Abandon All Stupid, Ye Who Enter Here
In Nov. 2012 a whole whack of Rep. Governors were voted in supposedly because they had a handle on job-creating.(they know all the job creators/filthy rich for example)So, since there's nothing to be done for jobs barring union crushing and cuts for those wealthy, time to concentrate on the issue of abortion and contraception! YAY!Now, since it's a HUGE issue with women, who will likely be cry-babies about the whole thing, just because Rep. LEADERS are stepping on their necks, and run to the Democrats.Ergo, it's a Dem. conspiracy! Why, if the Dem. politicians would only step on women's rights TOO, there'd be no problem at all.That there is a conspiracy against the Sacred Holy Christian States of America, right there!
Should say Nov. 2010. Emma's grandson is not even 2 yet and he's great!Hangs out with old Ian, thinks there's no one like old Ian.Then he walks out the door with mom and dad. No problem. LOL
My daughter, "Cogs", thought you should check this out...
Sex for the sake of having sex is immoral according to so-called libertarian Ron Paul.Betcha no-one saw that coming!
Reading an article on comparison between Santorum and Augustinian theology I ran across one of the real errors in Augustine thinking. If you want to read the article it is at; Santorum's Augustinian Theology This is the statement; "The virtuous follow God's will, and their obedience makes them free. Freedom without obedience is sin, and sin is slavery." While this statement is true it is writen in such a way that many, perhaps most, will misunderstand it just like Augustine mis understands it as is shown by the way he reacts to this thought. Mis understood it reads, by following what is thought of as God's will, if one is obedient to this will, he/she will find freedom from sin. Even if one is accurate in understanding gods will to become obedient is an intellectual experience that can or cannot be experienced at the spiritual level which this statement is meant to be understood at. Augustine obviously understood it at the mundane level which is, bottom line, mind fucking. Augustine obviously trusted his own mind above all else. Reminds me of Observant, and from what I have read, Eric. If the statement was written correctly for interpreting it would read something like, The virtuous love virtue for its own sake, and on loving virtue for its own sake one will be doing gods will as a result. It is an attitude of love, NOT obedience. One of the many fruits one receives from loving virtue is humility, and that seems to be very short in Augustine, and Santorums thinking. (Lets bomb Iran, and kill a bunch of those suckers). According to this article Augustine was in favor of getting rid of those that would not conform to his BS, and Santorum has the same mind set. I don't know if Eric has fallen to this low yet or if it will take a few more years of buying into the BS he spouts. So far Eric is quoting, but that will come to an end in time, (if it has not already) and he will spew his intellectual BS and claim it is spiritual just like Santorum, and Augustine. .
They will not understand why, "Freedom is slavery!", doesn't make any sense.But if you step through Augustine's logic, freedom, I'm afraid, is slavery, for it is only through slavery, obedience, that one can be free. Yea yea, I understand the hair-splitting going on here where the freedom of choice, the sin of choice, is 'slavery' as opposed to the obedience of God's will being 'freedom', freedom from sin, and we can screw down that bolt 'til the threads of reasoning (sanity) strip.We can turn tables on everything, as Jesus apparently did when he said, "Why call me good, only God is good.", 'meaning', "Yea, I'm one of the three personalities of God and fuckin' right I'm good!!!!"And the admonishment that one must give up all one's stuff and follow Jesus, 'meaning' one must not let one's stuff own them!Confusion technique! Once you have your client's mental process locked, using such paradoxes as 'freedom is slavery', you can ease this conflict in the direction you want. This is why theists are conservative/republican/neocon. They use the exact same techniques. Money is evil, but being rich is good. Freedom is slavery.(works the same for politics as religion). Ignorance is bliss.(When you are ignorant, we are happy, your happiness is of no account, or, learn to lower your standards)Rep.slogan, "We will fix the problem with the poor, the old, the sick and the ignorant."Rep.solution, "Cut all benefits to the poor, the old,the sick and the ignorant."Rep. rationalization, "God will provide."Real-world outcome, "The rich control government for the benefit of the rich."Eric's politics. Right Eric?
Unscrupulous people long ago discovered that they could convince stupid people to work *against* their own innterests, with mere words. When religion is involved, 'belief' or 'faith' is aggrandized into a holy quality, infinitely desirable, something to work on and wor toward, perfect faith.... when it's really just believing things without evidence on someone else's say-so. Sheer genius to make 'belief' the big goal. Religion = The Moron Factory.Yes, it's really the REAL reason that so many people are so ignorant. Yes, it really is. Even many of those who aren't religious anymore, still have the habit of just believing in shit.
Eric: Do you KNOW that you are right?Are you 100 percent sure?I think you would say, of course not. So not being 100 percent sure, you have to admit the possiility that there is no god, at least not like you think of a deity. And knowing that, how on EARTH can you go on and on, never admitting any defeat, using your slick verbiage from your musty tomes.... all written by others who also could not have been sure.... You never admit that you may be wrong. Not even to yourself, I'd wager. What a piece of work. Do you not realize that, IF YOU ARE WRONG, it casts you as an agent of disinformation. An evil man. A very evil man, in fact. If you are wrong, with your level of certainty that you are not, it makes you one of the biggest liars on the planet. A disseminator of lies. Satan's pawn. See? Of course not.
See Eric, I maintain that much of what you believe, are lies told by men for people like you to buy into. So if that is true, you are a veritable fountain of lies. Does repeating them unawares make you less of a liar? No. For the damage is still being done, by you. You may be an informed liar, or you may be an ignorant one, but a liar you are, rest assured. From outside the psychosis, it is relatively obbvious. From where I sit, you're just a lying fool. You may not even know it... and doesn't that say something for how pernicious these particular lies are?
I think that it's like the Party in 1984. The steady church goers are the outer party, the dogsbodies. They're expected to give and give, they're cajoled into taking the blame for lack of a good showing at the church, they're expected to volunteer for every silly moneymaking idea that anyone can think up, the more burden on them, the better.The priests/pastors/ministers would be the inner Party, and we'd be wrong to imagine that they have it any easier, they have to dream up the burden to lay on their inferiors in the first place. But that is what you've always wanted, a flock to be under your direction!The flock is to be guided to take over secular government to influence such things as the books the children are learning from, the classes the children take, how much of a display of Christianity they can influence City Hall, the court house etc. to make.It's like a giant conspiracy against secularism.
How to question yourself:(This is for Eric)There is one single important factor in the act of self-questioning that is all-important. You cannot question yourself as if you are right. You must question yourself as if you are wrong. You asolutely MUST take the attitude that you are wrong and your critics right, just for the time necessary to complete the self-questioning. And I can't see you EVER thinking that you even MIGHT be wrong, no, not for the purposes of self-questioning, nor for any other reason. You have too much pride, empty pride, to seriously even consider doing that. So, you see, you can't know. You can't know, unless you investigate your faith not as YOU have done, but as WE have done. You have to first admit the possibility that you are in error, to ever see it if you are.
Pboy: Yes, isn't it ironic that in reality, christianity has declared a war on secularism, and labeled it the very opposite? Whenever they want to do something evil, they make sure the optics look like it's US that is the evil side, attacking THEM, when that's all just a load of bullshit. They're good at avoiding the blame for their evils. They've had a lot of time to practice.
After all, when christianity attempts to take over the government, that's them waging a war on us. but these egotistical monsters see it as it being their RIGHT to take over the world. So in that light, of course they see any attempt to stop them, as a war on their faith. In a way it is. It's a counter-attack. It just amazes me, the size of their egos. They're so fucking ENTITLED! They feel entitled to fucking every single thing in the whole world. Amazing! If we DARE to try to FIGHT them to keep them at bay, why, they call us the evil ones for it! We should just roll over and play dead....
An actual atheist, with no religious leanings, without that 'spark' of faith, would NEVER find the catholic apologetic argument compelling. Not in the least. That is because one must have some tendency to just believe in things. A real atheist has rid himself of that. I can countenence no belief for which I can find no supporting FACTS.
I suppose, if one is not very bright, one might confuse the complexity of the catholic arguments for facts. (That's how they were designed, after all)If that's what happened, well, that's just sad, isn't it Eric?
I do think however, that for an apologist, it is a good *technique* to claim to have once been an atheist, thus in effect claiming that the catholic argument can even sway those who have given up on god. I think it likely that this is the kind of atheist that Eric was. A fictional one.
I doubt if they have to stop going to church or stop following any of the rituals or procedures to declare that they have been atheist at some point. When you have passed through high school and go to college where they, at least ought to, teach you to question the basis for your beliefs, there's that window where you can claim, "I questioned, therefore I must have been a non-believer, an atheist.", and it might even seem real to you.But the church expects that, they expect youthful rebellion and they have all that philosophy ready where you pretend to question what is true while assuming God of course. More rote learning like catechism for the supposed inquiring mind.
I'm torn, Santorum winning the primary ensures a victory for Obama, but I can't stomach the idea of a world where Santorum could possibly win the primary...
"Do you KNOW that you are right?Are you 100 percent sure?I think you would say, of course not."Correct. I could be wrong. I freely admit that. "So not being 100 percent sure, you have to admit the possiility that there is no god, at least not like you think of a deity."Yes, I admit that. "And knowing that, how on EARTH can you go on and on, never admitting any defeat, using your slick verbiage from your musty tomes.... all written by others who also could not have been sure..." The same way you vote, make moral decisions, make practical life decisions, etc. in short, the way you make countless decisions that will inevitably affect your life, the lives of your family members and friends, and the lives of millions of your fellow citizens without *knowing* with *100% certainty* that you're right in each of these areas. If you think you know, with certainty, that you're 100% right about every political, moral and practical decision you make, then you're much more arrogant than I could ever imagine being. If you claim to only make such decisions when you're 100% certain, then you must never make them. And if you admit to doing your best and making these decisions in good conscience, using your intellectual gifts and moral sensibilities as best you can, in full knowledge that you're a fallible human being, and hence possibly wrong in about many of them, then you're just like me.So which one is it, Brian? Are you 100% certain about every political, moral and pragmatic decision you make? If yes, then you're in need of psychiatric help.Do you only act when you're 100% certain? If yes, then you must either never act, or must be fooling yourself about what you can and cannot legitimately be certain about, in which case again, you need psychiatric help.Or, finally, are you like me, doing the best with what you have to live the sort of life we human beings, as rational animals, must live?(continued)
"There is one single important factor in the act of self-questioning that is all-important. You cannot question yourself as if you are right. You must question yourself as if you are wrong. You absolutely MUST take the attitude that you are wrong and your critics right, just for the time necessary to complete the self-questioning. And I can't see you EVER thinking that you even MIGHT be wrong, no, not for the purposes of self-questioning, nor for any other reason. You have too much pride, empty pride, to seriously even consider doing that."Um, I was an atheist, so of course I've already done just that sort of thing. I recently came across one of my old notebooks from my atheist days. I used to carry them with me and write out thoughts and arguments as they came to me. (I got tired of forgetting the 'great idea' I had earlier in the day; unfortunately, when you write them down, you find that later in the day your great ideas aren't so great after all!) Here are some (brief) excerpts [with explanations in brackets]:"If Hume's critiques of natural theology and revelation stand (and I think they do), all that is left is Emerson." [I was trying a bit too hard to be witty here; also, I obviously should have said that Emerson is all that's left for the religiously inclined. But the important thing is that I agreed with Hume here.]"The difficulty is this: the state needs, for its continued existence, a generally accepted moral code which compels people to act rightly even when no one is looking; what better way than religion, which teaches us that someone is always looking, and that is justice is inevitable and unswerving?" [Here I was thinking about evolutionary explanations for the success of religion as a social, not merely as a personal, phenomenon.]"The inexorable progress of man's power in the form of technology affords him the means of reaching his greatest moral possibilities; as Voltaire (and Uncle Ben!) said, with great power comes great responsibility. We will become eminently noble, or we will die -- or we will choose to halt progress because of the fear it inspires. Perhaps god is said to be supreme morally because he is supreme with regard to power; perhaps the one isn't possible without the other. So our increasing power, as a species, is a cause for hope -- moral hope -- as well as fear." [I should add that a large part of this notebook deals with morality and politics as such, i.e. with whether there is such a thing, with whether it is objective, etc.]"Some say, 'There must be a god. Look at all this (the Earth, the universe, living beings, etc.). How could it be if not for a divine creator?' Let's look at this reasoning a bit more closely. The assumption is, 'complexity and diversity that is ordered needs an explanation, and nothing is more complex, diverse and ordered than the universe.' However, the speaker is missing something: God is *infinitely* (literally!) more complex than the universe. The enthymeme in the speaker's argument, therefore, requires that *god* needs an explanation, and that he needs one even more so than the universe itself! Thus, the explanation one posits leads necessarily to an even more urgent -- and difficult (indeed, intractable) -- question than the one it purports to answer!" [My goodness, I out-Dawkined Dawkins there -- and I beat him to his famous argument!]
"When we say, 'I accept the existence of X on faith,' what do we mean? This formulation is fraught with difficulties. Acceptance of X assumes -- requires -- knowledge of X. But faith is belief without evidence, and when we are considering X's very existence, lack of evidence equals a lack of knowledge. But without knowledge, what is it we are saying? We are saying, 'I accept the existence of X yet have no evidence for X's existence, and thus have no direct knowledge of any of X's characteristics. This latter pat is key: if you don't (indeed, cannot) know any of X's characteristics, what content can you give to your belief in X? It must be either (1) content you've fabricated, or (2) content from someone else who either had direct contact with X or who is providing you with the content of his own fabrications. If (1), then what you have faith in is your own conception of X, *not in X itself*. If (2), then either you have faith in their story or description of their actual experience, or you have faith in a story they originated. Note: in all three cases, faith is never -- and can never be -- in X itself! This is because we are talking about something as fundamental as X's existence! If you have no evidence of X's existence, you can have no faith in X because you can know nothing about X itself. Hence, faith in some thing's very existence is eliminated as a meaningful concept!" [I remember thinking that this argument was very clever.]"It is often said and taught that Christian ethics are altruistic, not egoistic. I think that this is clearly false -- indeed, this gets it backwards: The Christian is the *ultimate* egoist! He hopes and acts to achieve not merely a happy life in this imperfect world, but an infinitely happy life in a perfect paradise! Take heaven away from Christianity, and there is no reason to abide by Christian ethics." [You can see the influence of Rand in that one.]"Interesting observation: to say that morality requires an omnipotent god is to link morality with force." [That can't be good!]"Belief in god must either be accepted axiomatically or accepted on the basis of flawed arguments." [Hmm....]"Here is the grand problem: Something exists, and we cannot understand what it is and why (if there is a reason) it exists. It is because of this ignorance -- this fundamental, vexing ignorance -- that people turn to religion." [Boy, you guys would've liked me then!]"Nietzsche is the serpent in the philosopher's Eden." [Has nothing to do with my former atheism, but I like that one.]Anyway, there's a lot more, but that should suffice (provided you believe that I'm copying from one of my old notebooks) to show that I was indeed a serious atheist.
The same way you vote, make moral decisions, make practical life decisions, etc. in short, the way you make countless decisions that will inevitably affect your life, the lives of your family members and friends, and the lives of millions of your fellow citizens without *knowing* with *100% certainty* that you're right in each of these areas.This is stupid. I know candidate A and candidate B exist, even if I'm not 100% sure which I agree with more regarding issue x.You are talking about making life decision on whether or not Dark Matter actually exists... no, actually you are talking about making life decision based on what the EXACT properties of said possibly non-existent dark matter are.
Anyway, there's a lot more, but that should suffice (provided you believe that I'm copying from one of my old notebooks) to show that I was indeed a serious atheist.No, I think it shows you had a longing to be a theist all along.
"No, I think it shows you had a longing to be a theist all along."Yeah, and so does Richard Dawkins (I formulated a version of his 747 argument before he did.) And do do you guys when you tie god's moralty to god's power (as I did), or call Christians the ultimate egoists. Or when you construct complicated and philosophically sophisticated arguments against the very coherence of the notion of having faith in god (oh, wait, you've never done anything of the sort), or when you claim to agree with one of the greatest atheistic philosophers of all time (viz. Hume).What a moron.
"This is stupid. I know candidate A and candidate B exist, even if I'm not 100% sure which I agree with more regarding issue x."You don't vote on their existence, you dipshit, but on the very issues you claim not to have 100% certain knowledge about.Put down the booze and the drugs and get back to us when you've sobered up.
Put down the booze and the drugs and get back to us when you've sobered up.Wow... hit a nerve?
Eric, you were a nominal atheist.And this, "Or when you construct complicated and philosophically sophisticated arguments against the very coherence..." is just petty. As if sophisticated arguments are needed as rebuttals to claims with no empirical backing. Here is my acquiescence to you dear Eric, you sincerely deluded almost individual.'God' is reasonable not factual. Of course that doesn't mean shit really.
"Eric, you were a nominal atheist."Right, so nominal atheists actively construct arguments against god's existence, agree with Hume's critique of natural theology, conclude that all arguments for the existence of god are flawed, judge Christians to be the ultimate egoists, determine that religion is the fruit of ignorance and the need for social controls, and so on.If I was a nominal atheist, then so are all of you. I had clearly thought much more seriously about my atheism than any of you have. Now sure, as an atheist I was self-critical and reflective, but I am now too. And remember, that notebook, as I said, is filled primarily with reflections on moral and political philosophy, not on philosophy of religion.
"Wow... hit a nerve?"Yeah, the one that's ultra sensitive to stupidity.
Right, so nominal atheists actively construct arguments against god's existence...Nope, but those that are fighting a longing to believe would.
Eric, you erased any doubt I had concerning your being an atheist. You have proven to me in your rant that you were not an atheist when you wrote what you said. You are one confused dude. Your notes said you were an agnostic, and your rant over the last several weeks say you are still an agnostic.
Hey Eric...Stop calling us stupid when you're the believer in elves and fairies with no supporting facts other than convoluted old bullshit that happened to fool *you.* Dope. Us knowing that you're lying, for absolute certain mind you, is not us being stupid. You're the stupid one, for thinking that you can get away with it here. What a religious idiot!You're the smartest-sounding moron I know.
conclude that all arguments for the existence of god are flawed, ---------As they are. Fatally. The authors all assume at least a spark of faith. I guess it's their psychosis that doesn't let them see that such is not the case with a real atheist. They are so sadly limited in imagination, that they can't even conceive of asolutely no faith in god at all. It blows their miniscule minds. What, you got one that isn't flawed? Dare I ask? It's certainly not anything by or derived from Aquinas... the senile old coot... so what else is there?
In order to see that god is not real, one cannot desire that he is. One must put that desire aside completely, in order to see clearly. You never did that, Eric, or you wouldn't be here apologizing all over this page. You never would have found a 'proof' that swayed you, without holding onto that desire. Fess up. (Like you ever would! Liars hate to admit it...)
all arguments for the existence of god are flawed, ---------As they are. Fatally.No, there are lots of good arguments for god, but none of them rise to the level of "convincing". The problem is, you couple some reasonable arguments (one can make a reasonable argument for 9/11 being an inside job or for holocaust denial...) for god with someone feeling shitty about something they did while a preacher is telling them they should feel shitty and the pile on an existential fear of death, and, well, there you go...
No, there are lots of good arguments for god--------------That also apply to fairies and elves. You can't prove an unproveable. You can just make it look like you have if you don't look too closely. If you call that a good argument, then so be it. For me, that's called 'a convoluted lie' from a very biased person with no real control over their own thoughts and no aility to think critically without that bias.
That also apply to fairies and elves.Egg-fucking-xactly.
Oh, sorry, and gnomes, too.....
You're the silly ones believing inn aliens. Dopes.
Silliest dopes there are, truth be told...Eric accurately named the evil within you: arrogance and stupidity.But, you're too in denial to take it in like a man and change, I mean, evolve into intelligible and intelligent, honest and honorable sort of gentlemen. You remind one that you most likely were the wierdos in your class who never grew up and/or never got the therapy and treatment you needed. There's a boy in a night time class I teach who's got emotional and mental probs and he has his mommy in class to make sure that noone ever says anything to him that would "offend" the little crybaby who constantly interrupts class with his talk,talk,talk .His mom is doing him the worst service by placing him, a square peg into a round hole, rather than getting him into special ed classes. It's her pride and denial that will teach him to act obnoxious like this in the real world when he will NOT be able to have everyone even want to be around him and he certainly will run up against adversity when he cries all the time because you offended him and hurt his feelings by asking him (as a boss or whatever) to be quiet, do your job, leave your coworkers alone or else you're fired. Then: he sits at home with Medicaid insurance and rants on blogs and blames God and everyone else because he's become a real asshole who still needs meds and therapy....and counts on his wife or the state to pay for his housing and everything else. It could have been a different scenario had his mom dealt with reality,rather than teach her son how to "play" her the situation, ie: the class.Sad. Truly.
If I had come here dishonestly, posting my former atheist notes under another name, you guys would've been lauding my insightful takedowns of religion How do I know this? Well, I've heard some of you say precisely the same things in the past. Oh well, I suppose I've been discussing, on and off, these things with a bunch of nominal atheists! If only I'd known!
Ryan: "No, there are lots of good arguments for god"Brian: "That also apply to fairies and elves."Ryan: "Egg-fucking-xactly."--------------------------------I hear logically and philosophically ignorant atheists say this sort of thing all the time, yet I've never actually seen *anyone* produce those arguments. So, until I see one of you actually show me how you can take one of the 'good' arguments for god's existence and apply it to faeries and elves, I'm going to do nothing but ask for it.So, who will step up and actually defend this patently absurd claim? Who is intrepid enough to attempt to show me how one of the 'good' arguments for god's existence can be used to demonstrate the existence of faeries and elves with equal, or near equal, force?
Eric: "Right, so nominal atheists actively construct arguments against god's existence..."Ryan: "Nope, but those that are fighting a longing to believe would."So, by parity of reasoning, Richard Dawkins, John Loftus, PZ Myers, Sam Harris, etc. are all nominal atheists, actively constructing arguments against the existence of god to fight off a longing to believe? And, I suppose, theists like myself who actively construct arguments for the existence of god are really nominal theists, fighting off a longing to disbelieve? And uber-skeptics like you, Ryan, are really nominal skeptics, fighting off a longing to be dogmatists by defending skeptical arguments, and liberals like Brian and Floyd are really nominal liberals, furiously constructing arguments in defense of modern Western liberalism to fight off a deep longing to be Rush Limbaugh Republicans!Yes, it all makes sense to me now!
BTW, has anyone worked out how those arguments for god can be used to defend the existence of elves and faeries yer?
So, by parity of reasoning, Richard Dawkins, John Loftus, PZ Myers, Sam Harris,John Loftus, certainly. But I was more basing that comment off of your dear diary entries specifically.
Where's that parallel argument for faeries and elves, Ryan? Or were you just bluffing, as usual?
Actually it's very easy. Just substitute elves and fairies for god in the arguments. Magical arguments work for any magical creature.
"Actually it's very easy. Just substitute elves and fairies for god in the arguments. Magical arguments work for any magical creature."Why don't you give me an example, Pliny. Be specific, please: lay out the argument premise by premise, and clearly state the conclusion. I guarantee that it cannot be done (*except* with the horrible, non-traditional ID type arguments that few people other than cranks defend anyway).
"spiritual" meaning not religion but the core of us that, when nurtured, allows us to be self-actualized.
Yes Eric, play your little game just like you like to play with ideas that do not hold water. Try proving the fall of man is anything but a myth. If you can prove that without a doubt a monkey will jump out your ass, no it will really. It will really, just like the facts are true that you are spreading. I have seen how open you are to ideas you do not agree with, and that alone is proof to me it is a waste of time playing your game. Brian has challenged you to open up on some of your ideas, and you do not seem the least bit interested in talking anything except your constant dribble that agrees with an antiquated way of thinking. Evolution goes forward, your ideas are backwards, a type of ancestor worship.
", I obviously should have said that Emerson is all that's left for the religiously inclined. But the important thing is that I agreed with Hume here.]"NO! The important thing is that you left religion an out! Atheists don't do that."...the state needs, for its continued existence, a generally accepted moral code which compels people to act rightly even when no one is looking; what better way than religion, which teaches us that someone is always looking, and that is justice is inevitable and unswerving?""Ridiculous. This is not what passes for atheistic thinking in my mind.Any other atheists here concede that religion, which teaches that someone is always looking etc., is that which the state needs?Nothing you say points at you having lost faith. Seems more to me that it's as if you're trying to play the chess game of god or no god with yourself playing both sides, carefully trying to couch the 'yea' side in 'they say God is like this' and the 'nay' side attempting, rather badly, to refute what 'they say'. ("Why, theists always have Emerson.", for example)
There is no middle ground between, "With us or against us.", just as there is no middle ground between, "When a body disappears it has been taken, and, when a body disappears it may have been taken or it may have magically 'become alive' again and is walking around."If you imagined that you were atheist starting from some kind of middle ground, when it is obvious that any kind of theism has all it's work cut out for it to demonstrate the validity of it's notions, not from a 13th. or 14th. Century perspective, but from 'now', not reaching out to the fringes of 'what we know' but starting from the huge body of knowledge we HAVE.What you do Eric, is try to harmonize what we know with history, tradition and 'the spiritual'.Seems to me that in your 'atheist' period, you were doing something similar.There is no mind/body duality. Our mind is a product of our body as much as our sense of having a body is a product of our mind, but that doesn't open the door to some childish 'which came first?' bullshit.No Eric's body, no Eric. K.I.S.S., no matter what some long dead guy thought about it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I'm not questioning the veracity of your arguments Eric, nor the good faith in which they were made ;) The reason you were nominal is due to your god's existence being a matter of reason alone. You give not a shit for empiricism when it comes to your god, and if I were to embrace that philosophy, theism and teleology would follow easily. I could except false promises, circular reasoning, metaphysical hocus pocus and conceited paternalism. I might even be up for deontology and a priesthood.
"You give not a shit for empiricism when it comes to your god, and if I were to embrace that philosophy, theism and teleology would follow easily."Harry, Aquinas was an empiricist, in the Aristotelian tradition. Now you may have meant something else, but if so you're going to have to clarify it for me.
I'm not sure how Aquinas would've been an empiricist but I'll let that slide given his only use in our curriculum was for nuancing the primary mover argument. And maybe he did science sometime.Empiricism in the usage above means sense data coupled with experience... and what it tells us about walking on water, four-headed angels, talking snakes and the like.
Harry, Aquinas was an empiricist, in the Aristotelian tradition. Here you go again, instead of dealing with yourself you duck behind Aquinas. This seems as though you feel that you are these people or what? Perhaps I could quote Buffett, Gates and some other high finance people, and then hand out a line of what great understanding I have of high finance. Anybody home?
"And maybe he did science sometime."That half a sentence I forgot to erase.
Thanks Harry, you saved me the trouble with your typical concise statement directed to the heart of the matter. The only thing I would add is that I question whether you can even have reasoned arguments that are not fundamentally based on empiricism. I obviously don't think that you can about any topic of general relevance.If 'reasoned' arguments are all the apologists have, then we are done until they can come up with something of substance.
Aquinas was a rich boy, who from a very early age wanted to be a Dominican. Empiricist, empschmirist...Excepting the rich part (?), this is starting to sound familiar...
Aquinas was not an empiricist? Oh brother, why do I waste my time?
Eric,At least in this you can enlighten me then. You know my bias, but you also know that I DON"T KNOW. It's a flat out agnostic confession.How was Aquinas an empiricist?
It doesn't matter if you are an emperisist or not if you are working towards conclusions you've predetermined during your teenage years.
Fair point Ryan, but that indicts his conclusions not his methodology.
Sorry, I should say that indicts his bias not his methodology, but you probably took the point anyway..
Didn't I say, like , ALL of this three years ago?
Harry, understood, but empericism + bias = worthless.After all, the point of empericism is to short circuit bias.
Oh, sure... Everybody stops talking when Ed shows up.Do I smell? (sniffs pits)
It seems interesting to me that Eric has fallen back upon "tu Quoque" when he demands that we lay out rational argumnts for the existance of "faeries" (!). Obviously, any one of his (?!) arguments can be substituted, inserting Faeries wherever God appears.MI/Hydra, on the other hand, needs to show up to "support" Eric (with no contribution of her own), by trying to divert the discussion back to her radical right political views.
Well yea Harry, MI is Eric's Ma and Mike is his dad.lol
There is actually more evidence of the existence of fairies - or at least one of them anyway - The Tangle Fairy (one of Loki’s offspring, I believe). The Tangle Fairy strikes anytime you leave a cord, rope, or set of ear buds lying around unattended. The Tangle Fairy sneaks in and ties the thing into a bloody Gordian Knot (physical evidence!). Since it happens constantly and the degree of creativity shown by the knots that appear out of the ether is so extreme, it speaks of an intelligence at work. With evidence and intent, my belief in the Tangle Fairy is more than a properly basic belief, therefore it is reality. Or maybe it’s just a wonderful and accessible real world example of entropy. NO NO, it’s not possible for an unguided force to produce such an event...
Another litmus test for political office - if you don't accept the separation of church and state, I don't accept your qualifications to office.
One of the things about Christians of all stripes is the things that they don't know about their religion that they supposedly study all the time.For example, the Sanhedrin. I'd be willing to bet that the next two Jehova's Witnesses that show up outside my door would have absolutely no clue what or who the Sanhedrin was/were, and what, if anything they have to do with the story of Jesus.If I asked, "What is the greatest story every told?", they'd know the answer to that right off the bat, but as for important details about that story, well, let's say that that is a different story altogether.
pboy - make sure to ask the JW's about the Tangle Fairy, will you?
Here's part of that story.Imagine that you are one of Jesus disciples. He is taken in front of the Sanhedrin and tried for blasphemy.How are you feeling about this?Jesus is sentenced to be scourged and crucified and this sentence is carried out.How you feeling about the Sanhedrin now?One member of the Sanhedrin, a certain Joseph of Arimethea, arranges for Jesus' dead body to be interred in Joseph's tomb, 'cos, as we all know, we buy tombs all over just in case we die somewhere, right?Nevermindingthat. How are you, a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth(Jesus not of Jerusalem, that is), feeling about Jesus being placed in a tomb belonging to one of the members of the council that just convicted him of blasphemy and arranged for him to be scourged and crucified?Feeling like going to the tomb and getting the body the hell out of there?Exactly!
Santorum, ".. only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case.."It's terrible how we can persecute them by not knuckling under to every, tiny, little thing they demand, isn't it?Not a Christian? Eric, MI and Mike are feeling persecuted about that, aren't you guys?Not a cracker who believes in magic crackers? Something must be done about this state of affairs, Eric and MI must be losing sleep over this!
Of course Pliny, tangle fairies are well known phenomena if you own a desktop computer and/or venetian blinds. Some dogs are prone to them.Several tangle fairies follow my cockatiel around hoping to cause him to snag his claws on some suitable material. There are certainly more than a few living inside my head ready and willing to disabuse me of the notion that I might be able to multitask! It's not that we cannot multitask, it's the damned tangle fairies.
A New Creation Story: Beyond Religion and Science Brian, if you read this article I would be interested what # you would find most attractive to you considering the big brain.
Ed,You know it's not like that! I had to get up early for work, and you're on Mountain or Central time. I'm in PA. Could you provide a link for what you posted three years ago?
Santorum, smarter than Bush, dumber than Obama, holier than both.
...Greetings Brian et al...From the looks of this blog lately, I thought I'd better jump in feet first or my favorite show just might get cancelled. You guys and gals (?) don't post much anymore. What's up? Are you all getting carpal tunnel syndrome? But please allow me to introduce myself ... I'm the new guy, or at least as an active participant.. However I've been following this blog for years now and before that, Dinesh's blog. Actually I did post a few times to that blog...not much though. Ed may remember me as the guy who likes Zappa. I tried to persuade him that the Dweezil Zappa ZPZ (Zappa Plays Zappa) shows were definitely worth the price of admission.Brian, it used to be such a blast to neglect this blog for a week or two at a time and then "catch up" with a marathon reading session! The ups and downs, big laughs and high drama. (and the good old days with brian "with-the little-b", Rita and the raving rants of none other than Thomas J. Gassett! )So alright call me a lurker then. I don't particularly like that description though. I think of myself more as a spectator. I mean if you have a favorite TV show and follow it you're not called a lurker are you? I don't think of it as lurking but just perusing what I find to be entertaining and at times enlightening.Anyway, I actually did feel moved to post about a dozen times in the last year or so but each time I would realize once again that I had to "sign up" if I didn't want to be Mr. Anonymous.So I did. Sign up. and here I am. Big deal.So if no one responds to this I guess I'll have to go back to lurking. Do you really want that on your conscience(s) people?Hey, whatever happened to William Hays?
One area the democrats have it over the republicans, when you smear one republican you smear them all, the democrats not so much. With democrats' it is much more individual, that is one big advantage IF exploited. It seems though the democrats are much more civilized and use this advantage rarely. This time around it will not matter because the republicans are imploding on their own. If I were to enjoy this implosion any more I could well be getting into sin, and that could cost me a few virgins.
Hey, whatever happened to William Hays?It would be nice to hear him again. Jump right in, the water is usually fine.
Jerry, I tend to agree with you about the Dems, at least in general, but you do realize that no one can paint with a broader brush than the wackiest of the far right. To that group (the tea party people come to mind) any and all Dems or liberals are in league with Satan. They don't see any differences.And yes, I do realize that one could accuse me of using a broad brush at this very moment. But I do try to understand the differences in...oh... say the Republican candidates for instance...some are batshit crazy while others are merely lying sociopaths!
@ Mojo...Sure, I remember you! Welcome back!
"...without a doubt a monkey will jump out your ass"Good one! See, that's why I've followed this blog for years. In fact, tomorrow at work I am going to have to find a scenario where I can tell someone that: "without a doubt a monkey will jump out your ass!"By the way, I live and work in Virginia (or "Vagina" as it has now been dubbed).Have you been keeping up with our state's latest buffooneries and ass monkey business?
Thank you Ed! Yes, and I recall you telling me one time that you would talk about Zappa anytime. You know, at one time Frank Zappa's music was one of the reasons that I thought there had to be some kind of a god. So much of his music was (is) just Beautiful (Big B Beautiful)! So beautiful that I found it hard to imagine that it could exist in a random universe.Same with a lot of art and literature.But back to Zappa.I've been listening to his Shut Up and Play Yer Guitar stuff lately. Which is actually just these grand and soaring and beautiful guitar solos. Are you familiar with the song (piece?) titled "Return of the Son of Shut Up and Play Yer Guitar"? It is so achingly beautiful it will make you cry.
Harry, I was referring to Ryan's apparent dismissal ("empiricist, empschmirist") of my claim that Aquinas was an empiricist. See, for example, the Summa Theologica, Part 1, Question 1, Article 9 (S.T. 1 q.1 a.9), where Aquinas writes, "God provides for everything according to the capacity of its nature. Now it is natural to man to attain to intellectual truths through sensible objects, because all our knowledge originates from sense." ("Deus enim omnibus providet secundum quod competit eorum naturae. Est autem naturale homini ut per sensibilia ad intelligibilia veniat, quia omnis nostra cognitio a sensu initium habet." From this we get the Thomistic dictum, "nihil est in intellectu nisi prius fuerit in sensu," roughly, nothing is in the mind/intellect unless it's first the senses.) Now this is clearly a form of empiricism in the Western tradition. Further disagreements arise, of course, concerning whether everything we can conceive is ultimately *reducible* to sensation, and so on, but these are disagreements *among* empiricists.
Eric (and others) have you read Stephen Hawking's "The Theory of Everything"?
@ Mojo:I'm on my second copy of the "Shut Up..." collection. The first, I bought in 1981 right after it cam out (on cassette). The Barking Pumpkin cassettes were poor quality, though, and all failed to some degree or another within a couple of years. The first CD I ever bought was again the "Shut Up..." collection (long before I owned a CD player!).I love all the "title" cuts, and also "Treacherous Cretins", "Deathless Horsie" and "Canarsie (where everyone looks the same)".
Hi MojomantraNo, I haven't. I have read (multiple times) his BHoT, and his Universe in a Nutshell. (I've dipped here and there into his new book, The Grand Design, but haven't read it yet in its entirety).Why do you ask?
Ed, all three of the title cuts are different solos from three different performances of "Inca Roads". You probably knew that. But did you know that "Gee, I Like Your Pants" is yet another (super fast) solo from IR?Yes, I particularly like "Deathless Horsie" I do like "Treacherous Cretins" although I would like to hear it without the reggae. Do you happen to know what song that was pulled from?
"...all our knowledge originates from sense""...nothing is in the mind/intellect unless it's first the senses"Those quotes or translations you provided reminded me of certain passages in Hawking's TTOE.He explains the difficulty of understanding some data that we might receive from scientific instruments because of our unique human model of the universe. That model that we use to understand... well, anything, is necessarily based upon our reliance on the sensory organs that we are equipped..we can only only intrepet the data from our own perspective...not from an objective reality. I'll use his analogy of goldfish in a fishbowl. Very, very smart goldfish. As smart as we are anyway. Now, these goldfish necessarily see their world and the outside universe differently than we see them because of the curved fishbowl, the water and how light rays interact with both (not to mention they have fish eyes!) But they would be able to eventually (remember, these are super smart goldfish) formulate a body of knowledge as vast as ours but they would always "see" it differently than we do because of the specific parameters or "limits" of their senses. In other words knowledge may very well indeed originate from the senses but our understanding of that knowledge is skewed by our particular fishbowl.Just sayin'
Mojomantra, yes, Hawking is notoriously a positivist: he doesn't think that we can say that our scientific models accurately 'represent' the universe 'as it is'; rather, all we can say, he would argue, is that they work or don't work. This was once a very popular position (when logical positivism held sway over philosophy at Oxford in the early to mid 2oth century), but not so much anymore. Not that its lack of popularity is grounds for dismissing it, of course; rather, it's beed dismissed on some very solid grounds. Anyway, that's my take!
it's beed dismissed on some very solid grounds.By whom? Philosophers? Scientists? Both?Damn, now I feel like I've been dismissed.Gotta go; wifey's home. It's been fun!
"...all our knowledge originates from sense""...nothing is in the mind/intellect unless it's first the senses"We are born with knowledge that does not come thur the 5 senses.
The universe may contain more than information. It could be imbued with proto-consciousness. That is, the raw ingredients of mind may be inherent in nature at the quantum level.----------Jerry, this was in that Chopra article. I have thought this many times. I almost even believe it.
Stephen Hawkings? No, I don't read astrol-pseudo science. Here's a question for you guys. Should wealthy people be allowed to get free health care and college educations ( even though, no jobs loom on the other side of a college education right now)?Should wealthy women really get FREE birth control? I have another question for you but that's for another time....
Stephen Hawkings? No, I don't read astrol-pseudo science. --------------Unbelievable. You can't get this stupid without religion, folks. It's just not possible. Only religion gets you to *try hard* to be more stupid each and every day. Even a total moron, if unreligious, doesn't see the point of trying to be even dumber.
Should wealthy women really get FREE birth control? ------------That depends. Was your mother wealthy?
Mojomantra, welcome. Happy to have you here.
"God provides for everything according to the capacity of its nature."Oh THAT is how empiricism works? I'm not good at science so God must provide for blowing smoke up my ass! What snobs these scientists must be considering the decent, ignorant assholes, nay proud, decent, ignorant assholes, like MI! Wait though, you say God provides for everything etc.? I can't believe that MI imagines this at all, no.Not at all empirical, is it, MI?
Oh, yeah: another healthcare update for you. My almost 90 yr old Mom, who's insurance has always afforded her zero percent copays for docs and rx's until the past few years NOW has to pay $90 for a teency bottle of eye drops--and hundred$ more every month for others prescriptions. Medicare, unfortunately, has had 500billion taken away from them by the current pres. to fund the Obama healthcare .How do you feel about that? Now if the next pres comes in and does away with that healthcare....that money does not go back to the seniors. It will just get shifted around for some other govt spending. (and shifts the burden to the wealthy and every tax payer)So, as of the past few years, screw the seniors has begun. Or is it that *everyone* is in it because the govt can't make good on its promises? Also, well, *if* "everyone" is in it (the pot) does it make it much easier for the govt to "boil" *everyone*? I mean,why don't they just focus on the needy and the poor?? Oh, and , um, aren't the seniors some of the most needy in our country? And, to think: geez, they're the ones who worked their entire lives and paid into the social security---it's *their money!!* upon which they rely on during their ailing, retiring and perhaps lonely years.If the govt's willing to throw it's most valued citizens under the bus, or well, over that cliff (dems, NOT the Repubs)! what exactly makes you think they've "got *your* back??"! Another thing- don't you find it interesting that the *first* thing for free is contraception/morning after pills (murder of babies including abortion, sterilization-the killing of natural bodily cells)and--the *first medical test* that the pres' insurance council (IPAB) decided isn't worthy to cover with insurance $$ is testicular cancer?? By the time you figure out you have it, it's too late to treat. BUT...*if* they won't cover the testing for it, what makes you think they'll cover it's treatment??This is a mandate for every insurance co in the country. ( I hear Bahney Fwank's against it--oh, well, atleast someone in this country's for the men, lol!) "It's Raining Men, Hallelujah!" ;~) ... So, if these *panels* or death panels rather, are beginning to decide what they will cover. Do you think if Obama "created" this council/panel---AND-- allows their changes legalized and implemented, which he has-- that he's going to reverse these decisions when/if the Obama care goes through??Just questions for you to *think,think, think* like Winnie the Pooh says ;~)ERIC, PLEASE SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS POST AND THE PREVIOUS POST if for no other than myself.
Yes, oh, yes, Floyd!You DO need smoke blown up your ass!;~)
I know, Ryan, it's alot for you to take in. Kind of blows your mind,eh?
No, Brian, don't play stupid. Answer the question: should wealthy women who are living in this country here, today, right now:should they have a right to take free birth control when there are so, so many POOR women who can't afford it??Yes or No. Otherwise, keep your stupidity and sarcasm to yourself. I realize it's a tough question for you to answer like a man, but, well, hopefully you'll rise to the task. No puns intended ;~)Oh, and yes, welcome the sock-puppets of Brian, welcome!
An addendum to my most previous post on obamacare... if you seriously think we're going to live in some sort of warped nirvana where everyone gets everything they need from the govt -- you should start asking them why isn't *everything* covered?? I mean, that *IS* his "promise" !!You should be asking yourselves: Why is my pres doing this? (Shit, why in the hell *IS* my denigrator/apologizer/crooner in chief doing most of the things he does)?? Oh, yeah, he did kill Osama. But, by the time he did this he'd already done way much more damage to the US than Osama ever could. *Think, think,think* !
Otherwise, keep your stupidity and sarcasm to yourself.---------------I shall not answer any questions from anyone that thinks astrophysics is 'astrol-pseudo-science.' Such a person is far too stupid to have any opinion worth hearing on any suject, and also would be completely incapable of understanding anything more nuanced than a ball-peen hammer to the temple, so they certainly wouldn't be capable of comprehending my answer. You are a ninny. Good day, madam.
And you can also stop posting your idiotic coments as regard health care or President Obama. All the accomplish is to reveal the staggering depth of your ignorance. Like I said, you just can't get as stupid as you are without religion. That's the only thing that can neuter a person's intellect as profoundly as yours has been.
When she comes here, it really feels a lot like a bird took a crap all over the page. But please keep coming back, MI! I need to stay in touch with how fucking retarded your kind really is. BTW, You know why Santorum and that ilk hate higher education? Well of course, they can't stand people being made smart enough to see how fucking dumb they actually are! (This usually happens in their freshman year)Ya know what? I'd love to pick you up by your ankles and kill Santorum with you... your fellow repulican dildoheads would think it was a pedestrian incident. (Hat tip to Saint George the Carlin)
One of the things people need to keep in mind is that the present imperfect healthcare reform movement is tasked with doing just that - moving healthcare. Absent the fear mongering, the reforms are tasked with moving our current acute care system toward a rudimentary level of wellness and prevention. It has to be done. We cannot afford the 2+ trillion dollar annual cost of care. Naturally that means reallocating some funds and shifting some costs. FYI you cannot simultaneously bitch about federal healthcare program costs while lamenting cuts to Medicare.Medicare spends about $1200/month/senior: $365 for inpatient care; $251 for professional fees; $231 for meds; $138 for outpt services, $81 for SNF, etc. In order to cut those numbers there needs to be intensive preventive efforts and an emphasis on health.
Of course you don't want to talk about healthcare: you aren't intelligent enough; you aren't well-versed enough. What I bring up also scares you to the point of a denial so that you can stay in your comfort zone...while your wife works for a living. Typical; name calling and blowing lots of hot air. Go ahead and run and hide under the bed, you loser.Not that I gloat over it; rather, I fear way too many Zombies in this country think like you do. And, I use the word, think very loosely. You act like you're still some silly college aged kid who only knows what gets you off within the confines of your own little world.I wish you could share something intelligent on this blog. You like to dis me because I'm a Christian; I certainly do not expect you to realize my high degree of intelligence (you have too much pride and not enough smarts) but it exists. Grow up.Whatever. You know, Reality's going to hit deniers like you the hardest when Obama butt-fucks you all till you bleed...Words of wisdom for all my niggas:"So chickety-check yoself before you wreck yoself Cause big dicks up yo ass is bad for yo health.";~)
MI,I can't even begin to address all of your idiocy however I can tell you that if your mom has only medicare that there is NO way she has never had a copayment nor any copayments for medicines. She must have some private insurance in conjunction to medicare. Medicare NEVER covers EVERYTHING. Or she could have medicaid (being the pharmacist you should know the difference) in which case she may not have a copayment for anything and that has not changed at all since Obama has initiated healthcare reform so, um, that can't be it. Therefore, you are full of shit. Your mother must have a donut hole and therefore she needs to meet her flex so she has to pay for her medicine. Once she meets the flex she will once again qualify for full coverage. Again, if you're a pharmacist, why don't you know this shit? Perhaps you just talk out of your ass.Also, testicular cancer is very treatable. Even once you know that you have it, otherwise why would you get treatment right? Derp! I know this from several personal aquaintances who are living examples of this.You'd make more sense with a dick in your mouth. Go shock your hubby!
Oh, I see, Brian can't answer so he calls in someone else to help keep him from drowning. Look, Pliny, there is NOT much you can do with PREVENTIVE care with the seniors who have lumped 65+ years of bad habits, and subsequently have end-stage illness of some co-morbidity/ies or another. The only way I can see lowering costs for these seniors is #1 getting rid of the huge amt of FRAUD and #2 decreasing the number of patients on medicare rolls....yo DO understand the implications, here, no?(Also, as previously said, Obama's going to take care of that with his death panels.) You can't lower the payment to the provider, the hospitals, the labs, etc, because they're already being low-balled as it is. And, although those numbers look high, you must also realize that seniors are already on the MOST-limited Prescription plans. So, for you, it's okay to push Granny off the medicare rolls and thusly, pretty much off that cliff. Remember, that was pushed through a few years back when the Dems approved these measures!Oh, and *rudimentary* treatment....yeah, oh, yeah, you don't lie there,my friend. And, that only applies to those deemed worthy of such treatment.Now, Pliny,why not tackle the other questions I put out. Surely,you have opinions on those questions.
Aony: My mother only has Medicare!Go figure,huh? Stupid, stupid, stupid asshole of an atheist!
My mom does not have Medicaid, Wrong-o again, Mr. Dick. But, NOT in MY mouth. So, tell me, Mr. Dick, how are you supposed to treat testicular cancer IF YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SCREEN FOR IT?????Now, you hollow- brained, shallow twit of a man, stfu. Suck ahr own dik, then do a reach around and get your dick out of your ass. Mentally deranged psychotic retard of an atheist. Oh, yeah, you DID hear that Dawkins has now proclaimed himself an agnostic and told the world he really can't prove there is no God after all....bunch of dipshits.
"MI said... Of course you don't want to talk about healthcare: you aren't intelligent enough; you aren't well-versed enough. What I bring up also scares you to the point of a denial so that you can stay in your comfort zone...while your wife works for a living."You are so incredibly full of shit. You have NO idea what you're talking about. I don't even need to say that, everyone knows that. What really goes up my ass is that you have the balls to try to insinuate that my working for a living is somehow better than my husband staying home and caring for our son. We choose this so that some idiot like you, making $7 an hour in a daycare center, doesn't perp him or teach him religion, take your pick. Because we have the luxury to do this, don't be jealous. I don't know what would be attractive on you, but jealousy certainly isn't. I wonder why, if your husband IS a doctor, you say that you're a pharmacist...why would you choose not to stay home with your children to care for them yourself? Aren't they that important to you? You fight for the fetus (or even a group of cells) until it's born and then you all kick these unwanted kids to the curb so that people like ME can step in and help them when their parents abuse them. You make me sick. And my "working for a living" consists of helping all the people you fake religious morons can't be bothered to do. So go figure, a Wiccan is more like Jesus than you are. You're the worst kind of scum. You need to walk in these people's shoes for a while and then you'd change your tune. And by the way:"I realize it's a tough question for you to answer like a man, but, well, hopefully you'll rise to the task. No puns intended ;~)"You are totally obsessed with my husband's penis...I wonder why? Dissatisfied with missionary day in and day out? In case you're wondering, it really IS all that you imagine it is! I forgot my username and password so I'm going in as anonymous, before you accuse me of anything, I'll fess up and just come out as Brian's wife. Sometimes I read what you write and I just can't help myself. I know it's useless, but I can't bludgeon you into submission, so I am forced to post a comment. Small consolation.
Hate Higher Education??I have 3 degrees! Santorum and his wife are both attornies and authors!The question put is this one, you idiot: should we *force* EVERY one to go to college? Even the Retarded, the ones who prefer construction, etc?AND, ONCE AGAIN, you Moron: Should wealthy people like myself get that education for ourselves and our children get it for FREE?Why not we pay for it so another POOR, NEEDY kid can have that chance????Why, floyd, why?
Oh gosh you really are incredibly stupid....and my, my so easily pushed into a snit! LOL...you make me smile. I'm not Brian you boob.I KNOW your mother has medicare, that's what I was trying to explain to you. Why she has copays and why her insurance wouldn't cover it. Because I've worked human services and elderly affairs and pharmacy assistance programs so I know about the flex and the donut hole, etc. which YOU would know if you were a pharmacist. It's income based. Just google it, you're making me tired. I feel like I'm trying to teach a dog how to knit.I wasn't speaking to screening for testicular cancer either, you dolt. I was answering YOUR idiotic statement that once you find out you have it, it's too late. You are wrong, that statement is erroneous. And "screening" and "dianosis" don't mean the same thing. You can find out you have it by diagnosis...you know, symptoms and really hard things to understand like that. Especially if your husband's a doctor. He musn't find you very interesting to talk to if you don't even understand that concept. Ask his girlfriend, maybe she can explain it. I'm going to bed. =)
Mary,I homeschool my children. All of them. I have the luxury to do so.Also, I am married to an intelligent, sexy, sweet gentleman of a physician husband. You could say I'm a "kept" wife ;~)As for your husband's penis: he's the one telling me to put a penis in my mouth. That is crude. I do not live with that. Also, I am not denigrated by my husband in any way, sexually or other. He treats me like a queen and I do not need another woman or tarp in my bedroom for the two of us to experience the highest of pleasures of married love. However, that is my personal business. I see you're trying to defend your husband. And, really, I feel for you. And for him. Perhaps the two of you cannot debate the political and healthcare issues at hand. OKAY:Point WELL taken ;~) I GOT IT!LOL !
I see my wife got MI to commit several sins. I'll kiss her for it later. And maye do a few other things to her that you've never had done to you......Way to go, MI! I just LOVE it when the holier-than-thou religious knuckle-draggers lose it and reveal their *true* nature like that! Wonderful! What a potty mouth!
Women who are not 'denigrated' by their husands never know about the other woman who is taking up their slack. Or in your case, man perhaps? Boy, even? I bet your husand really dislikes gays, because only a closeted, resentful homo would even date *you.*
BTW; You expect me to believe you're a poor ol social worker who helps abused kids....whatever.The child abuses occur in inner cities (where you live....Brian admitted to that a long time ago), in single parent homes,and in homes of homo male perverts and perverts in generalFOR THE MOST PART... AND homeschooled kids, again, for the most part are the most happy, thriving, intelligent, and prosperous additions to society--unlike those of your ilk. We both know Brian can't homeschool due to his menal illness, and I'm sure the public schools will certainly help the best they can with the special educators for your son, right! -- so it looks pretty much that either way that you are fucked. Luxury? I don't see it that way for you. Jealous. Really? Really, Mary...you overstep your bounds, there. Your husband sent me photos....not impressed. Can't you keep him on ah leash?? Or is he just with you out of convenience?? I know for a fact that he'd love to have him a hot redheaded good Catholic woman! Perhaps, tonight, you role play ....Now, I'm done with y'all so ---Shove that up your ass,once your husband's done with you!Good night.
As for your husband's penis: he's the one telling me to put a penis in my mouth. ---------------My wife posted that. Not that it matters; morons believe what they will.You remember the tarp? I can see it go to you. Doesn't your religion tell you not to envy? We've had threesomes too... lots of fun... But even if we were to have 'christian-style' missionary sex, it would still be on a different planet from what such a one-dimensional moron as yourself is capable of experiencing. And BTW, you're a pharmacist like I'm a chinchilla.
Tarp sticks in my mind because it;s the grossest thing everyone's ever adnitted to me. It's just way TMI
BTW; You expect me to believe you're a poor ol social worker who helps abused kids....whatever.-----------I suppose twelve years in DCYF isn't good enough for you. And now she's at the welfare office. She's also worked in elderly affairs, and at our MHRH, the 'nut house' which is why she knows exactly what you are. She's done almost as much good in the world, as you've likely done harm with your 'good intentions' and 'christian charity.'
Pliny, Pliny, Whereforth art thou??Hmm?
I wonder if it would make you feel better about all the hot sex we're having here if you knew that whenever I'm really 'going at it' I think about my wife's name and how much it conjures up an image of The Blessed Mother. After all, she's such a sexy bitch, and how hot does she look in blue? I can't for the life of me understand why Joseph didn't fuck the life out of her. Was he gay?
Sins? Oh, I was just talking on a level you all can understand. You dwell on that with glee because you aren't really here for intelligent conversations.You're the holier than thou who thinks you're perfect. You spew your hate and malice because you cannot help yourself. That sort of infantile behavior is all you appear to be capable of. Not once, Brian, in all of these year have you ever spoken like an intelligent gentleman. You've proven that atheists are the dumbest, lowest form of human beings on the earth. That's your gig. I get it! Difference between you and I is that I can go to Confession. Remember, if you die in Mortal sin, without being forgiven, you go to Hell,Brian. It's not too late for you. I'm serious. Think about it.
If I had sent you photos, you would have become an atheist. Insulting my child? Fine. It's not beneath the likes of you. He's two. Nicely done. Stay classy.
Remember, if you die in Mortal sin, without being forgiven, you go to Hell,Brian. -----------------I'll take hell, if heaven's filled with puckered assholes like you, MI.
It's truly disappointing that no one here is willing to answer the hard hitting questions I put forth....I'll check back when Eric posts.
Oh, I was just talking on a level you all can understand. ----------Hey, it's your religion. Tell it to Saint Peter. You're such a henway.
Not insulting your child: but, it's a fact that he has your mental illness genes, is all. Don't lie @ sending the pictures. You're not too bad, but I'm not interested in anyone else but my husband. No worries.
I'm sorry MI. Really. From my heart, I am sorry. If you feel that you must insult the intelligence of my toddler, than you must lead such a sorry little insignificant life, you really don't need anything else to bring you down. I can't imagine living like that. And it takes a lot to make me feel sorry for you, really it does. But you have clearly demonstrated that you are worthy of pity and for that, I will stop insulting you, or "fighting" with you, or whatever you want to call it. For the life you must have, I really do hope that for your sake, there is the afterlife you believe there is. You need something good somewhere.
And, NO, It;s YOUR Religion. You atheists have mouths like sewers and I'm inclined to believe that's where your minds and intelligence levels are. Sorry, just how I see it.
Not insulting your child: but, it's a fact that he has your mental illness genes, is all.---------------That must be why he can find any letter on a standard keyboard when I ask him to press it. And change the channel to all his favorite stations. At two. No, you're right, MI. To you, intelligence actually IS a mental illness. You poor misegotten thing. I pity you and your sloppy brood of homeschooled puppies. I hope they're at least housebroken by now...
Brian, don't worry about me. Worry about yourself. I'm sure God could keep us separated! ;~)I would never want Hell for you. I would never want anything bad for you; as I've said over and over, I wish you could find Joy. As for your wife; no apologies needed. It's all good. You live your life and I'll live mine. I'm not willing to speak to you all about personal matters beyond this point. Try to debate @ the questions I posed way earlier @ healthcare and govt issues and medicare. Atleast Ryan, Jerry and floyd and Pliny know when to stop when they have no facts to debate with. Good night and God bless you. Wishing you all the best. Not interested in any further
Now MI, I know that I didn't send you any pictures, because you have always repulsed me like a steaming pile of ripe feces. And YOU know that I didn't. And I'm sure that all my friends here know it as well. My wife knkows YOU, so of course she's cool with the demented mean girl at high school trying to fuck with the relationship of the guy that she's secretly in love with but who can't stand her. So, given that, given that Mary knows better, and you and I both know for sure that I didn't, I have to ask you, after all that profanity, is it really a good idea to add pernicious lies to your resume of sins? I mean, you're old, right? Proaly cack soon... why risk it all for a lame attempt to zing a hated atheist? Is it really worth it?
As for your wife; no apologies needed. It's all good. You live your life and I'll live mine. I'm not willing to speak to you all about personal matters beyond this point.---------------Wow. Isn't it great how christians can't see irony? As if we needed proof of their mental inferiority, but still... pretty amazing, isn't it?
Actually MI, I was enjoying an evening with the family. Not that I would debate you because, well, you don't know enough about healthcare policy to make it worth my while. It's hard to know where to begin, or even to bother. First stop with the Liars for Christ nonsense. The death panel meme is a complete lie. It is a lie. I am so sick of people who claim to be moral yet have no compunction on lying. To repeat a known lie sullies anything you have to say.Of course prevention and wellness isn't directed at the elderly, it's about shifting focus toward populations where it's going to make a difference.As for your challenging questions - they aren't. Contraceptive payments aren't the problem. It's about focus, priorities, and efficiency.It's about compressing the time to definitive management to the shortest time possible.It's a serious issue to which you nothing to contribute as long as you do nothing but spew Repub talking points memos.
Pliny....perhaps you're worried how it'll make you look to honestly answer a few straight forward questions. I'm not spewing anything-I'm merely thinking and observing and formulating questions to ask. Gee whiz, it TRULY is disappointing to hear cop-out like I don't even know where to start.....that shows me you're afraid to answer the with honest, straighforward answers because it's too scary to see the trut for what it is. Wah, wah, like a baby, it's better for the narcissicist to hide behind their comfy/safe place of DeNile. I realize it's hard to see what's truly coming down the pike, but, honestly, hiding and denying don't help the problem. Be a bigger man than that: face reality head-on and deal with it. The Truth will set you free! Oh, and make sure to NOT use any democratic platitudes/lies/deceptions when you refute an answer to the above 6, 7, or probably 8 straightforward questions. If need be I'll enumerate them for you. -------------------------------------brian: stop your lying about emailing me photos. Be honest here or I just might have to look back into my files...What's that, Mary's jealous? Well, like you say, it's okay to denigrate women. So this time you denigrated her behind her back (no pun intended!)What's the big deal? It was over a year or more ago? Guess you need to be more careful in the future....
MI, Blah blah blah. Speak in a civil tone and ask a reasonable question without embellishing it with Obama hate and I'll be happy to answer. If it's a ridiculous question, I'll ignore it. If it's a known lie like the death panel lie, I'll correct it.As for not knowing where to start, the depth of disinformation you try to pass about healthcare makes it had not to start with healthcare 101.
Mary, oh, my goodness. okay, so you say we can diagnose testicular cancer. Um, okay. So then the question becomes you need to biopsy it. And in order to biopsy it the physician has to first feel/palpate the mans's balls which = otherwise known as testicular SCREENING. BUT, IF TESTICULAR SCREENING IS NO LONGE RECOMMENDED AND NO LONGER PAID FOR --- then --- the physician is no longer obligated to palpate the man's balls. This dilemna puts the male patient in a place where a man could have testicular cancer and not ever know about it until his beloved balls fall off. (US. Preventive Services Task Force) recommends that men do not even do their own routine hand check of their own balls!Hmm, perhaps the man should go to a TSA Agent at his airport of choice to see if he has indeed testicular cancer!I tell you what: Obama promised TRANSPARENT politics and here it is at its best.
the great death panels at worl:Also, screening for Aids isn't any longer necessary, according to the panel, neither PSA-based (prostate screening is considered useless) and that women aged 40-49 should NOT get routine mammograms BECAUSE the cost-savings of not getting it done outweighed the benefit of saving lives(although that Cochrane collaboration cconcluded that mammograms reduced mortality from breast cancer by 115%),,.,but, hey what's 15% when it jjust only your mother,granmother, aunt or friends. Oh, but wait, Michell Obama's in that aage group ......do YOU think she's getting those mammograms? Oh, that's right.....SHE'S *exempt from Obamacare,,,,,,that's right...she'll be eating steak and whatever esle it is that makes her ass and thighs so fat while we'll all be eating soylent green, lol . because it's so good for you, it's from the ocean....yeah, uh huh...
note from above 15% recovery rate for women from breast cancer,not 115%
Pliny, I have never not asked you nicely. Either you want to answer the roughly 8 questions I have in my 2 earliesst posts or you don't. If you don't it will only reflect on you.
Eric, you'd have a lot more street cred around here if you used your "incisive wit" to tackled some of MI's comments...Or at a minimum, simply acknowledged the idiocy...Just saying...
MI I'm not sure where you learned manners to think that you ask nicely or speak in a civil tone. Certainly not from Judith Martin, but whatever."If you don't it will only reflect on you." I know you are but what am I, tactics aren't really very sophisticated beyond about the second grade. I'm just saying.As far as reflecting my character I'm willing to let our respective comment histories speak for themselves.Eight questions? What are they? It was too much trouble to bother to sort anything out of the rant. If you can ask a straight forward question about healthcare policy skipping the political rhetoric, I'm happy to discuss it. My knowledge about such things didn't come out of a serial email, so you might be surprised.Again, stop with the death panel parroting. This isn't am talk radio. Repeating nonsense does not make it real here.If you repeat the phrase again, I'm sorry but there'll be no point in responding to you further.Regarding the changes to screening procedures, there is this thing called science. I know! It's scary but it really works. Science investigates cause and effect. Not rhetorically, mind you. It actually tests things empirically. When it finds that some old recommendations are outdated, it changes them. Many of the old recommendations are outdated based upon actual results. Therefore they have been changed. This constant change concept is no doubt difficult to grasp when one is committed to strictly adhering to ideas from a couple thousand years ago.
Now MI, if you really are interested in a real problem in healthcare screening here is one. The new reform provisions (Obama care if you prefer) require that insurance companies pay for screening colonoscopy. This is a good provision. Screening colonoscopy saves lives. There's science to back doing it. A true death panel wouldn't have bothered.The problem is that insurance co's game this provision.A patient is scheduled for a screening colonoscopy and let's say they find a polyp that needs to be removed. What's the insurance co do? Through the wonders of capitalism, they change the code for the screening test to a therapeutic colonoscopy so that they can now bill the patient. Never mind that it's retroactive. You want to gripe about something to your email clutch, try this one.
"Medicare, unfortunately, has had 500billion taken away from them by the current pres. to fund the Obama healthcare .How do you feel about that? "--------------------------------Ok, let's break down this example of Repub deceit which came from the Repub primary debate which MI is spreading. Bachmann and Romney both lied about this one back in June of 2011. Lied. They lied. It's bullshit, plain and simple.Ok let me elaborate. Medicare costs continue to rise at an unsustainable rate. The population is aging so the problem is even worse than it has been.The 500 billion figure that they rant about is not taken from Medicare to pay for Obama’s healthcare reforms. It is the projected savings from Medicare over 10 years from instituting the provisions of the plan. These savings are what helps pay for reform.How do I feel about that MI? Pretty darn good.Now on to the current cuts to Medicare that have nothing to do with Obama’s reforms. With Republican tax cuts, 2 ruinous wars started by Republicans and a sagging economy, it’s no real surprise that there’s not a lot of extra cash lying around. (I thought that was what you tea baggers wanted after all?) After all, that was the Republican plan - run the economy into the ground then use the budget shortfall to justify cutting safety net programs. But costs continue to rise. Medicare is a huge entitlement program. Yes that’s right. Old people want their entitlement program. Everybody wants their entitlement programs; they just don’t want to pay for anybody else’s. It’s an entitlement program built on a foundation of intense acute care services that are expensive. So in order to maintain basic services, to an expanded population with no new resources, it follows that cuts to clinician reimbursement are about to strike home. But this has nothing, nothing nothing to do with Obama’s reforms. Is it sad that Medicare can’t continue to grow? Maybe. But keep in mind that your elder mother gets services that are denied to millions of Americans. If it’s hard to imagine having elders shouldering a greater care burden, imagine the plight of millions who don’t get any services. Many of whom are children.
This is what happened. I swear it’s true.As the newbie here, I feel kind of embarrassed to even bring it up. I feel like I have paid a visit to new friends in their home for the first time.Not all the family members were there yet but the few that were, welcomed me and it was easy to start conversations. Coffee was served. Everyone was polite. Even Cousin Eric, whom I’ve heard is brilliant but suffers from some mysterious malady in his past and now rumored to be badly damaged, was cautiously respectful.Then without warning, the deranged aunt, Mary Irene, who is kept locked in the basement somehow managed to escape her straitjacket and made a mad dash up the stairs. What an appearance she made, dressed only in some dingy, torn half-slip, spittle flying from her mouth and what looked like dried feces falling from her bare legs and feet. And then Hell broke loose. (to be continued)
(Part Two)With arms flailing and teeth chattering like some crazed chimpanzee, MI ran to the center of the parlor and began spewing green and black ropes of vomit and phlegm from her mouth that managed to find its’ way onto everyone’s clothing in the room (except Cousin Eric, whom I spied slipping away quietly into the kitchen and presumably out of the back door.) A few drops of the noxious stew even landed on my left shoe and immediately begin to sizzle and smoke.Other family members suddenly appeared in the room. Everyone was shouting and cursing and attempting to physically subdue mad old Aunt Mary and avoid getting sprayed with her projectile at the same time. It was of course futile, and eventually, all family members present were covered with the nasty goo.Had my coffee been drugged? Was I hallucinating? It seemed (to me) that smoke tendrils suddenly appeared from nowhere. The smoke quickly expanded until it was actually difficult for me to see. And then I noticed the mirrors through the smoke fog…there seemed to be many mirrors (at least a dozen or more) strategically placed all about the room--even on the floor and the ceiling. And I started to feel nauseous from the putrid odor and all of the smoke and mirrors…(to be continued)
(Part Three)The now billowing clouds of smoke parted for just a second or two and Aunt Mary’s torn slip flew upward in a vertical motion exposing a body so hideous I felt a scream build up from behind my lips. What can I say? Take my word for it readers, you really do not want me to say the words that would describe that gruesome image; you would want to scream too if you gazed upon that visage. And then…I swear I saw this…a monkey…a grinning monkey flew out of her ass! (Thank you, Jerry) It went flying about the room, round and round, circling above us, shouting random obscenities as it soared. And suddenly the screaming monkey began to shrink in size, in a way not unlike a balloon let go from a child’s hand, still circling, still shouting but getting smaller all the time. And with a small farting sound it fell to the floor and there dissolved into a small pool of what looked like particularly odorous, malignant pus. And that’s what happened. I swear it.
Next let's debunk the contraception controversy.Far from being the 'very first thing', the push to get contraceptives covered was to redress a disgrace in many healthcare policies. While Viagra pills were often covered, contraceptives weren't. It's not hard to see why. Contraceptives are a women's health issue and women's health issues usually get shorted. Plus the religious right hates it so that's been a double whammy. Holy people should like contraceptives. People make mistakes. Even, apparently religious ones. So if you want to avoid abortions and aren't willing to pay to care for the children that result, it's better to pass out some contraceptives. Plus there are many conditions in which contraception is merely part of the overall care of the patient.If the religious right objects to 'paying for contraception', keep in mind that many of us are sick of paying for your privileges - you know- the ones that your tax exempt status affords your churches. It's more than fair.
Since I've answered your most obvious questions MI - here's one of mine.What was your mother's career? It's not a trick question. I ask it because this prevalent sense of entitlement to Medicare and Social Security is often based on incorrect math.
I've seen what goes on in Catholic churches MI, talking about smoke being blown up peoples' asses! On the subject of science, what is the first thing that comes to mind when your home-schooled kids see a rainbow? Something about reflection and refraction, or something about a magical sign from God?Are the rainbows we see in sprinkler spray and CD reflection also magical signs from God that HE is not going to repeat his loving act of drowning out the entire planet(again?)?
Eric, you'd have a lot more street cred around here if you used your "incisive wit" to tackled some of MI's comments...Or at a minimum, simply acknowledged the idiocy...-----------------------Another reason we can KNOW that Eric is a liar and a ullshitter. If he had ever done that, he'd definitely have a lot more cred. Very good oservation. His silence applies approval. That's certainly how the Madlady of Shallow sees it. She sees him as her compadre, her knight in shining armor. And so he is, at least so he implies with his silence about her ravings and delusional rants. Eric is such an easy liar to see through. All you have to do, is NOT get drawn into his ass-smoke-machine and look at the whole picture instead. Eric, give Mad Aunt Mary Irene a kiss! Watch out for the feces of course... You're a match made in HEAVEN.... ....and there go my stomach contents, blech....
Mojomantra, I like your story-writing! ;-)She's a piece of work, isn't she? Where else can you go to actually meet and interact with primitive atavistic personality types like her? Why, what with her and Eric, the pathological deceiver for god, and Mike occassionally, this place is like an interactive zoo of the fucked-up. I should sell tickets.
I see this when I imagine MI...
What's that, Mary's jealous? Well, like you say, it's okay to denigrate women. So this time you denigrated her behind her back (no pun intended!)----------------------Oh wow, you really think it worked? That she believed you? Wow... Sure, keep on going with it. Get those 'pictures' that I 'sent you' and post them somewhere we can all see them! I dare you! I double-dog dare you! Because you're doubly a dog. Can't seem to find them? Go for it! Share them with us! Do it! GO FOR IT! Stupid cunt.
Mojo, my wife read your story there, and loved it so much... she's still laughing. She said (between laughs) "That guy should write! I'd read that book to my children!"(Note to crazy aunt mary irene: That's called a joke)
Well, thank you then Brian and wife. I wasn't planning to make it a story but it sort of oozed out over my lunch today. (You owe me one lunch; I had to throw the whole thing away after all that ooze!)Actually I was inspired by you and the other folks on this blog (and Pliny's: Now there's the guy that should be writing books!) All of you seem to be such passionate writers and persuasive debators. And the humor! I'm telling you I'm serious when I say this is my favorite sitcom!
Ed, please tell me that picture is not for real. What the hell is that thing? It looks like a giant Krispy Kreme doughnut hangin' outta there to me!If not a doughnut I don't think I really wanna know.
Speaking of sitcoms, I've got a question for any and all of you about a theory of mine:A few weeks ago I read somewhere that Mitt Romney's favorite sitcom of all time is...SEINFELD! (Actually it's one of my faves, too.)Anyway, since I learned of that, I've been trying to watch newsclips, photo-ops and interviews with MR through a Jerry Seinfeld filter.I'll be damned if the man's not trying to BE Jerry Seinfeld!... especially when he says those really stupid things that seem to come out of left field and makes him look like a cold and dispassionate asshole...I think that's Romney trying to be funny. He goes for that dry, cynical almost dark humor that was (is) Jerry Seinfeld.I don't know. What do you think?As Cousin Eric is want to say, "Anyway, that's my take."
MI, I'm afraid that, like most students, most of my time is devoted to my studies (heck, my posts here are almost always in between other work), and that I simply can't comment intelligently on the topic of Obama's healthcare vis-a-vis medicare. I will say, though, that I shy away from political rhetoric like references to 'death panels,' or even to Obama's supposed 'socialism.' (I used to be a political junkie, but my passion for philosophy, and its commitment to the truth, coupled with my study of ancient Greek politics, has significantly dampened my interest in and enthusiasm for realpolitik. Unlike the vapid MTV types, I recognize my duty *not to vote* if I haven't adequately informed myself of the issues in play at any particular time. If I have the time, I inform myself and vote; if not, I stay home.)"Eric, you'd have a lot more street cred around here if you used your "incisive wit" to tackled some of MI's comments..."She doesn't usually raise issues that interest me, that's all. Believe me, I have no problem criticizing my fellow believers: I take creationists, evolution deniers and ID supporters to take all the time. I assure you, Ryan, if you or Floyd or Brian started posting about Obama and medicare, I wouldn't say a thing in response."Another reason we can KNOW that Eric is a liar and a ullshitter."An ullshitter! Ulshitter! Why, I'm no Protestant, man!
Eric:"An ullshitter! Ulshitter! Why, I'm no Protestant, man!"Wow, Eric! This proves to me that under all your otherwise erudite, if somewhat bombastic rhetoric, there is at least a decent sense of humor. In my eyes, at least, this makes me willing to continue to read your earnest efforts to justify your having fallen for the God phantasy. It would be much more interesting, it seems to me, if you left out your sources and footnote references in favor of your own ideas and thoughts.
floyd, you haven't been in any Catholic churches --if you did you'd have been struck down by God in a flash....shazam!!Not answering any of your questions until you answer all of mine, which I will not be holding my breath over. -----Eric I'm disappointed in you. Though, if you truly are a young student, then good don't vote. Too bad other college kids don't realize that they have no clue...___- Pliny....OH, OK... I get it....this has *nothing* to do with the TRILLION$ 15-- that's F-I-F-T-E-E-N Trillion dollars of OUR debt .....guess you don't care about that huge debtwhich will feed neither senior nor child by the way that the oh-man has wrecklessly spent just in these past few years?? Which is more than the sum-total of all pres. put together. Um, okay. As for your outlook on seniors, I hope you never have to be one or care for one. As for the poor starving children...yeah, let's just kill them off because as Nacy Pelosi said to the world a few years ago: They are a burden on THE STATE. Hypocrites go for abortion but want to screw the seniors to feed all the starving little children. Yeah,got it/!*** If you are truly a physician then define "Mad as a Hatter"... what is the context in which I speak about it????ERIC....listen and learn, okay? ;)
Oh, my Mom started out as a secretary and paid her way through college and was an accountant until she retired.So,you're not shocking and awe-ing me with your so-called Math expertise. Oh, btw: what about that goofy,goofy Atheist in the news today: pretty ballsy move but not too bright...(sure hope HE never gets testicular cancer!)
So, with that fifteen trillion debt, I'm thinking that there will be many, many more poor people in our country for years to come. That was one of my points that I feel I need to emphasize that to all of you Math wizards. Now, Auntie Mary says it's way past all of your bedtimes (Eric,keep studying!). Don't make Auntie Mary have to come through this screen and beat your little tushies with a switch,now..
MI you need to try to stay focused. Let's stick with the subject of Medicare.Why is that the religious right can remember vague passages from 1400 years ago, but not recall that Clinton left office with a budget surplus, W cut revenues while boosting spending, started 2 wars and created a big portion of this deficit that Obama inherited. Ignoring these significant details makes your case pretty shaky. But you should know that already. Why ignore real facts? There not hard to find.I didn't expect you to answer a direct question. But most elderly people end up spending a lot more Medicare dollars than they ever payed in (even adjusted dollars). That makes it an entitlement that they didn't pay for. Just like welfare. The point is that a great nation has to decide whether to care for its less fortunate members. Why is it that so many Christians don't care about their less fortunate brothers and sisters? Why blame them for all the ills in their lives?
Pliny, Really?Firstly, okay, the oh-man has blamed everythin on W...and so are you, for the past 3+ years....and yet...during these past few years...he's basically one-upped the w man and every president right up the line... wracking so much more UNnecessary debt. He's like a little kid with a charge card in the candy/toy shop. And, the problem is he really doesn't care about the debt or else he'd do something positive about it. Stimulus didn't get any help to the American citizens...except for a few of his own cronies.*** Now, let me ask you this; how much per person would all of the stimulus and out of control trillions of spending dollars be if it went STRAIGHT to the needy and poor???You act like right wingers, Christians,etc don'tgive a crap about the downtrodden.....WE have the charities....NOT the ATHEISTS or the STATE. However, the STATE wants to shutdown the freestanding charities and place ITSELF in its *NEWSFLASH-- It's about getting rid of and becoming it's own God. You can't deny this and if you do, you're either an idiot or a coward. We right wingers are about the dignity of each and every life from conception tO the grave. And we don't try to do things to hasten from the one place to the other. If YOU really wanted to help us help the poor; YOU"D donate, you'd get charities up and going....but no, your kind riots and wants anarchy and hate. Yeah, right, like charity's in your vocabulary.You act like it's okay to screw some to care for some others. As humans we must focus on everyone. We do not believe in putting someone in office who willingly wishes to bankrupt this nation to its peril..someone who actively works to push millions out of jobs, thusly losing homes, causing divorces, causing more poor children, etc...etc...and smugly sits back to see all of what he has created BEGS for nanny state help. We can work other ways around these issues with tort reform and salary ceilings for the ultra-rich and with laws that cut out so much red-tape, and on and on and on... but NO,you want it all to go down like it's going and punks like you love this kind of shit...just look what your ilk's doing all over our country --breaking and ruining millions of dollars of businesses and neighborhoods...RATHER than by talking and voting SANELY ....but,NO, you don't want it that way. You want EVERYONE to live in such misery that no one will want to believe in God. And, believe me, God allows so much, but there's going to come a time....when such a GREAT nation falls. We should have fought the crony capitalism DECADES ago, but, we didn't. Why, who knows. Most people like to live in DeNile because that's the easiest thing to do. So, looks like your focus is out of FOCUS. Once again, not shocked, nor awed.
Pliny?Ooooooooh, P L I N Y ??It's "focus time, now, okay?"ANY PHYSICIAN OR MEDICAL STUDENT COULD HAVE ANSWERED THE Q @ THE CONTEXT IN WHICH I SPOKE OF THE MAD AS A HATTER IN7, THAT'S S-E-V-E-N WORDS OR LESS. PS. GOOGLE DOESN'T HAVE THE ANSWER. So, since you haven't answered because you were too focused on your bs-shock-and-awe-feigned.charity...you must only play a doctor on tv. No, that's not right. You're an atheist so you only play doctor in the bedroom and I surely don't wish to go there, so to speak. Heathen's already grossed me out on that topic. Pliny, you let me down, dude. Sorry, smoke and mirrors don't flatter .....
I will not be posting any further atleast not until Lent is over and I've enjoyed Easter. Actually, Eric, I'm having major abd. surgery on Mar.20. if you'd like to keep me in your prayers. My *focus* (and rightly so) is on Our Lord. And not on any detractors/distractors.So, for now, may God bless each of you with all the Best of everything He has to give. Peace.MI.
Pliny,Do you care about and wish to defend the children who are allowed to be murdered,for whatever reason?It's now called "post birth abortion" instead of that nasty word "infanticide".The american ethicists who push this blatantly (and honestly!) call it murder and the termination of that BORN, CHILD/AMERICAN CITIZEN'S LIFE.Should ohbamacare cover this?Or should the murderers do jail time?Or will you come out screaming to the right wingers to how can i help you guys help these poor innocent childrens' lives?! Let's help these poor innocent little ones get adopted! Huh, would you utter such words from the very depths of your mind, much less from your heart and conscience????Something to really contemplate deep within yourself.
Oh, you ARE aware that America's population rate is below zero, eh?And,well, someone should tell Nancy Pelosi that those trillions should have gone into the healthcare pot so that all of the poor and needy could get help. And, Pliny, if you are a physician, tell me, wouldn't you feel a little bit guilty for getting free health care? I mean, wouldn't you rather those $ go to a poor, needy, little child? Or don't you want to help out that little kid by digging into your own pocket? (and don't give me that crap about our tax dollars)C'mon. Convince me. Well, convince yourself. I've decided to post thought-provoking questions for you to work on. And I will take back up responding after Easter. Think, think,think...
MI/Hydra:I must assume that your impending "major abdominal surgery" is what is keeping you awake and causing your ongoing echolalia. With every attempt any of us have made to respond to or otherwise discuss any of the political/religious issues you keep inserting into every discussion on this blog, you manage to come back with unending and unchanging right wing "talking points", most of which are blatantly false or massively distorted versions of reality. When any of us try to point this out to you (as Pliny has recently tried to do), you either change the subject, tell us we are "going to regret" our atheism/liberalism, or become as vitriolic and "potty mouthed" (your term) as any of the sailors I knew when in the Navy during Viet Nam.Once again, it seems to me that the best response to you is NONE, just as we do not respond to the occasional "anonymous" poster using Russian to advertise his/her spam.
Before deciding how best to respond to MI I've gone back and reread all of her posts. It’s really fascinating. I liked Mojomantra’s gothic take on the subject, but I kept coming back to a DSM IV perspective. I do hope that DSM V has a section on the ‘Haters for Christ’ phenomenon. We’ll see soon enough. I do try to be civil about these things but I suppose that's the liberal flaw - being civil. The basic assumption that everyone wants to know the truth - or is mentally capable of processing it. It’s one of Obama’s flaws. There are worse one’s I suppose.It's a silly notion, really, Excluding obvious mental illness, clearly there is this segment of society that is either too racist, ignorant, stupid, or deluded to care about reality. So to put a period on this little exercise in failed communication, I have come to the following conclusions as the only possible explanations: either Ted Kaczynski has earned some web access privileges or Thomas Gassit underwent a sex change.QED
Excluding obvious mental illness, clearly there is this segment of society that is either too racist, ignorant, stupid, or deluded to care about reality. -------------------No, the mental illness was correct. Schizophrenia. She really is mentally ill, extremely so as you can see. It's just that when it's christian mental illness, we can't talk about it because well, they're in the majority. The thing is, the degree of involvment, the degree of the schizophrenia, is in direct correspondence with how deeply they believe in the faith. How fundy they are.
I do try to be civil about these things but I suppose that's the liberal flaw -----------------It is, at least in the public square. Different mind sets. Different world views. To a christian, AN ENEMY being civil and polite shows weakness. They automatically take advantage. (You do realize that such is our status with her? She sees us as the vilest sort of enemy, and hates us accordingly. This she cannot help. It's her programming.)You have to think of them more as animals than people. Rabid perhaps. At any rate, not the noble kind of animals... like hyenas perhaps? Cowardly weak older lions? Yeah... anyhow, when you show such a "weakness," they loathe and despise you for it. That always enboldens them. Being nice to them is a useless exercise. It gains one nothing and loses a considerable amount.(As perhaps Obama has realized)
Niceness doesn't work with *them,* however, it works with sane people. Obama was nice. He was playing to the sane people. He didn't realize that A. The christians were more numerous and organized and had a definite, evil agenda. Stop him at all costs, even their own souls. And B. The sane people, weren't really watching. They had been conditioned to not care, and not vote, and couldn't see the insanity of the insane side. This is, fortunately, changing. In time, I hope.
Of course, if I hate them, I lessen myself, so that sucks, too. A conundrum. So I have to learn to not hate them, which is very hard for me, but still not be nice to them, since it avails one nothing. The est thing that you can do, I think, is show them that they're a fool. Oh, it won't sink in, but at least the people watching will see that and get it. I tend to get profane. Probaly not the best thing... at least they understand it....
Too bad about Santorum. I was really rooting for him. I wish he'd waited to come out with the 'birth control is evil' and 'Kennedy makes me puke' and so forth. Couldn't he have waited to reveal his insanity till after he kicked Romney's ass? I mean, shit. That would have een so cool. And not because I'm afraid of Romney winning, either. Because this country really NEEDED that debate!Blind idiotic faith in stupid things that runs counter to the way in which most people thin and live their lives, versus a secular man using logic delineating the comparison. Now that would have been a fine thing for this country. I can still hope. Maye he'll beat Romney in the end... I wish.
the ‘Haters for Christ’ phenomenon. --------------To do evil, one must believe that it is not evil, but good. If you think about it, it's common sense. Evil people never elieve that they're evil. Quite the opposite. So given that, in order to get people to do REALLY evil things, things so evil that they even hurt the very people we're talking about... to get people to do evil that isn't even in their own interests.... One must needs convince them that it's the very HIGHEST good. Not just a normal kind of good, but the very best kind. Hence, Jesus becomes the very best tool possible. Using the lack of clarity in the bible, it is easy to convince the immature and ignorant of anything one desires. I mean, let's take 'in order to reach salvation, we must be as little children...'This to an adult, means to be open-minded to everything and to love with all your heart. To someone with an agenda, it is something to point to when telling one's flock to not learn anything about the world. Quite the opposite to how it was meant...
“The evil within one’s self usually poses as the good as well. It has truly been said that ‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions.’ –The paving stones are more often the good intentions we carry out than those we do not.The human mind is capable of incredible subtlety in the dodging of the facing of its own iniquity, though if one is very self-observant one can sometimes detect the qlippoth (demons) within through the manifestation within one’s self of any strong irrational dislike. The hidden maggots of one’s own soul are usually projected in righteous indignation upon others. The beam in another’s eye is usually the reflection of the mote in one’s own. (…)”-Gareth Knight, ‘A Precise Guide to Qabalistic Symbolism’
I've posted that before.... I like Gareth Knight's take on it a lot. And here's one I haven't posted before.... pardon the missing 'b's and perhaps 'k's... My keyoard is failing. It speaks of why, if we 'reap' our desires in this world, so many reap sorrow instead. "It may be asked, how is it then that men make for themselves suffering and limitation which they could not desire? It is because they reap not the fruits of fantasy, but the fruits of actuality. They are given *the results of that which they have permitted themselves to desire, not the thing they desire.* To exemplify- the man who desired power would obtain vanity. To obtain power, he would have to desire the qualities which confer power, namely strength, foresight, and wisdom. The man who desires power builds for himself the consciousness of the vain egotist. The man who desires strength, foresight, and wisdom, builds for himself the consciousness of power."
Knight defines true, real love, agape type love, as 'a perfect understanding of the needs of all.'I like it. And so different from how the religious understand it.
Another thing sad about religion is that if you applied 'god's love' to the behavior of one of your daughter's suitors you'd bury the dude in your back yard.We teach our daughters to be wary of any man who:-tells them they are nothing without him;-is volatile and unpredictable;_Who controls who they are friends with;Who isolates them from others;-who tells them they are flawed and unworthy;-who berates their opinions;and so on.Sound like anybody in the Bible?
I liked that, "I'm not answering your simple questions 'til you answer my gibberish."There is no answer for why you imagine that everything Obama does is bad and blame him for everything Bush and others did as well as any attempts to fix it. How could there possibly be?What caused the bank crisis? Deregulation.What's the right-wing 'cure'? More deregulation.Who is trying to help people be covered for their medical expenses?Obviously Obama is. But your side is determined that that must be wrong, because it's Obama's idea.Your would-be leaders have nothing. Gingrich and Bachmann say they can fix world oil prices, but don't mention how?
In six comments (five now) we'll find out if that over 200 post glitch is still in effect. My 'post a comment' screen is different now and has been for a few days, than it ever was. Maybe it was changed? Or is it my comp? Anyody else notice that?
First they took the numbering of the quotes away, next the max of 200, now cannot collapse the quotes, do not know how much more damage they can do unless they just put a stop to everything.
I wonder if the reason the blog is getting harder to deal with is because AOL does not want to be user friendly. Many years ago I dealt with MCI. Had a phone with them for many years, and traveled giving them at least 4 or 5 different address over time. They started to be hard to deal with even though I had never been late with a payment. They continued to give me a hard time for several months, and finally cut me off saying it was the address thing. Shortly later they went bankrupt, and I realized they had planned to go bankrupt, and drove off customers until it happened, That was the first time I realized some companies steal the companies from stock holders by going through bankruptcy. I have seen several companies do just that once I was aware what to look for. Maybe AOL is headed in that direction, By some of the dealingss Romeny was involved in I would not be surprised if he used this trick to fleece the public.
Here I had thought that you had something to do with the change in comment format Brian, trying to fix the 200 limit thingy.Jerry, I had thought that AOL was a browser like firefox or Internet Explorer.Have you tried downloading Firefox and doing your browsing from there?
I use firefox but this blog is aol, is it not? I do not know the correct term for aol but it is not a browser.