Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Okay, so maybe Obama doesn't suck...

I may have to re-examine the suckiness of our president. Apparently he was saving all the good stuff up for two years till after he lost the midterm elections, in the Lame Duck session. Who knew? What a chess move!

Actually, I think when he read that he sucked, he re-evaluated himself as a person and made some course corrections. And I had no idea that he even followed this blog. Good thing.

Now DADT falls, and we have a START treaty with Russia? Okay.......

Wow.

Republicans who made fun of me saying that he sucked, eat my shorts, I guess is all I have to say. I'm glad that I was wrong. I wish I was wrong like this all the time. And besides, none of your politicians are worth a plug nickel in the first place, not a one of them. All narcissistic assholes, the lot. Why, even Obama when he sucked, didn't suck nearly half as much as even the least sucky of what the right wing has to offer.

So now he'll likely be re-elected, methinks. Amazing.

I'm happily stunned here.

174 comments:

  1. Even before START and Don't Ask Don't Tell, he still won by 70 something percent against named and a generic republican in polls for 2012.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What could I say to your last reactionary post? Nothing. So I didn't.

    But once again, like a "real" man you've added more perspective to your own.

    Aggregate perspectives, whether linear or not, is a good thing methinks.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Even before START and Don't Ask Don't Tell, he still won by 70 something percent against named and a generic republican in polls for 2012."

    That's still two years off. Considering how fickle the voting public is, I wouldn't trust that number, unless it was an exit poll on election day 2012.

    Oh, and I'm with Harry about not commenting on the last one...I just didn't have much to say.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is the Obama I campaigned/donated to/voted for. I hope he keeps this momentum.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Me too, bro. Er, brough. Whatever.

    ;-)


    Let's hope. That's what the man told us to do, after all...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Still think that it's the left being 'played' here.

    The right are still one step closer to distancing the rich from the U.S. debt. The rich themselves hold most of that debt, and if they're not about to be the one's paying themselves back, guess that's on the back of the public.

    Isn't it wonderful that Obama Clause is throwing money at simply everyone??

    Well no. It cost a trillion bucks to give the unemployed cheques for another year and to help the 9/11 responders.

    It cost a trillion bucks to give people who need it a few billion dollars.

    Not a good deal at all. Gays in the military was a no-brainer, no skin off the right's nose.

    The nuclear treaty thing was a no-brainer, no skin off the right's nose.

    And Ed is right, the public are fickle and the object of governing is not to get re-elected, is it?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think that there is a problem with right wing ideology as far as what government is supposed to do.

    A right wing guy gets elected and 'he's in charge', job well done!

    If you ask him what he's going to do, he'll say, "What do you mean, I've done it, I'm in charge! I get to sit in the 'I'm in charge seat' for four years and powerful people are going to ask me to do them favours. 'Cos I'm in charge!"

    If you insist, "But what is it that you're going to DO??", he'll say, "Well the rich and big corporations are going to come and tell me that they contribute plenty by hiring people and so on and that they ought to pay less taxes, and I'll oblige."

    But that's not governing the country, you might say.

    "Ahh, but,", he'll say, "I'm in the, 'I'm in charge seat' and you're not, are you? How about I start a war? What's the point of being in charge if I can't make my 'I'm in charge'-edness felt Worldwide?"

    ReplyDelete
  8. to everyone,
    Happy holidays and may the new year be the best every in our lives.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mele Kalikimaka me ka Hauʻoli Makahiki Hou, Dudes and Dudettes!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Cute Christmas Story

    There was a man who worked for the Post Office whose job was to process all the mail that had illegible addresses.
    One day, a letter came addressed in a shaky handwriting to God with no actual address. He thought he should open it to see what it was about.

    The letter read:

    Dear God,

    I am an 83 year old widow, living on a very small pension. Yesterday someone stole my purse. It had $100 in it, which was all the money I had until my next pension payment.

    Next Sunday is Christmas, and I had invited two of my friends over for dinner. Without that money, I have nothing to buy food with, have no family to turn to, and you are my only hope.. Can you please help me?

    Sincerely,
    Edna

    The postal worker was touched. He showed the letter to all the other workers. Each one dug into his or her wallet and came up with a few dollars. By the time he made the rounds, he had collected $96, which they put into an envelope and sent to the woman.

    The rest of the day, all the workers felt a warm glow thinking of Edna and the dinner she would be able to share with her friends.

    Christmas came and went.

    A few days later, another letter came from the same old lady to God. All the workers gathered around while the letter was opened.

    It read:

    Dear God,

    How can I ever thank you enough for what you did for me?

    Because of your gift of love, I was able to fix a glorious dinner for my friends. We had a very nice day and I told my friends of your wonderful gift.

    By the way, there was $4 missing. I think it might have been those b@stards at the post office.

    Sincerely,
    Edna

    ReplyDelete
  11. I read a similar Spanish story, long time ago. Funny stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Merry Christmas and the best possible New Year to all!!
    It will be interesting to see whether any of our Christian Brethren see fit to honor us poor sinners with any (in)sincere similar wishes.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I wish all my christian brethren a merry christmas even though it's a completely commercialized glaringly un-tasteful (and so unspiritual that it is actually anti-spiritual in every way) holiday that is based on a false date chosen by the church (dec 25) because it was already in use by two of the local pagan religions for their gods (they also stole much of the story of christmas itself along with jesus' life story from those selfsame sources along with just making shit up again)
    So Merry Christmas!!! YAY!!!

    Oh, and happy chaka khan to my jewish friends... What day off do you get for that, btw?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well, you guys, I'm coming on here to wish you all the very nicest, joy-filled and peaceful Christmas.

    May your turkeys be scrumpdeli-icous! May your trees be trimnmed with those cool led lights, may your friends and loved ones be near and may you feel the joy it is to give to others. Even if they don't give back. Especially if they didn't give back!

    Ah! Let nothing ruin this holiday and week leading up to New Years!

    May you be on a "roll" in continually feeling the love and having some fun.

    And, may the new year, 2011 be the best and most prosperous one of all for everybody!

    Enjoy!

    Lots of love,
    MI ;~D

    ReplyDelete
  15. Okay, that was nice. Merry Christmas to you too, MI. Best Fishes, as Steve Martin says...

    ReplyDelete
  16. He surprised me too. I doubted he would deviate from conventional thinking that much.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I can't believe that believers think that they can simply outmaneuvre atheists with a little bit of wordplay like defining God as necessarilly-existent.

    Laughing at a sentence, "God does not exist." as absurd, because 'God is defined as necessarilly-existent', therefore, altering the sentence to, "The necessarilly-existent being does not exist.", is pure dualist philosopher bullshit.

    "You aren't allowed to question of God's existence because we have defined him as existing, Nya! Nya!"

    Apparently they think they can 'call dibs' on God.

    Kind of gives 'coming to Jesus as a child' a twist, though.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ain't that you, Harry?

    No, seriously, philosophers who start from the premise that God created the Heavens and the Earth, that God is the necessary first cause, that there is indeed a dual nature to the universe, spirit and, you know, regular stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  19. What other reason, besides, the fact that this particular planet experiences night and day and life on this particular planet tend towards male and female, do we have for positing dualism?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Well, that's MY meaning of dualism, apparently there are LOTS of others, some of which come very, very close to my meaning, such as the philosophy of the mind, and the mind/matter thingy.

    Close enough to make no never mind. heh.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I think it had to do with people's misunderstanding of the wind and fire and such. "spirit" being "breath" and wind being "breath of God" and like that.

    Burning food causes it to be turned into smoke and it gets carried away by the wind to heaven. Surely it must go to the gods?

    ReplyDelete
  22. You all should know that the four 'primal' elements of the ancients, earth, air, fire, and water, were not taken literally except by the uninitiated commoners of the day. They were meant as universal qualities, an extension of duality to a 'quaternity' of the qualities and aspects that things and people posess.

    Duality is female-male, yin-yang. All things have male and female qualities. These can be further divided into four categories instead of two. The 'four elements.'

    That's how they were meant. Not a simple concept, like actual elements, mere ingredients.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Fire and Air are male qualities; Water and Earth are female. The first two are active and outgoing; the last two are passive and receptive.

    A 'fire' individual would be very motivated, outgoing, quick to anger, lots of energy.

    A 'water' person is receptive and shy even, very deep emotions.

    An 'air' person is a thinker, very logical, not given to emotional distractions. A calculator.

    An 'earth' person is more stable than a 'water' person; a very good manifestor of material things. A great money-maker, for instance. A good provider. Not given to much emotional or spiritual thought.

    These are very basic guidelines, off the top of my head. If you really think about it, you eventually get a 'feel' for the different qualities that are indicated by each element.

    The purpose of all of this was a personal spiritual journey, not chemistry. The alchemists all SAID that they were trying to turn base metals into gold; but that was so they wouuld get MONEY from princes and such... That was all code. For instance, the alchemical maxim 'our gold is not the common gold' says it all. Their 'gold' was enlightenment, spiritual enlightenment. That was the real meaning of the 'philosophers stone' as well. Perfect mental balance of all qualities within the individual priduced 'upward movement' if you will. Movement of the self, toward communion with the divine.

    ReplyDelete
  24. And the four letter name of god in hebrew, YHVH, was considered by the alchemists to be a formula. The formula of manifestation. Yod (fire) is the creative impulse. A man (say, thousands of years ago) needs a place to sit down, and thinks about the problem, and the idea of creating something to sit upon comes to him. Not specific as yet. This is the Yod part, the part where the 'fire of creation' comes down to the man's mind...

    Next, and almost simultaneously, the idea grows and is partially formed, emotional concepts more than intellectual ones develop at this point. He gets excited about building his chair. It's a great idea! This is the Heh part; the Yod is the seed, the Heh is the ground it grows in. Now the idea can grow until actual planning commences. This is the water part.

    Next step: Planning.
    It should be stable. Four legs is best. A flat surface, and another behind the back perhaps...
    Then the design process commences in full. The plans are drawn up for the chair. Either in the man's mind, or on paper, he comes up with the actual detailed plan to build the chair. This is the 'Vav' part. Air. Thought.

    And the Earth part? That's when he actually BUILDS his chair. It is created! The energy that he called down from 'above' grew in his mind until he had a physical manifestation of it. It is 'earthed.'

    He sits down... Niiiiiiiiiiice....

    ReplyDelete
  25. These can be further divided into four categories instead of two.

    Or six categories, or eight, or ten...

    ReplyDelete
  26. Um, sure.

    Besides the point though. This is what they did. They also didn't choose to further divide the idea of yin and yang. They didn't have yin and yang. So this was their equivalent.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Aaaaanyhow,

    I was only explaining the terminology. I see some value in it, but I understand why it looks very hogwashey to many rational and reasonable people. It's not rational nor reasonable, really. It isn't only involving rational thought, is the problem. It involves rational and intuitive, emotional 'thought.' As in, getting in touch with and training one's own intuition to be right most of the time. Plus it's certainly a more valid spiritual path than is organized religion, since it asks its adherents to become mentally and emotionally balanced, which is a good thing.
    I read religious christian writings or even the endless apologetics, and all I see it deception. When I read literature from this time, it is more honestly seeking the 'truth' whatever that may be, if such a thing can be said to exist. All the evasiveness was done at the time TO the authorities, to prevent the alchemists from being put to death or imprisoned for heresy or whatever. Such as claiming the desire to actually transmute physical metals. In alchemy, the metals all stood for, once again, qualities. Much like the planets and the astrological signs do today. Jupiter was expansiveness, loving-kindness, the Good King if you will. It equates very well to Chesed in the Kaballah.
    Most systems of mystical thought have many parallels to each other, as it turns out. You can for instance equate the eastern system of chakras to the 'tree-of-life' 'middle pillar' of sephiroth, and that to the tarot, or geomancy, or runes.

    ReplyDelete
  28. So everything is everything Bri? Or is it all metaphorical systems pertaining to catharsis and perceived transcendence are all metaphorical systems pertaining to catharsis and perceived transcendence?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Lol, sure Harry, could be either one. I just wanted to get some definitions out there, vis-a-vis the four elements. Definitions of how they were thought to be by the people of that time, and some modern types too. Because I remember that my chem 101 prof in college laughed at the alchemists in a way, by belittling their four elements, as if they were similar to the 106 (+?) chemical ones we know of today. As if they were pretty dumb back then, and aren't we so smart today, etc...
    They weren't compatable, they weren't meant in the same sense at all, and in some ways they were harder to understand, being a lot more complex than they look on the surface. I just wanted to get that out there.

    ReplyDelete
  30. And how do you mean catharsis? Because I don't see alchemy, or kaballah, or astrology or the tarot for that matter, as being cathartic, if you mean sin or guilt. Not at all.

    Btw, I see sin as a concept being created to allow manipulation through guilt, meself. Therapy is preferrable to religious catharsis through prayer, or whatever.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Pure unadulterated idiocy. Of course the biggest idiot is me for even commenting...

    ReplyDelete
  32. LOL Ryan. Good job. If you don't say nothing, they think that everyone agrees with them.

    ReplyDelete
  33. If you don't say nothing, they think that everyone agrees with them.

    My thoughts exactly.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Bri,

    To me catharsis doesn't have a particularly religious connotation... for what its worth first hit has, "purging of emotional tensions," that's more to the point I was trying to make.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Ryan,

    Your point was invalid for two reasons:

    1. You're wrong
    2. The bible's right

    Neither are related to the other.

    It was cute when you busted out with the Hebrew characters though ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  36. You like that Harry? I try... Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Really Harry? For me 'catharsis' has an excretory connotation...

    Ryan, on the Noah's Ark blog there... I'm no longer amazed and appalled at the depth and breadth of their ignorance. It is beyond staggering and well into 'insurmountable.' They couldn't have made themselv es stupider if they had consciously planned it, tried to make themseelves stupider, for the past two millennia...

    Oh Shit. That's precisely what they did, isn't it? That evil word 'faith' again. Ya hafta have faith... so don't you dare learn facts or ask questions. Believe what they tell you, or you're evil evil evil evil evil evil....

    ReplyDelete
  38. Brian; I'm not appealed any more either, but at least that was some fresh idiocy I'd not run across before. That kid is torn between what he knows about the real world and what he wants to believe at his church (in my opinion) and the results are comedic sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Ryan,
    Just gotta say, I love the way you pwned that dude. It was quite refreshing and put a smile on my face.

    Speaking of Noah's Ark, watched Ricky Gervais standup the other night where he talks about a Noah's Ark children's book. I highly recommend to anyone who needs a good laugh at the expense of bullshit fairy tales passed off as truth.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Hey Richelle; it doesn't feel so much like a pwning when the person is too dense to realize they've been owned.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Ryan,

    I'm getting ready to read Marcus' blog page that you linked... just thought you'd like to know, he hasn't posted on DC in several months now...

    ReplyDelete
  42. Now that I've read it (as much as I can stand for the moment...), I gotta ask:

    Why do you waste your time on that moron?

    ReplyDelete
  43. You guys need a good laugh, check this out...

    ReplyDelete
  44. What's up with Athiest Churches?

    Anyone here go to one?

    Tell me more about it...?
    (Edumatate me on this topic, please)?

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  45. What's up with Athiest Churches?

    No idea.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Okay MI, here's what. Everyone cannot be smart like us.

    Funny New Year's story on my blog.

    I think you'd like it MI.. I'm actually sure that you would. No kiddin'!

    http://absenceofgood.blogspot.com/2010/12/its-small-world-but.html

    ReplyDelete
  47. Great post at Evangelical Realism.

    I, for one, was convinced that most wars were indeed religious.

    The Bible paints wars AS religious, warmongering leaders paint their cause as, "With us or against us.", and, "God, flag and country.", and so on.

    But D'Souza, Vox et al are absolutely right that religion doesn't cause wars, it's just a propaganda tool!

    It's the only effective thing that religion DOES! Galvanizing your population into supporting your country sending bombers to kill civilians and tanks and helicopters to take out the opposing forces with some 'unfortunate' collateral damage, IS the job of religion.

    Vox, D'Souza and them are right, religion isn't the cause of ANY war, it's just that religion is used to marshal support FOR war.

    Notice how Vox Day is willing to paint Islam as evil by 'conceding' that the Muslims are still a 'cause of war'.

    He's so funny!

    And the MIs of this world?
    Well, you are just tools, aren't you?

    You are a tool MI.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I'm dying to hear from MI on this.

    I can only imagine her taking this as a deep affront and insult to her intelligence.

    If it makes you feel any better MI, I too believed that religion WAS a huge factor in the cause of wars.

    Not because I believed that 'God is on our side' or anything like that, of course, but because of the obvious hijacking of your supposedly peaceful club(Jesusites?) in support of hating and killing.

    Seems to me that the only difference between Christian belief being hijacked by warmongering government and Muslim belief being hijacked by warmongering government is that both of you want to believe that there IS a difference.

    "But they wear nightgowns and towels on their heads!"

    HAH!

    ReplyDelete
  49. pboy,
    Where can I find this argument that has convinced you that religion does not cause wars? Religions teaching causes us, and them. Us and they are a root cause of wars, and religion is assertive in causing us and them. . Sure war mongers will use religion to excite the mass but that fact hardly relieves the religion of the responsibility of teaching against, and avoiding wars, not acts and teaching that leads to war.

    ReplyDelete
  50. You guys don't know anything about the Atheist Churches out there??

    For real?!


    I was just curious about them.

    No biggie.

    Hope everyone has a wonderful New Year in 2011!
    Happy New Years to all!

    ReplyDelete
  51. New study in Britain reveals that the fear centers of the brain are larger in conservatives!

    Link

    No surprise, but it's interesting that a brain scan can SHOW CONCLUSIVELY that conservatives fear things in general a lot more than liberals do...

    ReplyDelete
  52. You guys don't know anything about the Atheist Churches out there??

    For real?!
    --------------------
    Well, Ive heard of one I think, in Texas of all places, if I recall.

    Some atheist is using the 'church' system to get a tax-exempt status, is what's happening. And to piss off the christians too. That's about it.

    It's a joke, because being an atheist means that you have no church and do not want one. Why? What would we talk about? God? Godlessness? Heck no... we don't even think about that, except when talking to the delusional people who have given up their minds in favor of pretty stories.

    I do find it funny that you expected us to know all about it... Just making assumptions about us again, eh MI?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Pboy, I agree with Jerry here about religions causing wars. And of course I also agree with you that they are then subsequently excellent propaganda tools to promote said aforementioned war.

    The "Us and Them" thing creates the atmosphere of gut level hatred and xenophobia wherein war becomes much more likely. It's one of the most basic causes of most wars, setting up the psychological grounds for them.

    I'd like to see that article too.

    ReplyDelete
  54. If I know my stooopid conservatives well, and I do, if they see that study about them having larger fear centers in their amygdalas or whatever, they'd immediately discount it because it was done by the British, and 'we all know what fags they are...'

    ReplyDelete
  55. BTW, forgot to say 'welcome back Richelle, and we've missed you...'

    And also,

    HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL!

    (Yay!)

    I will be the most wasted of all of us tonight, I assure you, so spare me a thought around midnight, because by then I won't have any of my own left...

    ReplyDelete
  56. Incidentally, has anyone heard from Botts?

    Anybody have his email address? Something I wanted to tell him about.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Haven't heard from Botts at all. That Atheist Church thing reminded me of him.

    The post I was talking about is Evangelical Realism's last one.

    It's right there on the blogs you follow or whatnot.

    ReplyDelete
  58. MI; do you think everyone goes to church, even atheists? I don't. I enjoy my Sunday mornings.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I’m thinking that Constantine was a genius for recognizing that religion is such a good political tool.
    -Pboy on Evangelical Realism blog
    ----------
    You are echoing my sentiments here. I've felt that for a very long time.

    ReplyDelete
  60. The fellow who wrote the article I read was Deacon Duncan . He has NO understanding about religion. He claims religion has no power. There is no thing on earth that has more power over mans life than religion. I think religion is so powerful that it holds sway over reason for the majority of the citizens in this country.

    ReplyDelete
  61. I'd like to wish Brian a happy upcoming Bat Mitzvah.

    And recommend to the rest of us, that despite the sudden gender reassignment and conversion to Judaism we should all support her.

    feliz Anyo Nuevo!

    ReplyDelete
  62. Shalom, Harry...

    Happy chachachahannachakka!

    Yes, sadly I was mugged the other day while getting into my car, and I woke up an elderly jewish woman. So it was indeed a really sudden gender re-assignment.

    So my knee is acting up again... Must be the weather. Oy veh. And why isn't there a decent kosher delicatessen around here?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Getting back to 'us VS them' mentality, and how christianity (and Islam) create this in the minds of everybody in the culture to some extent...

    Now consider the facts. George W. Bush 'just knew' that he had to bomb Iraq, because why again? Why was his attitude so cavilier? It was soooo easy for him. No pangs of conscience for the innocent blood which was sure to be shed... Nada. His religion lets him sleep at night. When he should be awake, crying.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Incidentally, it's 1/1/'11 now. A lot of ones.

    Gonna feel weird writing checks.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Brian; just wait till veterans day...

    ReplyDelete
  66. It would be an interesting date, Ryan, if it were to happen.

    No sir, the world is gonna end way before then.

    5/21/11 to be exact. Noah said so !

    ReplyDelete
  67. " Above all, please READ THE BIBLE and prayerfully ask God to open your spiritual eyes to these truths. May it please Him to have mercy on each of our souls."

    Okay you maggots! Ten-Hup!

    Eyes front! On the command, Spiritual Eyes Open, you WILL open your spiritual eyes!

    Spiritual Eyes... wait for it!! .. Spiritual Eyes.. Open!

    ReplyDelete
  68. I remember getting in an argument with some catholic dominionist dude named "Dreadnought" on Townhall about the eucharist and his claim that there had never been a documented case of anyone ever getting sick from Jesus' breadmeat and blood. I did some research and found a couple examples of protestant churches where people got sick and his response of course was that protestants don't do it right so it's not magically protected like the catholic version. It turned out he was right, at least as far as I could tell using google, that there are no cases of Catholic eucharist making anyone sick. My suspicion was that either 1) people who got sick didn't report it or even correlate it with the eucharist or 2) the Catholic Church didn't report it.

    But then there's this today.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Guess we have to commend our Catholic brothers and sisters for getting their church out of the age of demons.

    How do the philosphers of theology deal with the silly demon baiting Jesus episodes since we no longer believe such crap?


    Harry. Not having taken any philosophy courses(I did watch a series of videos long time ago, and tried to read a small book about Existentialism which turned out to be like a phone book of name dropping), it HAS taken me some time to sort out the different branches.

    You could likely tell this by my 'dualist philosophy' comment, don't know how many philosophers talk about that these days.

    Seems to me that there ARE several different 'partitions' to this 'thing' philosophy, and I'm actually pleasantly surprised that there isn't a philosophy OF philosophy.

    Coming soon no doubt.

    Seems to me that Eric simply wanted to show his skill of jumping from epistomology to one of the Arguments for God, to philosophy of mind and so on, and if you do that for a bit, you can just meander round and round, getting shots in about how 'dumb' your 'opponent' is, knowing that you're not really heading anywhere except to conclude that you have a coherent argument for God, which is, of course, highly debatable, since that is what we're debating.

    I dunno if I ought to thank Eric or curse him for taking this line with us. It all seems to boil down to razzle-dazzle and flim-flam.

    ReplyDelete
  70. On topic, I suppose, we can see how this is developing.

    The Tea Party is just a farther right Republican Party, and mainstream GOP demanded lower taxes for the wealthy before granting Obama those concessions which were just no-brainers.

    Boehner had conceded that if he was given no choice he would have voted for tax cuts for the middle class but the Obama administration, the congress and especially the Senate ended up not being able to bring a bill up for consideration.

    Nothing has changed as far as the Senate is concerned at all, but the Tea Partiers are threatening to block a bill to raise the debt ceiling.

    Obama is reacting to this as if it is already a crisis, necessitating further concessions of left wing policies.

    He's soft-righting you guys. Under the right circumstances there will always be a good reason to go to the centre, which the right keep pulling to the right.

    This is not a good thing. Politicians are becoming openly beligerent in their attitude towards China as if they weren't ALWAYS ideologically opposed to their system.

    But with a Dem. president, the waters are well and truly muddied, the wealthy willing to profit enormously from cheap Chinese goods, demanding no control at all while demanding that Obama control it.

    I think that the 'plan' hasn't changed at all in quite a while. The 'plan' being to keep the country on the edge of a crisis, claiming that only your ideological position can 'save' it.

    The Tea-Baggers just add another 'true-believer' element determined to cut off their own noses to spite their faces, and Obama is not helping by pandering to these morons.

    How long before someone suggests that because China is winning at trading, that they're somehow cheating and that war is the answer?

    ReplyDelete
  71. Weird.

    I commented yesterday. Everything looked kosher, I just briefly checked, but I guess it didn't come up.

    Peeb,

    There is a philosophy of philosophy. Sorry.

    I don't think we'll go to war with China because too many movers and shakers have vested business interests there.

    Ryan,

    Even the adjective 'dominionist' gives me the creeps. Shudder.

    Did you post that link on that particular blog yet?

    ReplyDelete
  72. Peeb,

    Nice to see the face behind the rants :)

    ReplyDelete
  73. Click here: To Beat Back Poverty, Pay the Poor - NYTimes.com

    ReplyDelete
  74. Yea, he is a pretty boy. Too bad there's that ugly guy behind him.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Hey, not so bad there, floyd....


    ;~)

    ReplyDelete
  76. Man!

    Too bad there's so much hard-core ranting behind "all of that"!

    C'mon, floyd, say something as nice as you look...

    ;~)

    ReplyDelete
  77. Still the same me MI. Don't expect me to suddenly be 'nicer'.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Mi thinks agreeing with her is "nice" and disagreeing with her is "mean".

    My two year old daughter thinks the same way.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Harry; that post was from a year ago or so.

    ReplyDelete
  80. In keeping with the spirit of Pboy's new photo, I am posting my real face ONCE.

    Here it is.

    ReplyDelete
  81. And now, for something completely different...

    ReplyDelete
  82. Ed's face!

    It's a veritable bonanza of internet icon honesty: Ryan, peeb, and Ed. I feel blog peer pressure now.

    What would be the dishonest thing to do?

    Pass it on!

    If Brian does it, I'll do it. Ha.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Brian had his real mug up there for a bit as I recall. I remember thinking that he could be my brother. (Instantly followed by, "Oh noes, do I look that bad!")

    ((That was a joke Brian, really it was.))

    First thing I thought of when you gave us a glimpse of your face Ed. "Oh yea, you said you looked like Hitler!".

    But you changed it so fast that all we'll ever see is this postage stamp size.

    Even from this, I can see a certain 'dignified'John Cleese kind of look, you know, if you were to ask me, which you didn't.

    MI, you better put up a flattering pic of yourself or I'm forever stuck imagining you looking exactly like my mother, not that I'm implying that my Ma was ugly or anything like that.


    Harry, the philosophy of philosophy eh?(aka metaphilosophy) Having a look at the wiki entry now. Not very impressive so far, I must say.

    Oh, yea, Harry, if you don't give us a sneak peek at yourself, I'll forever think of you as a Nick Nolte look-alike.

    ReplyDelete
  84. I dunno though. Might be a good Chapter 1 of a book on philosophy, or it's doomed to go nowhere like, "The study of imagining being run over by a steamroller."

    Of course Chapter 1 might easily be, "The study of what MI thinks of (or anyone else for that matter) when she(and so on) hears the word 'philosophy'.

    So, come on MI, give us 50 words on that, there's no wrong answer.

    :o)

    ReplyDelete
  85. Wait, that's not Harry's real picture?

    ReplyDelete
  86. "Harry" is not even his real name...

    LOL

    ReplyDelete
  87. Of course that's me. Strikingly handsome, full manly beard, sexy scowl. None of you could pull off this hat...

    It's glued on! :-D

    ReplyDelete
  88. I hope the Democrats are noticing all the breaking of the Republicans 'new rules' that's going on.

    I'm sure the Republicans feel that the rules were to hog-tie the Democrats and were actually nothing to do with themselves at all.

    Someone should be paying attention to allowed rule-breaking, it's not all opinion and hypotheticals, surely.

    Oh yea Harry, I was thinking more of that picture of Nick Nolte's mug shot they always show.

    The 'bat-shit crazy philosopher' look!

    cool.

    ReplyDelete
  89. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  90. These whiskers, Harry, are 18 years old... They just signed up for the draft ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  91. Sorry, floyd, I really don't know how to do that. I'm very "low-tech".

    Rest assured; you're not missing anything.

    If I knew how to do it, I'd have done it as soon as Brian got this blog; but these days, in all honesty - Our family shut down our facebook acct and don't twitter or look up friends/relatives even on myspace.

    For what it's worth: I'm 5'4, Irish green eyes,straight long red with high and low-lights hair, a nice enough figure (get lots o' compliments on my legs even from women) but a mommy gut from 4 cuts in 4 years. And, always carrying a nice smile.

    Sorry, but that'll have to do.

    Either you believe me or else you can consider me ugly.

    Like I said; you're not missing much.

    Besides, I'm a Catholic ;~)

    And, I'm 'Past it' (46)

    According to y'all - that's never attractive!

    PS. You're all handsome and attractive young guys, for what that's worth as well.

    Again - a very joy-filled and prosperous New Year to everyone!!

    ReplyDelete
  92. For what it may be worth:
    My "portrait" is a painting that I did several years ago. It may be assumed to be an allegorical self portrait.

    ReplyDelete
  93. @ MI:

    I was 44 when that pic was taken five years ago.

    Who you calling "young"?

    ReplyDelete
  94. Well, I don't think you're being fair to yourself MI.

    I can't imagine myself as a 'handsome young man' at 55.

    46? Too young for me.(hehe)

    Now, enough of this, you're trying to turn this into a chat-line.

    ReplyDelete
  95. No cats were harmed in the making of my portrait.

    ReplyDelete
  96. 'uYou should have followed your "Obama SUCKS!" post with, (Maybe I spoke too soon) "Actually Obama BLOWS!"

    LOL

    ReplyDelete
  97. Peeb,

    ¿Por qué escribes esto? ¿Qué pasó?

    ReplyDelete
  98. Holy shit the accents worked! Well, it's more like Blogger allowed them to work.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Help me out Harry, read the sentence and tell me if it is a complete sentence that makes any sense.

    "Only assuming logic and reason makes logical priority possible and necessary, so there is nothing possibly logically prior, in the sense of more inferentially basic, if logic itself is questioned."

    'Cos I don't think so.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Well you're right. It isn't a complete sentence. If he/she is saying what I think they're saying, than the sentence is meaningless.

    "There is nothing logically prior to logic because it would have to be logical, thereby necessitating that it was logic in the first place and not something prior." -More or less-

    Y'all have to make me a promise. If I ever write something like that, internet kick me in the testicles.

    ReplyDelete
  101. "'Cos I don't think so."

    Yeah peeb, you were right on both counts. Like I said, you picked up that it wasn't even a complete sentence, and that it was a polished turd.

    Brian,

    You ever set a polished turd?

    ReplyDelete
  102. It's from here:-

    http://www.mandm.org.nz/2011/01/god-and-other-unquestioned-authorities.html

    .. and I think you're right, this guy has transcended 'Dazzling with brilliance/baffling with bullshit' and gone straight to, "Dazzling with bullshit!"

    No one else seems to notice though, which is his point, I think.

    ReplyDelete
  103. "Y'all have to make me a promise. If I ever write something like that, internet kick me in the testicles."

    Ah shit that's funny. Writing the above right after I wrote "something like that." According to my own instructions I should be internet kicked in the testicles simply due to that post!

    I hope you got my meaning though.

    ReplyDelete
  104. I'll check it out then pb. I'm going to watch the rest of Shrek Forever After with the little man.

    Hasta later you tartan wearing heathen.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Alright I admit it. I'm a cat.

    That's Ryan throwing me after I refused to pay rent until he changed my litter box. Apparently Javier, Ryan's boyfriend at the time, found it amusing.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Funny... I always pictured you as a black cat, Harry...

    ReplyDelete
  107. Ok peeb,

    Context puts that sentence into perspective. His reasoning isn't circular dependent on what he's contrasting logic with, namely a divine authority.

    Reasoning from God vs. Reasoning from reason (how there could be nothing logically prior to logic).

    So I take my opinion back. As a standalone, the sentence, at least to me, says nothing really. Within context though, it makes sense.

    I'm not saying I agree with it. But at least he's making an argument.

    ReplyDelete
  108. "Only assuming logic and reason makes logical priority possible and necessary, so there is nothing possibly logically prior, in the sense of more inferentially basic, if logic itself is questioned."

    Okay to unconfuse the terms.. we'll change the terms to letters.

    "Only assuming X and Y makes Z possible and necessary, so there is nothing possibly more Z, in the sense of more inferentially basic, if X itself is questioned."

    See, it doesn't make sense.

    ReplyDelete
  109. .. and I knew you were going to do that Harry.

    :o)

    ReplyDelete
  110. Yes it doesn't make sense in of itself. That's why context is a good thing.

    o:-)

    ReplyDelete
  111. Hi, is this working?

    ReplyDelete
  112. Oh good. Seems I've been cut off from my Google Account due to 'unusual activity'.

    Very strange.

    pboyfloyd

    ReplyDelete
  113. Peeb, I can't access it either. Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Looks like Peebs blog has been scuttled, too.

    :o(

    ReplyDelete
  115. Man that blows, guess my account has been compromised.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Ian; it was probably one of those dirty Kiwis.

    ReplyDelete
  117. LOL.. no doubt Ryan. I wouldn't put it past them to 'blow something up real good for God'.

    Maybe not that bad, but certainly imagining that they are doing God's work disposing of someone misusing their God-given internets!

    ReplyDelete
  118. On the other hand it could just as easily have been someone connected with Christina, the last commenter on my blog, who I believe I met on my Evony account.

    I was trying to help her with her game and mentioned my blog, and she took offense at it, being from Amarillo herself and no doubt believing in, "Guns, God and Governmentlessness."

    I was a bit surprised when I noticed I couldn't access my blog, then of course I noticed that my Google acct. had been compromised and shut down which denied me access to commenting.

    Funny coincidence, a certain Andre wanted to 'continue the discussion' on a Bloggers.com blog where I wouldn't be allowed to comment if there were no 'anonymous' option, which coincidentally he doesn't have.

    Might be making sure they screwed me up?

    Seems I'm 'subscribed' to MandM's blog so I'd be able to comment away there regardless.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Yeah pBoy, looks like they even pulled your account off of all our blogs.

    ReplyDelete
  120. I just need a code to allow me to verify my account.

    They use cell phone sms whatever that is to send one the code.

    Unfortunately I don't own a cell phone and don't know anyone with a cell phone that I could use.

    Weird eh?

    ReplyDelete
  121. I don't suppose "carrier cockatiel" would suffice...?

    ReplyDelete
  122. I've had a word with the bird and he thinks we're nuts to even suggest it.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Hey Everyone. Happy Holidays and wish you all a fruitful New Year.

    It's been a long time. Been going back and forth to Nigeria for the last 8 months and been in Nigeria more so. Currently in Nigeria until late February, and I hope to get back to commenting and things like that. I miss doing that.

    Hope all of you are okay and doing good. I was skimming through the comments and I saw MI mention church for Athiests. I cracked up laughing because I remember our convo's on Dinesh's blog about the "Church of the Unchurched."

    And I remember that dialog one night with Pboy where I did an example of what the Preacher of the Unchurched preaches. Going through particular scriptures and then going over why it's all bull shit.

    Then Pboy chimes in and continues the story with the kid in the audience telling his dad that he always says that. Good memories.

    Brian, Obama never sucked. He's President of people from all backgrounds and beliefs. He doesn't govern to half the country like the previous President. The bottom line is what will be achieved in 8 years. How will the Country be. He's going win some things outright and others he'll have to compromise.

    And he always plays chess.

    See you all later.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Good seeing ya Botts.

    I remember the Atheist Church thing too. I suspect, like Brian states, it's a tax dodge. Maybe someone fgured "Why not use the same loophole the churches use?".

    I mean, what would they do in an atheist church? Sit around and talk about not religion???
    Yes, I can see we have one of those already...we call it Saint Brian's Chronicles ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  125. Thanks mac, couldn't have done it without you.

    Changed my password to something a little stronger.

    ReplyDelete
  126. That was pretty quick as disappearing blogs/accounts go pboy. Cool. Glad to see you up again.

    Now where were we...

    ReplyDelete
  127. This made me a little sad. It's Eric regurgitaing the same arguments he used here almost verbatim, it's almost as if he's learned nothing in the last year or two.

    ReplyDelete
  128. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  129. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  130. "It's Eric regurgitaing the same arguments he used here almost verbatim, it's almost as if he's learned nothing in the last year or two."

    (1) I first introduced you guys to the 'conditioned being' argument three months ago, not one or two years ago.

    (2) When I introduced it, you utterly failed to provide one substantive criticism. What exactly was that supposed to teach me?

    (3) People work on arguments over a series of years anyway. That's how they're refined.

    (4) I introduced a few new arguments on that thread. For example, I developed a new argument against the claims that Christians are deluded and that their belief is irrational: if the premises of the arguments can be rationally believed individually, and if the premises are not contradictory, it follows that the conjunction of the premises can be believed rationally. But the conjunction of the premises logically entail the conclusion; hence, if you accept the basic principles of logic, it follows necessarily that the conclusion can be believed rationally. If a conclusion can be believed rationally, then to claim to believe it on rational grounds is just what we don't mean when we say someone's deluded. Hence, Christians are not necessarily deluded. QED. That's a new argument -- I just developed it a few days ago. Notice, no one responded to it. Why not?

    (5) I presented the specific argument I did not because I've learned nothing new, but because it satisfied the requirements John laid out: first, it isn't a god-of-the-gaps argument; second, it's not a god plus the universe argument; and third, it provides positive reasons for concluding that god exists. It also has the advantage of being relatively easy to present, at least in the form of a sketch.

    (6) So what I'm doing is presenting both tried and true arguments, and developing new arguments. What's so sad about that? When have you ever developed a new argument? What tried and true arguments do you use? I can't remember you ever presenting a decent argument for your position. Now *that's* sad.

    ReplyDelete
  131. You didn't introduce us (me anyway) to it and you actually mentioned it on DD's blog, as I recall.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Plus I suspected that would get you to post here...

    I figured you didn't actually leave "for you".

    ReplyDelete
  133. There's a Catholic who knows
    specious arguments so old
    And he's bullshitting a stairway to reason

    When he gets there he knows
    if all the semantic doors are closed
    With a syntactic trick it appears, like he got what he came for

    Ooh, Ooh, Ooh... Ooh, OohOoh, Ooh
    And he's bullshitting a stairway to reason

    There are words on the blog
    That he uses as a fog
    'Cause he knows sometimes words have
    Two meanings

    In a tree by the brook
    There's a songbird who sings
    And by this atheists should know,
    That Yahweh is creator

    Oooh, he tries to make you wonder (2x)

    ------

    Anybody want to try the rest? I'm bored already. Pliny?

    ReplyDelete
  134. I still think that if God was REAL, we wouldmn't need 2000 years of apologetics and philosophy to get us to "Hey, it's not logically IMpossible for God to exist"...

    ReplyDelete
  135. And no, that's not a "logical argument".

    I don't see any need to play by some set of 'word-game rules', if I can get the point across without using them.

    ReplyDelete
  136. As per your argument Eric, space and time are not conditioned beings.

    Well, they're not.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Plus, changing 'contingent being' to 'conditioned being' isn't 'creating a new argument'.

    How about 'confuffled being'??

    You and I are confuffled beings, therefore God exists!?

    LOL

    ReplyDelete
  138. Plus Eric, I'm not sure how it all fits together for you.

    How does there being this unconditioned being, let's take that as a 'given' since you do, how does this mean that we have to worship it with this bureaucratic style or 'Army of God' style, with the hierarchy and all??

    Many people are impressed by cathedrals but then many people are impressed with pyramids too!

    Sort of, "Look at the accomplishment!", kind of thing.

    Sorry, but you can't 'make me' be impressed with stone-work, ritual or hierarchy.

    ReplyDelete
  139. .. and of course I don't want to hear any bullshit about how time and space are 'well understood' by physicists these days OR that I 'just don't understand the philosophy that you like' concerning time and space either!

    ReplyDelete
  140. I think I'd call Eric's visit a "drive-by"...

    ReplyDelete
  141. Hi Guys...

    I've been too busy to comment lately. The new house and the baby (now 1 1/2 yrs old!) are just taking up all my days, and when night time comes I tend to crash or spend quality time with my wife...

    How's everybody doing?

    Hope to come back with a new post soon. There's a lot to talk about.

    Best to all in the new year!

    StBtG

    ReplyDelete
  142. Harry, what WAS that? Sped Zepplin?

    Pretty funny...

    ReplyDelete
  143. Well Bri, if you're referring to me then maybe. If you're referring to Eric, there's one thing I'll give him, he ain't stupid. Likes his cognitive dissonance though.

    Have fun with your family... the local pub can take care of itself. Right fellers?

    ReplyDelete
  144. Wonder what happened to the MandM blog? Can't seem to get there from here(my pc).

    ReplyDelete
  145. Jealousy kills, atheists exploit it ruthlessly.

    This is a link I thought someone might like to clue these people in, and I thought others on this blog could do a better job than I.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Harry - I may try to collaborate on your splendid start of a classic - after I stop convulsing with laughter...

    ReplyDelete
  147. Would love to get Eric Renzo's take on this. I'm pretty sure he said such things never happened.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Yea, well, he's likely of the opinion that priests buggering little boys is not our business since they're under canon law and not subject to, you know, real law.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Pliny,

    I wish you would. I used a form of 'know' in every damn stanza. I swear I have the attention span of a goldfish.

    Am I repeating myself?

    Am I repeating myself?

    ReplyDelete
  150. Who's a better bovine god, Yahweh or Brahma?

    ReplyDelete
  151. Ryan,

    That's one thing *secret organizations* like the Catholic church hate, informed people who are at the bottom of their hierarchy or aren't a part of it at all.

    If the church didn't have more money than Croesus they would be done for.

    ReplyDelete
  152. New Post...

    Hey, short and sweet.

    Me hopee you likee.

    Five dollar make you holler.

    (Ignore last sentence)

    ReplyDelete
  153. Okay, I just ran across this and I know you guys are want to see this.

    It's entitled, "ATHEISM, the Opium of the masses".

    here's link to the short video:

    http://frjeffreysteel.blogspot.com/2011/01/fr-barron-atheism-opium-of-masses.html


    It would be interesting to hear what you guys have to say about it.

    ReplyDelete