values - right from the start.

From its very beginning, the ACLU had strong socialist and communist ties. As early as 1931, the U.S. Congress was alarmed by the ACLU's devotion to communism. A report by the Special House Committee to Investigate Communist Activities stated

The American Civil Liberties Union is closely affiliated with the communist movement in the United States, and fully 90 percent of its efforts are on behalf of communists who have come into conflict with the law. It claims to stand for free speech, free press and free assembly, but it is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is an attempt to protect the communists.

Roger Baldwin and Crystal Eastman founded the ACLU in 1920 along with three other organizations dedicated to the most leftist of causes. The histories of these two individuals belie their claims of patriotism and respect for the Constitution.

Baldwin openly sought the utter destruction of American society. Fifteen years after the founding of the ACLU, Baldwin wrote:

I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself … I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.

1. The ACLU Does Not Collect Taxpayer's Funds:

The Truth: The Civil Rights Act, intended to help poor people who could not afford to defend their rights, grants judges the right to award attorney's fees in civil rights cases. The ACLU have turned this on its head, often using it to threaten small schools and local governments that can not afford to defend themselves from the ACLU.

Take it from a former ACLU Lawyer, Reese Llyod:

Stated Lloyd: "The ACLU has perverted, distorted and exploited the Civil Rights Act … to turn it into a lawyer-enrichment act."

Lloyd says the American people are "oblivious" to how many millions of dollars in taxpayer funds are going to the ACLU each year.

The attorney pointed out many attorneys in cases brought by the ACLU are volunteers, so the fees the group is awarded normally do not go to reimburse an attorney but rather directly into the organization's coffers.


Here are some myths about the ACLU that have been addressed in the Sean Hannity forum

December 2nd, 2006, pamc46f46c 314612e 335o12e
ROBERTENEAL
Hannitized Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 525



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Top Ten Myths of the ACLU:

10. The ACLU is non-partisan:

The Truth: Not only were they founded on Communism, they are about as liberal an organization in existence. The public saw first hand in 1988 how the ACLU was involved in politics. "The portrayal of the ACLU as a radical liberal lobby reached its climax in the 1988 presidential campaign when George Bush used ACLU membership as a black mark against his opponent Michael Dukakis. The perception had taken root that the ACLU of 1988 has about as much to do with civil liberties as the AT&T of 1988 has to do with telegraphs."

"Social reform, in a liberal direction, is the sine qua non of the ACLU. Its record, far from showing a momentary wavering from impartiality, is replete with attempts to reform American society according to the wisdom of liberalism. The truth of the matter is that the ACLU has always been a highly politicized organization."William Donahue

They may take a token case here and there for the other side to bolster its non-partisan claims, but those cases are far outweighed by their numerous other cases that are clearly intended to further its partisan agenda. They even keep scorecards on Congressmen and Representatives. Their claim of non-partisanship is what gives them their tax-exempt status, and nothing is further from the truth. They have split their organization into two in order to lobby their causes to the legislative branch.

9. The ACLU Cares About Your Privacy Rights:

The Truth: Despite all the rhetoric over the current NSA program, where the ACLU opposes the U.S. listening to traitor's having conversations with terrorists, the ACLU has no room to talk when it comes to violating privacy.

The American Civil Liberties Union is using sophisticated technology to collect a wide variety of information about its members and donors in a fund-raising effort that has ignited a bitter debate over its leaders' commitment to privacy rights.

Some board members say the extensive data collection makes a mockery of the organization's frequent criticism of banks, corporations and government agencies for their practice of accumulating data on people for marketing and other purposes.

Daniel S. Lowman, vice president for analytical services at Grenzebach Glier & Associates, the data firm hired by the A.C.L.U., said the software the organization is using, Prospect Explorer, combs a broad range of publicly available data to compile a file with information like an individual's wealth, holdings in public corporations, other assets and philanthropic interests.

The issue has attracted the attention of the New York attorney general, who is looking into whether the group violated its promises to protect the privacy of its donors and members. NY Times

8. It is a patriotic thing to support the ACLU.

The Truth: If you think the ACLU represents the average American values, then you are sadly misguided. Their absolutist views of liberty go far beyond what most people could ever support. They support the legalization of child porn distribution , and un-regulated prostitution . They are far from the traditional thoughts of patriotism, constantly defending Americas enemies, and fighting efforts of military recruiters.

7. The ACLU Defends The Bill of Rights.

The Truth: The ACLU defends the parts of the Bill of Rights that are in line with its agenda. What about the second, ninth, and tenth amendment?

ACLU POLICY "The ACLU believes that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." ACLU

And they certainly don't believe in States rights, constantly attempting to override the will of the people via the judicial branch.

6. The ACLU Defends Religious Liberty

The Truth: The ACLU claims to be the great defender of liberty, but the truth is that their definition of liberty is limited to what alligns within their agenda. As a matter of fact, the ACLU is the foremost religious censor in America. Despite the fact that this nation was founded upon the ideals of religious freedom, the ACLU has succeeded in manipulating the very founding principles through the corrupted judicial branch to repress the religious expression of America, and continues to work daily at erasing our National religious heritage from the pages of history.details

Ok, how much of "the truth" is one going to get out of the Sean Hannity forum?

That's like asking Thom Hartmann to giving a ringing endorsement to the 700 Club.

DD's said>>>
Since labels are wrong, lets stop labeling people we disagree with as "Neocons". That label is always used as a pejorative.

So we stop calling the left socialists???

"Hitler would have been considered someone to the extreme right.
Mussolini would have been considered someone to the extreme right."

And they would be wrong.

Think.

Both Mussolini and Hitler appropriated the means of production for their countries.

That makes them more socialist than anything, if not downright communist.

And lest you forget, the term nazi means national socialist.

Herb

Thats true and wasn't Hitler a member of the national socialist party?

Why don't you look it up yourself, Mr. Lazy?

(I'm reverting to WW's trick of answering a question with a question)

If Wayne answers a question with a question, he's simply doing what Jesus did.

Herb

"And lest you forget, the term nazi means national socialist."

What's in a name?

"Hitler's reputation as an orator grew and it soon became clear that he was the main reason why people were joining the party. This gave Hitler tremendous power within the organization as they knew they could not afford to lose him. One change suggested by Hitler concerned adding "Socialist" to the name of the party. Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany.

Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had "German blood". Jews and other "aliens" would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end."

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERhitler.htm


To quote the Farber College statue:

"Knowledge is Good"

Herb, I wouldn't be surprised if Wayner thinks he IS Jesus.

Well, from everything the Waynester has posted, I wouldn't go that far. He's simply a devout guy.

Let me put it to you this way.

Suppose you're walking down a dark alley at night. You have two choices. Either walk by a mugger, or Wayne.

Admit it. Not only would you thank your lucky stars that it was Wayne, you might even ask for his forgiveness for the nasty things said about him here.

I've never met the guy, but he'd probably offer you a ride home.

The world would indeed be better with more Waynes in the world.

Herb

I would be honored to meet you, Herb, you are the man! My brother's middle name is Herb.

DD (sorry, we are getting lost in the noise here...)

So did you get what you needed?

1. Diminish labels as much as is possible

,and

2. (Answer to Waynes query on neo-con).

Hitler's only ambition with socializing the German economy was to build his war machine. You must also remember that before Hitler was the Weimar Republic, a democratically-elected free-market government that was doomed to fail because war reparations were so high, it made their currency not worth the paper it was printed on and it ended up plunging Germany into a deep depression (not helped by the Great Depression here of course). Desperate people do desperate things, the people bought into Hitler and his National Socialist mantra, and elected him Chancellor.

We all know what happened after that.

Hitler used his platform of socialism to get elected, and burned it afterward. He had no place for socialism or Communism whatsoever, and tried to distance himself as much as possible.

A bit up there I saw a bunch of crap concerning our founding fathers and God...

Thomas Jefferson was a deist.

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

http://nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm



The Tripoli Treaty that was written during Washington's presidency and signed under John Adams said the same (cir. 1796)

The 1796 treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "in no sense founded on the Christian religion" (see below). This was not an idle statement, meant to satisfy muslims-- they believed it and meant it. This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams.

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html

John Adams didn't believe in eternal damnation or other basic christian principles.

Adams, a Unitarian, flatly denied the doctrine of eternal damnation. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, he wrote:

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

*sigh*

What is it that KSDK says?

*plonk* ??

Yeah, that's it.

Hey...
Bob Barker had "PLINKO"

PDXRADIO has "PLONKO"


Go ahead and make a post.....you could be the next winner on "PLONKO"

Wayne, on a scale of 0-10, you're a ZERO. Hell, you're not even conservative. You're just flat out ignorant and a fucking retard. No wonder the service rejected you. You're weren't even good enough to put on the front line to take a bullet. Pretty sad!

Herb says we'd be better off with more Waynes? Hardly. Society likes to move forward, not backwards. And if I was walking in an alley by Wayne or a mugger, I'd kick either of them in the sack, because both are equally despicable.

Wayne, go the fuck back to your Sean Hannity forums where you can wallow in the ignorance of your fellow military rejects and yet to come out of the closet repressed homo's that bash gays. You're a sickening example of a complete waste of cells.

You can't make a post without insulting or swearing can you? why do you love to prove my point so much? Why is it impossible for you to communicate like a gentleman? Why are you so above that? No matter what the topic is you love to bring up gays. The only solution for homo is moral relativism, isn't that right Pete?

http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm


I think you need to read this Copernicus if you think all of the framers were atheists.

Again, most people here don't care what you "think", let alone following your advice since it really isn't too well "thought" out in the first place.

Also, I was thinking the same thing as RIP about who I'd rather meet in the alley, not that I'm actually that dim, but really, where in Oregon is it scary or dangerous to walk in a dark alley? I can't think of anywhere. Lents? New York?

Both people choices are equally bad, and like RIP and someone else said in another thread, they'd both probably "take one in the sack" (Man, I love that saying!) from me as well. And I can always find a way home. Taxi? Max? 911?

Being in a car alone with Wayne? Now THAT'S truly terrifying and very unsafe.

It would be ridiculous to say ALL framers were athiest Wayne ... don't try to force-feed us that drivel.

Some of the big boys were, however. And guess what, this fine country of ours isn't as founded on Christianity as you seem to think. Why the hell do you think there is that little clause, called separation of Church and State? Why do you think the Supreme Court (very much a CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court, mind you) has ruled AGAINST the Ten Commandments being posted in state capitals and state supreme court buildings in the South a couple of times? That doesn't sound like a country running things based on Christianity to me!

SORRY BUT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SOCS IN THE CONSTITUTION! Its not in the bill of rights either. Did you know that SOCS has a religious history? It was written by a minister, did you know that? The point of SOCS is to keep government out of churches and not the other way around. We have senate chaplains because Madison requested them. We have the ten commandments in the office of the Supreme Court. We have them opening in prayer every day. Same thing with the senate. We have religious inferences everywhere in Capitol Hill. You need to visit that sometime and show me where our framers meant America to be an atheist state.

If there isn't such a thing as separation of Church and State, why is it that religious-based curriculum isn't allowed in public schools? Why was it ruled that the Ten Commandments could not be posted in state government buildings? For the love of Pete, why was "Under God" taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance?

The whole premise of it is to allow ALL PERSONS TO CELEBRATE THEIR CHOSEN RELIGION, WITHOUT FEAR OF PUNISHMENT. You seem to think that is wrong, because all you do is say how Christians get screwed and everyone else is wrong.

There is no such thing in the Constitution as SOCS. It does NOT mean that religion is out of government. It means the exact opposite. And the higher court overturned the 9th circuit and "under God" is still in the pledge. We can celebrate our chosen religion because SOCS says that the government is to keep its nose out of religion, What you want is Christianity to be banned from America.

"What you want is Christianity to be banned from America."

Once again, putting words in my mouth.

Please.

Do me a favor and find a post, ANY post, where I said I wanted Christianity banned from America.

Please.

I'm dying to see it.

Go ahead.

I'll wait.

For a very LONG time, I'm sure.

Waiting.


Tick

Tock

Tick

Tock


Not there yet?


Keep looking!

Tick

Tock

Still waiting ...


Where is it?


Tick

Tock


Wake me up when it's over.

You won't answer my question. Why do you hate Christianity the way you do? You show by your posts that you want to ban Christianity from America.

I wish I understood the meaning of why you ask that? Until I do I can't really answer that question. Why do you ask something you do not explain your reason for asking it? You just really hate anyone who does not see things your way don't you?

Because he really does hate Christianity. I don't hate anybody. They insult anybody they don't agree with. They have the hate, not me. Why don't you ask them why they love to hurt people they way they do? How does it make them feel better? its a sign of immaturity to me. I want to debate like a gentleman and all some people care about is my blind agreement. They will insult me until they get it.

All they want (I Believe) and what I want is for you to quit putting words in people's mouths that they did not say and also to quit labeling everone that doe's not see eye to eye with you or Herb as a "Leftist". That is your trademark fallback! It is annoying to discuss with you for those reasons. The other day you seemed not to do this and all was fine now you are back to your old ways of finger pointing, labeling, and not answering questions. You really do bring this on yourself you know.

Gave me a Migraine reading here today! Just call me "JOHNNY DARKO" today!

"You won't answer my question. Why do you hate Christianity the way you do? You show by your posts that you want to ban Christianity from America."

Again.

Where have I ever said, or IMPLIED, that I hated Christianity? Where have I said that want to ban Christianity from America?

Please. Inform the masses. Humor me.

Brian......
It's right there......between those lines....

You know kind of not what you wrote but how it was read and what was read into it!

Isn't that against rule#9

Thou Shall not bear false witness!

I hate people that pervert christianity like Wayne and Herb.

I like people Christaylor and Sutton who DO NOT pervert it.

See the diff, dick?

You hate everybody. You need Jesus in your heart Pete. Let God deal with me and Herb.

Fuck you.

Reinstate-

You just practiced the online version of the guy who throws the chess board over when he's losing.

You may THINK it looks cool.

It only makes you look like a sore loser.

Herb

Herb.....
You just practiced being the guy standing to close to the fire and throwing gasoline on it!!!!!! Just asking to get flamed!!!!

Is that what this board is? Just swearing at people?

If that's what this forum has decayed to, that's pretty sad.

If you want the foul-mouthed to intimidate others, that's your thing, not mine.

Herb

Amen Herb. I wish Dan had a filter that would weed out the profanity. They do it for only one reason: To hurt people. They think by insulting they can force people to agree with them and thats their only concern.

Did you ever think Wayne that some people use profanity not to hurt the other person, but to make their point?

Did you also ever think that every time you say how hurt you are by others using profanity towards you, that it gives them ammunition and they will do it MORE?!? You have alienated enough people in here to make it where they will do just that, every single chance they get?

Dude, you are RETIRED. My 11 and 9 year olds have a grasp on this concept and you don't.

That's scary.

I wish there was a SPAM filter in here also.

In this case, I'm using profanity as a weapon. It's the only thing I can come up with to match the absolute garbage that is being posted. It's clear it's the only thing that will phase this idiot.

And Herb, if you think I'm losing, think again. The real loser is you buy standing by and supporting this idiot.

Or even better an "IGNORE" option customizeable per person. When you elect to ignore a person there posts are no longer visible to you in the forum. Remove the fuel from the fire so to speak! That would Work!

I would love the ignore option. It would make everything so much easier.

Dan, do we have to chip in an extra few bucks per to get it? Count me in if we do!

I second that!!!!

Author: Brianl
Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 3:48 pm


Did you ever think Wayne that some people use profanity not to hurt the other person, but to make their point?

Did you also ever think that every time you say how hurt you are by others using profanity towards you, that it gives them ammunition and they will do it MORE?!? You have alienated enough people in here to make it where they will do just that, every single chance they get?

Dude, you are RETIRED. My 11 and 9 year olds have a grasp on this concept and you don't.

That's scary.

-----
You have kids? That really amazes me. I would hope you don't treat them the way you have treated me. What do you think they feel when they hear swearing? I may not be a parent but I do understand one thing: Children live what they learn. Once they see trashing from the parents they will learn that themselves.

Wayne, there's a reason you don't have kids, because you're unsuitable to have them, so don't tell anybody here how to raise their kids, as you're the LAST person here who anybody would seek advice from.

And from the way you act here, your parents must have done a shameful job in raising you. Look how you turned out: POOR, IGNORANT, AND ALONE.

You want to know what we teach our kids? This is what we teach our kids:

-That all people are created equally, and it is wrong to fault someone based on RELIGION, GENDER, RACE, CREED, NATIONAL ORIGIN, HANDICAP, OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION. Any behavior thereof is unacceptable.

-That we are what we make ourselves. We make choices and have to live with them. My 19 year old is making some poor choices right now for himself, and we're giving him just enough rope to hang himself with. We've talked to him, he won't listen, so it's HIS problem.

-To not be afraid to speak their mind and say what bothers them.

-To be the very best they can be, and not settle with the status quo. NEVER become complacent.

-That they are unconditionally loved, and their views are respected, even if they differ from ours.

-To work for what they get. Nothing is going to be handed to them, they have to EARN it.

Last and most important -

-If they become Husky fans, they're out of the house. (That's the old Cougar in me coming out!)

But you wouldn't know Wayne, you don't have kids. Don't worry, I treat my children with love and respect because I have love and respect for them.

Much more respect than I have for you, I might add.

Thats a shame that you raise your kids without absolutes. I hope they don't get into trouble someday. I don't have kids for only one reason according to you: I OPPOSE HOMOSEXUALITY!!

No, you don't have kids BECAUSE NO WOMAN WOULD LET YOU FUCK HER.

And, if you tried to adopt, I'm sure you would be rejected faster than a 10 year old kid trying to buy beer at a 7-11.

Author: Reinstatepete
Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 4:12 pm


Wayne, there's a reason you don't have kids, because you're unsuitable to have them, so don't tell anybody here how to raise their kids, as you're the LAST person here who anybody would seek advice from.

And from the way you act here, your parents must have done a shameful job in raising you. Look how you turned out: POOR, IGNORANT, AND ALONE.

----
Come on Pete lets be honest here for once in your life. You care only about one thing: MY OPPOSITION TO HOMOSEXUALITY!! once I support that then I will have kids? that makes no sense at all. I show quite a bit of love at my church when I help set up the chairs for the singles class and serve at a ladies desert. Come on there must be more to being a parent than supporting gay marriage.

Author: Reinstatepete
Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 4:26 pm


No, you don't have kids BECAUSE NO WOMAN WOULD LET YOU FUCK HER.

And, if you tried to adopt, I'm sure you would be rejected faster than a 10 year old kid trying to buy beer at a 7-11.

----
No its because I OPPOSE HOMOSEXUALITY!!

"Thats a shame that you raise your kids without absolutes. I hope they don't get into trouble someday. I don't have kids for only one reason according to you: I OPPOSE HOMOSEXUALITY!!"

I love it.

The retired postal worker WITHOUT KIDS telling the guy WITH kids how to RAISE HIS KIDS. Thanks for the pep talk, coach, I'll keep that in mind!

Those ARE our absolutes Wayne. Who the hell do you think you are telling me how to raise my children?

Maybe you didn't have kids because you were AFRAID they might be homosexuals someday! Or? Did you not have kids because you are opposed to heterosexuality as well?

Maybe you're just confused and can't tell the difference.

Maybe no woman WANTED you.

Maybe I don't have kids because I don't share the moral relativism that you and the others have. I wouldn't want to raise kids with moral relativism. Why do you have such a one track mind that the only thing you care about at all is my support for gay marriage? Why is that a requirement for respect on this forum? You care only about one thing. My total blind agreement. I dance quite a bit and have no problem finding a partner.

I still think that you need God in your life.

"I still think that you need God in your life."

And I still think you need to go have sexual relations with a wood chipper.

Good day sir.

"Maybe no woman WANTED you."

Exactly.

So if I go along with your demand for gay marriage will that help me find a wife?

The only way you're going to get a wife is if you buy one from another country, and as soon as she gets her green card, she'll be gone.

And you'll still die a virgin.

And Wayne...in response to your link, I looked at that one. It definitely has an agenda. Maybe ministries aren't such a great source of information....

Wayne..you believe in absolutes....which version of the Bible is the most absolutely correct version?

Sorry all, personal note here: Copernicus, did you get my email from a few weeks ago about LaCarreta?

oh no no darling. This email addy died awhile back and I just haven't gotten to changing it.

I am changing it as we speak.