"God revealed to me two things about the timing of the rapture. God specifically told me 2007 was the year, because I was only going to have from 3 to 3 1/2 years to spread the message after my book was published. It was published in June 2004. Then He showed me that me and my family were swimming in the swimming pool the day before the rapture. The fact that we were swimming immediately made me think summer. I was not sure if God was showing me summerlike weather or if He was trying to tell me literal summertime. Since literal summer ended on September 21st, God obviously meant it would be summerlike weather here where I live in Florida. It is summerlike weather here the majority of the year. This year 2007 we seem to be breaking all kinds of heatwave records. Our unheated pool is normally too cool to swim in past October. But this year we have stayed in the 80's until now, which is mid December. Our summerlike weather just keeps hanging on. I can not control or manipulate the weather. It is in God's hands. Once our pool water gets around 72 or 73 degrees we close it down for the year. Even if it stays warm enough to swim all year, 2007 is still the year of the rapture. The prophetic dream God gave me was about the rapture and how the rapture related to my own personal life and the town I live in. The prophetic message that I believe God wants me to share is that the rapture of the church (God's children) will happen this year 2007!! "




HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

So, what's the point of gloating about the approaching extinction of the human race, but crowing over the glories of science?

If science can't save mankind from extinction, then what good is it? Save as entertainment. And, if it's primarily entertainment, isn't that money better spent on things that are more directly fun before we all die?

What's the difference between a religous person predicting the end of the world in 2007, and a scientist hypothesizing it might end circa 2030?

If being a scientist doesn't save you from being an ass all your life, what good is it? If the world is going to end, why would anyone want to spend that time with an ass?

"THE ONLY THING I CAN THINK OF IS THAT I RELEASED THE DREAM AT THE WRONG TIME AND GOT THE BOOK PUBLISHED TOO EARLY. MAYBE THE DREAM HAD SOME KIND OF SYMBOLIC MEANING INSTEAD OF A LITERAL MEANING THAT I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIGURE OUT YET. I STILL DO NOT KNOW WHAT I HAVE DONE WRONG AND WHY THE PROPHECY FAILED."


Communication break down, it's always the same

Communication break down, drives me insane.

Happy New Year. Maybe between now and the secular Apocalypse enough will be discovered about human neurochemistry you can be happy for a while despite your best efforts.

Many dems/leftists/liberals on this board predicted we'd bomb Iran.

Just goes to show there are false prophets in all religions.

If the guy read the book with any comprehension he'd have rememberd no one knows the time.

Gullible people are nothing new and without them the liberal ideology of something for nothing would have no traction and there would be no democrat party.

Happy new year.

"Gullible people are nothing new"

Coming from you, that qualifies as a revelation. Welcome to the real world.

For a moment I thought that this was an early Darwin Award entry.

SOB it is!

"Many dems/leftists/liberals on this board predicted we'd bomb Iran."

It ain't over 'til th' fat lady sings...

Besides, most rethug/righty-tighty/neocons on this board (and everywhere else) want to see Iran bombed.

So take yer false prophets/religion crap and file it under flowers and chocolate.

Dave-
What I don't want is Iran to go nuke. If, at the end of the day, diplomacy/bribing doesn't work, then that's the only remaining step and something I'd support. But I don't advocate jumping to that step without reasonably exhausting other channels.

Are you OK with Iran having nukes? If so, why? If not, what exactly would you do if diplomacy fails?

On the rapture topic, no human knows the time or date of His return. And anyone who claims to know is probably someone who's trying to sell you something. Avoid them.

Are you OK with the West having gunpowder? If so, why? ........
-Ancient China

there would be no democrat party.


Posted by Kris_P_Bacon

Except there is no "democrat" party. There is a "Democratic" party however.

"What I don't want is Iran to go nuke."


To think that you can stop any country from aquiring modern technology is completely and totally ludicrous. If Iran wants to, Iran will develop a nuclear weapon eventually, and there's nothing any government can do to stop them. And anybody who thinks Iran would start using nukes if they had 'em is a fucking idiot. N.Korea's got 'em, Pakistan's got 'em, India's got 'em, Russia's got 'em and so fucking what? The only thing that will change if Iran gets a nuke is governments like ours won't be able to threaten them with invasion. Big fucking deal.

And on rapture topic, superstition is yer enemy and should be avoided.

And people think the Muslims are nutty.

"If there is a God, let him strike me down... See? I told you that asdf ljkl asdf lkjlk afkl... oiwerp wepo erpo esdpf!"
-- Steve Martin

What's the difference between a religous person predicting the end of the world in 2007, and a scientist hypothesizing it might end circa 2030?

The difference is: Christians have a perfect two thousand year record of being wrong every year. Some scientists are Christians first, scientists second.

If science can't save mankind from extinction, then what good is it?

It proves that Christian apocalypticism has no basis in scientific fact. I'll take my chances on science.

That God, he's such a kidder!

DAVE-
We disagree on the Iran nuke issue. I think Israel might also have a differing opinion. Whether Iran decides to blow up a nuke or, more likely, use a surrogate to blow up a nuke, arming them as such only brings the world a step closer to destruction.

I think we'll find a way out of this issue without bombing Iran. OTOH, I think Israel won't be so patient. They would be first in line for destruction in an armed Middle East. It's not in our interest to sit back and let our potential adversary load its weapon while we sit back and watch.

Are you OK with Iran having nukes?

Bush is okay with NK having them.

My biggest concern isn't what happens IF Iran gets nukes, mainlt cause Iran isn't half the nutcase the zionists want you to believe it is,but what happens to the existing nukes in Pakistan, which already has ties to al queda, who are nutcases, and is slowly falling apart. I expect if al queda gets one, the plane that delivers it to NY will have F-16 escorts, thanks to the Bushies.

Ray, I've never encountered a man that's read as much Scripture as you appear to have done and not understood it.

Oorah's right. Christ essentially said that the End would come as a complete surprise to everyone. I'll bet you could find that verse more quickly than I could, Ray.

Christ's warnings doesn't stop people from second-guessing Him, or making fun of the second-guessers.

"It proves Christian Apocalypticism has no basis in scientific fact...."

Just silly. It never could, because the Second Coming is by definiiton never be available to the scientific method.

Outside of your knowledge or power, Ray. Outside the power of strange people who name-drop individuals I may actually know better than they.

The problem with science, Ray, is that ultimately it's just people and what people do. So, if you have faith in people, I suppose you're just fine. But if you really don't, I sometimes wonder what the hell your talking about.

"It's not in our interest to sit back and let our potential adversary load its weapon while we sit back and watch."

Fear.

It's whats fer dinner.

"What's the difference between a religous person predicting the end of the world in 2007, and a scientist hypothesizing it might end circa 2030? "


Uh, science?

"Ray, I've never encountered a man that's read as much Scripture as you appear to have done and not understood it."

That's your problem, Zed: Ray does understand it.

If you think you are receiving messages from god, see a doctor. If you have friends who receive messages from god for you----get new friends.

Let's see now, the "end" has been predicted pretty much every year now since the so-called evangelicals began quacking about 120 years ago. How many times do you have to be completely wrong about something so "important" as the "apocalypse" before people just give up on this crap? See you all in 2013!

"Uh, science...."

Missed the point. The point is science is just one more thing that dies when people do. The point also is that I've actually seen many more "scientists" predict human extinction than Christians.

It seems to provide some dull pleasure for them that, after they're gone, everyone has too go eventually as well.

Our understanding of physics will be left for the benefit of roaches, who may well prefer to eat the paper it's printed on.

"Ray does understand it...."

I've read Ray's stuff. He's a bright man but he doesn't care to be bright about this. His ideas are what thoroughgoing bias creates.

"2007, and a scientist hypothesizing it might end circa 2030?"

It's not 2030 yet.
There are plenty of nukes.


"began quacking about 120 years ago"

Actually Jesus told his followers it would be in their lifetimes.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Jesus lied.

"There are plenty of nukes...."

Thanks for making my point.

Maybe science, having created those nukes, will kindly stand in their way after launch?

The point is science is just one more thing that dies when people do.

So is faith. Humans invented god, much like Ron Popeil invented the Showtime Rotisserie.

You DO realize that much, don't you? I have no problem with religion, as long as people realize that it's based on the imagination of other humans. When you start to think that your stories have real-life, global implications for the entirety of humanity is when it starts to be a problem.

Ray, I've never encountered a man that's read as much Scripture as you appear to have done and not understood it.

That's comical Zed. The whole freakin Bible is composed of star myths from the Zodiac. I'm in the process now of building my case with graphics.

Yes I know people have been believing this stuff for thousands of ears. That's why physical evidence is so powerful.

"Thanks for making my point."

Translation: "I'm in over my head, don't know what to say, and absofuckinlootly can't admit I'm wrong."

"So is faith...."

Well, Ness---If that's all there is to it, we are all well and truly fucked. And I mean all of us.

"I have no problem with religion, as long as people realize it's based on the imagination of human beings...."

An idea dealt with directly by Scripture. It actually poses a problem in the binary logic so beloved by the "scientists". If you read the book, you of course know what I'm speaking of immediately.

Ness---As a man of medicine, why don't you tell these nice folks what kind of world we could have when people realize to what extent they might be able to implant humans with animal DNA and make just shitloads of profit from that?

Of course, we could all pray the nukes get us before that happens. And prayer is all we'll have, because I expect you people will follow the money.

"Can't admit I'm wrong...."

It would be easier for you to start at the top of this thread and read everything.

When will these religious types pull their heads out of the ass of the church and the Bible? The whole fucking thing is a ruse to keep morons believing the big lie. How many times do these idiots have to predict the end and then be wrong for you to wake up and smell religion for what it is...bullshit!
Yeah...the end is coming this year! Right. And the check is in the mail;I promise I'll pull out;I won't cum in your mouth,etc.,etc.,etc.

Oorah's right. Christ essentially said that the End would come as a complete surprise to everyone. I'll bet you could find that verse more quickly than I could, Ray.

What Jesus meant is that he didn't know when the astrological Age of Aries would pass to Pisces. He said the end of the AGE. It's all about astrology.

"The whole freaking Bible is composed of star myths from the Zodiac...."

Wonderful. The peer-reviewed journal studies supporting this can be found where?

"Wonderful. The peer-reviewed journal studies supporting this can be found where?"

WTF do you care?

"WTF do you care....?"

I don't know. Since we are talking about "real" things, I just sort of wanted to know what other educated perons had noticed besides Ray.

Our Flat-Earther dejure burbles up "What's the difference between a religous(sic) person predicting the end of the world in 2007, and a scientist hypothesizing it might end circa 2030? "

Because the scientist isn't producing his prediction out of thin air. In that regard, he's got a couple legs up on those who get their "visions" by chatting with imaginary celestial overlords. Maybe you can call up Pat Robertson and have him advise Yahowee Jehovus to zing a meteor or two my way? Ol' Squint & Hiss doesn't have too much luck being right in any of his hoary predictions either. You guys might have better luck taking your apocalyptic cues from the Psychic Friends Network.

Still thumping? I predict you'll start retorting your shop-worn pious generalities in three...two...one...

Zed, with you it's just sophistry. Move along.

If that's all there is to it, we are all well and truly fucked. And I mean all of us.


Well, duh. Humanity most likely will not go on forever. There will be an end eventually, whether it be from our own hands or the eventual fate of space and time itself. That being said, there is no reason to read some sort of mysticism or divinity into that.

If you read the book, you of course know what I'm speaking of immediately.

I don't happen to have a bible on hand, so perhaps you could post the text. I'm not trying to be snide, I'm just curious.

As a man of medicine, why don't you tell these nice folks what kind of world we could have when people realize to what extent they might be able to implant humans with animal DNA and make just shitloads of profit from that?

What is your point? That is but one possible outcome. Whether or not it is a positive one is yet to be seen. However, I can think of many worse outcomes.

And prayer is all we'll have, because I expect you people will follow the money.

Ah yes. Because the world of religion is entirely disconnected from money and other material things.

You gotta be kidding me.

Zed
You have a habit of changing the topic to non sequiturs when I bring up something you don't want to deal with. There were no peer reviewers during Galileo's time either. Evidence is it's own authority.
It doesn't matter to you anyway.

Ol' Squint & Hiss

FF.

I just sort of wanted to know what other educated perons had noticed besides Ray.

Go to Alexa.com and look up usbible.com.

Zed

The stories of the OT bible come from older discarded religions. It has been well documented. Genesis==Adam and Eve--The Garden of Eden--The Flood--the Tower of Babel. All stories from older religions---and the originals make a lot more sense.

Same with the Jesus myth. He wasn't the only one born of a virgin--or resurrected.

I know many of you are very disappointed, but I assure you no one is as disappointed as I am.

Only some whacked out religious extremist could be "disappointed" that the world did not end in 2007.

Thank you for returning, Bowa, like the prodigy sun after his ass kicking.

Bless ewe and a happy new year.

Amen.

He wasn't the only one born of a virgin--or resurrected.

You're missing the point. He's the only one that MATTERED!

-Sincerely,

John Q. Thumper.

Wow - such venom in here for the people of faith! Interestingly, I don't see these faithful folks exactly going mano-a-mano on behalf of the failed predictor, yet you anti-God types are all over 'em like hyenas. You seem to be proselytizing for your anti-religion vs. these others who are only trying to defend their faith. Why are you guys so anti-God?

It seems that people like Oorah are in the majority of real-world Christians who are subtly dismissing the guy with their own more mainstream Christian view. That is, Jesus says no one knows the day or hour. Why do you counterattack so fiercely? It makes you look more Inquisition-like than most Christians I've seen in my relatively short time in the DR. It looks this: BELIEVE IN NON-BELIEF OR BE BRANDED WITH ANY ONE OF A NUMBER OF INSULTING OR FILTHY NAMES.

Mr. Fair, lay off those vodka chasers after the screwdrivers. It just makes you sound like an ass.

Mr. Fair, lay off those vodka chasers after the screwdrivers. It just makes you sound like an ass.
Posted by Bennybenedictus


Benny - not an impressive response on your part. At least make a retort.

FYI: Last night it was Sierra Nevada Pale Ale and then champagne at midnight. I'm sober now.

Hey, here's some late-breaking news: You don't make the rules, you don't define the game.

Whatever you're doing, lay off: you sound like a horse's ass.

Go away, sober up, and come back when you're ready to play with the adults.

Mrfair

In Revelation, Jesus said he would come soon. Don't you think that after 2,000 years, we can safely conclude Jesus was wrong.

Anyway, Jesus time is almost all over. In not too many years the sun will enter Aquarius on the vernal equinox and the Age of Pisces will fade into history.

Thank you for returning, Bowa, like the prodigy sun after his ass kicking.

It's pretty obvious that I'm the one doing the "ass kicking" here.

Why else would I continue to come back? It's because I enjoy seeing how hypocritical the Lefties here are-- as they get all self-righteous talking about peace, diversity and tolerance, and then quickly resort to namecalling and personal attacks the moment they are faced with a challenge to their worldview.

It's hilarious. And you can be sure -- the "jokes" on you, not me.

Hope you have a great 2008. I know I will.

Belief in non-belief? If you are going to say stupid things like that, don't expect to be treated with respect.

Benny, I'm not making up the rules. This IS the Drudge RETORT, no? Offer an actual retort instead of calling people asses and accusing them of being drunk. See above: I made a couple of assertions.

the Age of Pisces will fade into history.

Not to worry. The Moonies stand ready to fill the void.

Mrfair
In Revelation, Jesus said he would come soon. Don't you think that after 2,000 years, we can safely conclude Jesus was wrong.
Anyway, Jesus time is almost all over. In not too many years the sun will enter Aquarius on the vernal equinox and the Age of Pisces will fade into history.
Posted by Ray


Ray - I'll admit that is one of the most controversial verses in the Bible. We could probably create an entire new DR to work on questions like that. But please address the actual questions in my post.

So now atheism is a left wing conspiracy against religion? Go back to your play pen Bowa.

It's pretty obvious that I'm the one doing the "ass kicking" here.

You must have a sore ass.

Actualy I do belive that Jesus hit it on the nail with the in the lifetimes comment.

Sorry folks but the trump and the shout already happened near on 2000 years ago and the elect were all raptured, we are the decendants of what was left.

If you doubt me turn on the news and tell me that you think this is a world that God would allow his elect to live in.

The Jehova's Witnesses hit it 144,000 is all God is taking and they are done gone.

Party on Wayne, Party on Garth

Ray - in any case, I do not agree with Rapture-predictors and never have.

"It's pretty obvious that I'm the one doing the "ass kicking" here.
Posted by Bowa"

You just earned yourself a great big Funny Flag.

Mrfair

In this insane world we live in, I'm driven by a passion for truth.

The issue about the end of the world is only controversial within the constricts of theology. Jesus wasn't predicting the end of the world, he was predicting the end of the Age. At the turn of the first century, the sun was passing from the Age of Aries to the Age of Pisces.

So now atheism is a left wing conspiracy against religion? Go back to your play pen Bowa.

Huh?

When did I say that?

Ray, You must have me confused with someone else on this thread. Guess I have you so unhinged and twisted up that now you are just attributing any comment you disagree with to me.

LOL

May I suggest "ben gay" for that rear of yours. Some of my Liberal friends told me that it works wonders. And they would know, they've had a "sore ass' for a year, from all that kicking President Bush has been doing.

"from all that kicking President Bush has been doing."

Yeah, over 3,900 at last count.

You should be proud.

No limit on the amount of blood that should be expended for partisan purposes, right?

You should be proud.

I am Doc. I am. I am very proud of what our nation and troops are doing to promote democracy and prevent the spread of Islamo-fascism throughout the world.

And the only people I see acting out of partisan purposes instead of for the good of the whole nation is those Democrats in Congress who are determined to hand their own nation a defeat in Iraq. Thankfully, they have not been able to achieve their goals.

And they would know, they've had a "sore ass' for a year, from all that kicking President Bush has been doing.

Only in your dream world kid. One year to go and it's going to be a humdinger. Not to mention the years of aftershock sure to follow. You can't see these thing in your little world

"It's hilarious. And you can be sure -- the "jokes" on you, not me." -Bowa

Bowa, write this down....this may be the only time I agree with you ever.

If you just look at the mockery and foulness of all the non-believers on this thread, you would think they have something about faith that they innately fear worse than any evil mentionable.

Of course, for those that get the bible...not only is it expected, but a strong reinforcement that proves that God is telling the Truth.

Now if you could only see how much bullshit was in the affairs of men that you support.

Two different issues. And you mockers shouldn't treat the word of God like you do the word of Gov't....Read Ephesians 6:12 and you will realize that they are in conflict with each other.

Hey, but what do I know, right????

Bowa,

Near as I can tell politics did not enter this thread until you did. Must you screw up so many conversations?

What's the difference between a religous person predicting the end of the world in 2007, and a scientist hypothesizing it might end circa 2030?

Um, there is actually a connection there.

Too many religious wingnuts have a deep personal faith in what they percieve of as "God's Plan" (tm)

One of the reasons that too little is being done to keep this planet from mass extinction is because of religion.

Like James Baker being put in charge of the enviroment and then saying there's no need to do anything cos the rapture is coming.

Like too many folk on the earth replicating themself until the world's population has reached such dangerous levels.

Can't suggest moderating that cos it's everyone's God given right to reproduce as much as they like cos "God sed so" (tm) ie. "Go forth and multiply".

Beside's ...sex education, birth control and abortion are SO DARNED IMMORAL!

Wot? Like FUCKING ECO-CIDE ISN'T MORESO?

To much faith in "God's Plan (tm) has lead directly to too little faith in man's ability to see the dangers of over-population, over-pollution, and under-education.

People who actually believe in an "End Times" scenario should be kept as far as possible from the levers of governmental control.

Instead America only votes for folks who are religious.

That's just fucking nuts.

Of course it's not just religions fault.

Cognitive dissonance sowed on the subject of global warming and then bought into by brain dead asswipes and sold in blogworld by astroturfers is also a significant contributer.

Be Well.

PS: Bowa thinks Dumbya is "kickin' ass".

Damn, is that moron ever right?

Dumbya don't kick ass he fucks ass.

He's been fucking America and much of the world up the ass since the day he was selected.

Bowa likes being fucked up the ass by Bush.

Been going on so long Bowa don't even need lube no more.

Bowa's the neo-classic "Righty Not-So-Tighty"

Near as I can tell politics did not enter this thread until you did. Must you screw up so many conversations?

Whatsleft, I didn't screw up anything. You can blame "BennyBenedictus" for that. I can't help it if people are so drawn to me that they must make almost every thread about me when I appear.

My initial comment on this thread was in response to the preachers apology to his congregation telling them he was disappointed that his prophecy did not come true. I said, "Only some whacked out religious extremist could be "disappointed" that the world did not end in 2007".

Certainly not a "far-right" position by any means. But enough to get under "BennyBenedictus" skin so much that he needed to deflect the thread and make a comment about me personally saying, "Thank you for returning, Bowa, like the prodigy sun after his ass kicking."

LOL

Given that I don't agree with him...I decided to respond to his comment.

But don't try to blame me for starting this. Take it up with Benny.

"...you wouldn't know truth if it knocked you down and pissed all over you."

You sure as hell didn't notice it.

If you just look at the mockery and foulness of all the non-believers on this thread, you would think they have something about faith that they innately fear worse than any evil mentionable.

Bocaink, my own personal view is that for someone to have such a strong belief that God does not exist, they must first have a strong knowledge of who God is -- and have decided by their definition of what God must be, He does not exist. So in essence, Atheists prove God's existence because they maintain so strongly that they can prove that He does not exist.

As a Christian, I wish I had as strong a knowing as atheists do in God. They seem to know who He should be far better then me. While athesists know God so well they can reject his existence, I have to take it on "Faith" that He exists -- thankfully it is a faith that has been strengthened by a number of life experiences that let's me know that I am not running the show, He is.

Now if you could only see how much bullshit was in the affairs of men that you support.

I think there is always plenty of "bullshit" in the affairs of all men -- those that I support, those that you support -- humans are very fallible, humans make mistakes. My political views are in disagreement with many people here...that doesn't make me wrong, it just means that I have chosen to post to a site that is populated mostly by people who don't share my politics ...in fact, if anything -- the correctness of my views have been strengthened by putting them up against those that disagree-- and I have found few, if any compelling arguments made by anyone here to change my political beliefs at all.

And Spudders,

Please don't cast all believers into such a narrow box. People with and without faith are easily led into stupidity. I don't know where in the bible it says to screw the environment because the rapture is coming. Although, I do think the Earth will destroy people before we destroy the Earth. It's bigger and extinction is proven science.

I think our leadership should have a strong moral belief to make THEMSELVES stronger people...the problem always comes when they think they understand "God's Plan" and really take the works of God into their own hands....that is the sign of a false witness. The whole point is to be good, faithful people who trust God, and leave the affairs of God in God's hands. Anyone who uses the name of God to carry out their own agenda, misses the whole "Render unto Caesar" lesson of Jesus.

The affairs of men should be undertaken from a worldly perspective....likewise, people who try to analyze faith and God through scientific method and philosophical rationalization, do don't understand the first tenet of faith.

Once again...they are too separate entities...and both of the offender-types are as wrong as each other.

That's why I think it is so important to read and understand what the Bible is really about....because it makes this discernment so much easier.

With that said....all the best to ya. You would make a darn fine re-believer.

err that was "don't understand the first tenet of faith"

"do" was a false start....5 letters, repeat second post.

Youknownothing.

You can't handle the truth.

You don't even have a passing relationship with reality in any form.

Truth is so far beyond yer ken it's scary.

Do you believe in the Rapture?

Do you believe in an end times scenario?

Spud don't.

If yer gonna come on here and just hurl insults you will be treated like the WOB that you are.

If you wanna share some of these alleged truths you say are beyond Ray's grasp do go right ahad and attempt to enlighten folks.

Then you'll go from being a mere WOB to a DR laughingstock.

Fer you that's a promotion.

On Topic?

Crazy Seventh Day Adventist lady tries using the Public Transport system as a way of proselytising?

The Bus company was right to kick her ass to the curb.

Be Well.

"I have found few, if any compelling arguments made by anyone here to change my political beliefs at all."

Hence, why I said I can agree with you once.

Your political views are not just different, they are misguided and fueled by a disdain for the fundamental principles of America.

These prognosticators ought to stick to predicting the economy. At least they are bound to get it right once every few years. These rapture folks so far are batting .000 and will continue to do so.

My initial comment on this thread was in response to the preachers apology to his congregation telling them he was disappointed that his prophecy did not come true. I said, "Only some whacked out religious extremist could be "disappointed" that the world did not end in 2007".

First, I did NOT mention any particular comment. My statement, and I quote myself, was:

Near as I can tell politics did not enter this thread until you did.

Oops, wrong thread fer the whole "Bible Bus" thingy but WTF, religious wingnuttery is religious wingnuttery where ere you find it.

I don't know where in the bible it says to screw the environment because the rapture is coming. Although, I do think the Earth will destroy people before we destroy the Earth. It's bigger and extinction is proven science.

~BocaInk

Here's the deal on that. The biggest and most virulently political religious group in the US is undoubtedly the Evangelist crowd. Recently on a CNN special Spud learned of an Evangelical minister of a mega-church who had an enviromental epiphany who tried to preach the message of good stewardship of the earth as being a moral neccessity. Members of his own flock left after he was criticised by leaders of the evDEVILical movement that such talk "took the focus off the proper concerns" of the evDEVILicals.

Which were, incidently, keeping gay folk from achieving equal rights via blocking gay marriage legislation and making abortion illegal (ie contributing to the over-population and misery of the earth)

Basically, they were saying you can't preach that moral, sane and neccessary message because you must spend all your time preaching an immoral one.

Even when you take the rapture out of the equation the politicised evDEVILical movement in the US is part of the problem not part of the solution. An impediment to equality and morality and sustainability not a means toward that end.

Spud left the Catholic Church because Spud outgrew them in a moral sense. If they ever want to catch up to Spud it's them who will have to run to catch up. Spud'll wait for 'em if neccessary but there is no way in hell that Spud is gonna back backwards to them.

Spud was a little disapointed in your perception that the earth is too big to kill and that "the Earth will destroy people before People destroy the earth".

We live in an age where we will, from this point on, continue to hand down to subsequent generations a planet that has been deeply lessened by our deliberate and/or unthinking foolhardiness.

Mass Extinctions at a rate never seen before are already upon us. The coral reefs are dying, the ice caps are melting, the water becomes more and more poisonous, the air becomes more and more polluted, bio mass is disappearing at a stagerring rate both on land and in the sea.

Wot will we tell the succeeding generations?


Oops sorry, we thought the rapture was coming or that Global Warming wasn't caused by man AINT GONNA CUT IT.

Sorry ...we were greedy, ridiculous, stupid, short sighted, propaganda blinded sheeple would be more truthful but it's still a lousy excuse.

Spud comes to teach morality V3.0

There is still time to learn.

Be Well.

Spud, who cares what you believe.........

POSTED BY YOUKNEWWHO


It would seem YOUKNEWWHO DOES!

Your political views are not just different, they are misguided and fueled by a disdain for the fundamental principles of America.

You may believe that, but it is not true. It is because I love this nation and believe in the fundamental principles of America that I believe as I do. And I find it unfortunate that you would accuse me personally of having disdain for this nation that I love so much, when you don't even know me.

In fact, if anything it is this "intolerance" of other peoples viewpoints and the breast beating of the self-righteous that claim America for themselves which is polarizing this nation-- and that intolerance can be found on botht the left and Right.

As I have said many time before, I might think the views of many people here are misguided and wrong and would be terrible for America if put into practice - but I don't believe that they hold those views because of a "disdain for the fundamental principles of America", I am in no position to make that judgement. I don't know anyone here. In fact, I always give people here the benefit of the doubt that though we may disagree, I believe that they believe as they do out of love for this nation -- a love for America that we all share -- Democrat and republican, Liberal or conservative.

And what really saddens me is that so many people here, rather then show a basic respect for the diversity of opinion that can and should exist in this great country -- they choose instead to demonize, dehumanize, and villify those they disagree with with vicious namecalling and personal attacks. No real dialogue is ever possible, once you've reduced another to a hateful name or characterization. And that goes on quite a bit here. That's why I do my best to attack "positions" not "persons" who I disagree with...in order to keep this dialogue open. There are others here who also seem to try and keep away from personal attacks, and those are the people here who make the site enjoyable.

Bee Swell

Spud challenged youknownothing to come up with just one idea, just one truth that he claims to know and wot does he come up with?

Nothing.
Nada.
Bupkiss.

Diddly divided by squat and multiplied by zero.

Thanks fer proving wot a total waste of bandwidth you are.

Spud already knew, of course, but it's always nice to have you confirm it yourself.

Wott a waste you are.

A confirmed anti-Christian.

Hot Air and Hate is all you'll ever have.

Not. Good. Enough.

Spud pities you.

Be Well.

I said you brought politics to this thread.

Whatsleft, when Benny "welcomed" me back by saying that I had got my ass kicked like the prodigal "sun" -- he wasn't talking about my movie reviews -- he was talking about his opinion on the political discussions I have on here all the time. So like I said, Benny is the person that opened the door to the political deflection with his comment. And I just responded.


Does this mean you believe that it's a good idea to post in as many threads as possible as a means of disrupting the entire site? It sure seems that way.

It means that I read the articles and posts I like and respond on point, and then obviously some people here see me posting on the site and decide to launch a personal attack against me and deflect the thread.

So if you are so concerned with thread deflections where I post, then start a "Don't attack Bowa personally anymore" campaign. But leave me out of it.

Later.

It is because I love this nation and believe in the fundamental principles of America that I believe as I do.

All you are doing is cheerleading for the destruction of this country. The first step to coming out of your state of delusion is to recognize it.

Position: Coming up with myriad reasons to go to war and put friends and family into harm's way that change constantly.

Position: Motivating people out of fear of unknown instead of protecting people from known dangers.

Position: Torture and pre-emption as foreign policy

Position: Calling those who do not support status-quo un-American and Subversive.

Postion: Supporting strong-arm Dictators in the name of freedom and democracy

Position: Deregulating wealthy while pushing more regulations on the less wealthy.

Position: Borrowing money from our largest economic rival while spending that money in a way that garners no return on investment.

Position: record budget deficits instead of balanced budgets

Position: Signing Statements, thus eliminating the need for the legislative branch beyond war funding.

Position: Intruding on citizen's privacy rights while refusing any degree of executive-branch transparency.

Position: Using a dead man to scare up the public when the political heat is on

Position: Sounding like a stuttering fool at the public instead of an accomplished statesman.

Position: Obstruction of both environmental and biological scientific breakthroughs on personal grounds.

Position: Alienating allies abroad and refusing diplomatic relations with enemies.

Position: Contracting security operations abroad without holding them accountable for anything.

Position: Continued contracting with said operatives who cannot account for hundreds of billions of federal money.

Position: Abdication of responsibility during large-scale natural disasters in non-Republican geographic areas

Position: Obsessing over security while either allowing the overwhelming majority of cargo into the nation unchecked or by attempting to outsource such security procedures to foreign companies with relations with our supposed enemies.

....

You are right Bowa....I'm willing to talk about the issues ANYTIME you would like.

Atheists prove God's existence because they maintain so strongly that they can prove that He does not exist.

It's impossible to prove a negative.

How can one prove that Unicorns don't exist?
Or Fairies or little green men from Mars?

It's up to religious folk to prove that God exists not vice versa and religious folks can't.

Simple as that.

God is real in the sense that if you don't at least pretend to believe in Him you can get killed by your fellow man. Most athiests are smart enuff to know that. Historically, denial of God or even challenging the tenets of the church was a one way trip to a shallow grave usually via the torture table.

Fer every one man who is lead to his beliefs in God and any specific religion there are a dozen more who are there due to inheritance.

As a Christian, I wish I had as strong a knowing as atheists do in God. They seem to know who He should be far better then me. While athesists know God so well they can reject his existence.

Did Man make God or did God make Man?

That's the only real question.

Someone once sed and Spud is paraphrase...

"I submit to you that we are all athiests. The only difference between a religious man and me is that I believe in one less god than him. Once he understands why I have rejected every other God he might have a clue as to why I reject his"

Here's wot Spud believes...

This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness.

~Dalai Lama

The Dalai Lama is one smart cookie!

"Be Kind"

-Kurt Vonnegut Jr.

Be Well.

All you are doing is cheerleading for the destruction of this country. The first step to coming out of your state of delusion is to recognize it.

back at you Ray. I believe that Bush's "war on terror" policies here, in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world has saved the lives of millions of people around the globe by preventing the rise of Islamo-fascism in the same way, in hindsight, the world wish it could have done in the 1930's and stopped the rise of nazism preventing the horror to come in WW2.

History will determine if Bush was right -- but there is nothing I can do or say that will change your mind, nor you, mine. We approach our worldview from a different perspective and we each think we are right -- but that doesn't make either of us any less patriotic or true Americans.

This lecturing will bounce off Bowa like water off a duck's back. He's a window into the mind of a professional politician. He loves the vicarious feeling of power. Watch.

No sooner did I hit the send button when Bowa posted ahead of me to prove my point. Was I right or was I right.

Bowa: quick history lesson.

Islamo-fascism was a term made up by neoconservatives in the gov't and the media.

Nazism was a term made up by the Nazi party themselves.

Islamo-fascists don't call themselves "Islamo-fascists."

Nazis called themselves "Nazis"

This may not resonate with you, but to those that understand how propaganda works, it does greatly.

That's the difference.

I submit to you that we are all athiests. The only difference between a religious man and me is that I believe in one less god than him. Once he understands why I have rejected every other God he might have a clue as to why I reject his"
-Dethspud


-Sam Harris
Letter to a Christian Nation

As a kid my mom used to take me to see well known evangelists who'd rail on about the 'for sure' ending of the world. First it was 1968, then it was 1970, and on and on. First it was the USSR, then China, then ...

RAY - You wuz right

RAY

Just wanted to make sure I wished a wonderful New Year 2008 to you and your family.

Thanks for being my "financial advisor" of sorts throughout the year. *grin*

Happy New Year 2008 to DOC!

Got the grill and blender going? I'm on my way over.

Difference is people may have been estimating that the govt moves indicated a likelihood of Iran attack but no one claimed God told them it was going to happen.

"when Benny "welcomed" me back by saying that I had got my ass kicked like the prodigal "sun" -- he wasn't talking about my movie reviews --"

That's right, Bowa, I wasn't talking about your "movie reviews." I'm not into dog and pony shows, or donkeys.

I was talking about your performance on the DR, where you regularly get your ass handed to you but are so obtuse you don't realize it.

Bowa, you are one of the classic running gags on the DR.

Enjoy!

Mr Faire: Better luck next time!

*Smooch*

Thanks Chris. And may you sail in a sea of calm in the coming year of turbulence.

Chris, we sometimes disagree and you're one of the better and best-intentioned posters on the DR. Ray, I thoroughly enjoy your website. Both of you, good wishes for the new year.

PS: And Lisa, Oohrah, and AU

PPS: There are others, of course.

PPS: And for those of you who kno who you are, fuck off!

BOCAINK:

Position: Coming up with myriad reasons to go to war and put friends and family into harm's way that change constantly.
There was a myriad of reasons to go to war in both Iraq and Afghnaistation. Some more important then others. The mission has changed as conditions on the ground and the poltiical environment in the world has changed.

Position: Motivating people out of fear of unknown instead of protecting people from known dangers.
I disagree -- Terrorism by Islamic extremist factions is a real and present danger.

Position: Torture and pre-emption as foreign policy
Torture has never been a part of any official US "foreign policy" as you suggest and it is not now. That "torture" happens during wartime is a given -- and based on the self-righteous views of many Lefties here, Lincoln, FDR, Sherman, Grant and many of the remaining WW2 veterans would be put on trial as "war criminals" if they had their way.

As for "pre-emption" -- given that we live in a world in which WMD's exist that could render a nation incapable of defending itself after being struck first -- I believe that a "preemptive defense' is a legitmate response to a "urgent" threat. Just ask Israel. Unfortunately, because the US did not find WMD's in Iraq as we expected, America has lost the authority to use this important tactic for at least a generation.

Position: Calling those who do not support status-quo un-American and Subversive.

I don't do that. And I have stated why in a previous post. On the other hand, you seemed to suggest that I was "un-American" when you said, "Your political views are not just different, they are misguided and fueled by a disdain for the fundamental principles of America." Is that what you are doing? And if so, and you find people who call people who believe as you do "Unamerican" then why would you engage in the same kind of hate?

Postion: Supporting strong-arm Dictators in the name of freedom and democracy.

You will have to be more specific. Politics makes strange bedefellows and our entire history is one in which the US has backed and had relationships with less then savory characters at one time or another to promote US policy at the time.

Position: Deregulating wealthy while pushing more regulations on the less wealthy.

I believe in the free-market and capitalism and disagree with the premise of your comment. And based on the "fundamental principles of America" there is far too much regulation and taxing of private enterprise as it is.

Position: Borrowing money from our largest economic rival while spending that money in a way that garners no return on investment.

If you are asking whether the trade deficit with China is problematic. Then I agree with you.

Position: record budget deficits instead of balanced budgets
We are a nation at war, and one that subsidizes the defense of Westernized nations all over the world by providing protection and allowing them to have much smaller militaries then they would if the US wasn't there for them. Obviously it has become a thankless job, and one in which we get very little return on. But I don't see how we relieve ourselves of our commitments which have increased exponetially since WW2, anytime soon.

Position: Signing Statements, thus eliminating the need for the legislative branch beyond war funding.

Again I disagree with your premise. President's have used signing statements throughout our history to clarify their positions on the bills they are signing into law-- they have no "force" by themselves though they can be used (by the judiciary for example) to understand the intent of the President

Position: Intruding on citizen's privacy rights while refusing any degree of executive-branch transparency.

Again I just disagree with your premise. The Executive branch has acted in accordance with the constitutional separation of powers -- and as a wartime President, Bush has far more transparency and less power then many other Presidents in his position. As for the intrusion on citizen's "privacy rights" that unfairly and dishonestly villifies policies and programs which were set up after 9/11 and have helped to prevent another attack on this country. As I have said before, if there was ever any proof that surfaced that Bush was using these programs to spy and intrude on political enemies, then I would be the first to call for impeachment. But even Dianne feinstein, for example, said the NSA wiretapping was an "impressive program"

Position: Using a dead man to scare up the public when the political heat is on.

Not sure who you mean. But in general I find that the left believes that anything Bush does, or anything that happens in the world is done by him s to manipulate the american public.

Position: Sounding like a stuttering fool at the public instead of an accomplished statesman.
His awkward speech aside, Bush has proven to be an accomplished "stateman" and a very smart politician. Just ask the democrats.

Position: Obstruction of both environmental and biological scientific breakthroughs on personal grounds.
I don't know what breakthroughs you are talking about. I do know that Bush was the first president ever to publicly fund stem cell research though. And he never did anything to block private funding of it.

Position: Alienating allies abroad and refusing diplomatic relations with enemies.
I think we may have allienated the "chattering class"....but it seems liek we have very strong relationships with our allies -- and with France and germany it hasn't been as good as it is now for a long time.

Position: Contracting security operations abroad without holding them accountable for anything.
Again, I disagree with the tone of your comment. That the security operations for travel of diplomats, private contractors, etc. falls outside military jurisdiction is structural problem that needs to be addressed. But I think outfits like "blackwater" get a bad rap, given how dangerous their mission is and how few incidents of questinable activity there has been.

Position: Continued contracting with said operatives who cannot account for hundreds of billions of federal money.

I'm in agreement with you on this one. Heads should roll.

Position: Abdication of responsibility during large-scale natural disasters in non-Republican geographic areas

Again I disagree with your premise -- katrina was primarily a failure of the state and local governments -- and Democrats just scapegoated the Bush adminsitration and tried to put it all on them.

Position: Obsessing over security while either allowing the overwhelming majority of cargo into the nation unchecked or by attempting to outsource such security procedures to foreign companies with relations with our supposed enemies.

We haven't been attacked since 9/11, so knock on wood, so far the Bush administration has obsessed over security in al the right places.


You are right Bowa....I'm willing to talk about the issues ANYTIME you would like.

Me too.

later...have to run.

"later...have to run."

Of course you do.

Toodles, pussy.

Doc - And may you too sail in a sea of calm in the coming year of turbulence.

Thank you, Ray. I'm coming off some knee surgery and am hoping to be able to go diving with my son in March. It's a goal. They do help. Keep up your website. It's a boon to some of us.

Mr Faire: Better luck next time!
*Smooch*
Posted by Bennybenedictus


What?

Does the RNC pay you by the word, Bowa? How else to explain your endless bloviating?

PS: And Lisa, Oohrah, and AU
PPS: There are others, of course.
PPS: And for those of you who kno who you are, fuck off!
Posted by Doc_Sarvis


Doc, not that my fragile ego needs this or anything, but in which category do you place Mr Fair?
;0)

How else to explain your endless bloviating?

POSTED BY BILL_OREILLY


Sad & Lonely...

Does the RNC pay you by the word, Bowa? How else to explain your endless bloviating?
Posted by Bill_OReilly


Bill - it looks like Bowa was simply responding to Boca's long list. Wait - Do you think maybe the DNC is paying Boca by the word?

First of all Spud, extinction is proof that the Earth will kill us before we kill it, not the opposite...the sun will still rise and set without coral reefs. It may become unihabitable, but exist nonetheless. We are in essence arguing the same point....and I wouldn't look to a church or a movement to find God. You can find him in the Bible and in a personal relationship pretty easily...I wouldn't bend backward for any religion myself....but my relationship with God is undeniable. I don't agree with most "religious" people, but I feel the Holy Spirit nonetheless.

As far as Bowa:

I love it....He wants to discuss these issues but he has to run.



Put it this way, like the "Nazi" post I was making, you assume that we are fighting a known enemy. (I agree we have enemies, but they are far from "Known"

But I rebut nonetheless:

"Myriad Reasons" Because every 'legitimate' reason either proved to be false, or not a good enough reason to send our troops into combat. To compare the justifications for Afghanistan and Iraq are just plain laughable.

"Motivating out of fear" Don't you remember 2002? Do I even have to rebut that....how 'bout "it's a matter of 'when' not if."

Diplomacy: Are France and Germany our most important allies???? Anybody remember "Freedom Fries." Some on the Right were even half-seriously talking about invading France to teach them a lesson.

"UnAmerican" Please refer to the constitution. UnAmerican in my view is when people violate the constitution to promote their own form of governance, not when you dissent against people who violate the constitution.

"Pre-emption" Under a "pre-emptive" doctrine, anybody could pre-emptively attack anybody, especially since we set the standard that you don't have to be correct about WMD's just suspicious....ummm and btw: We, by all accounts have more WMD's than anybody, and our judgment hasn't been all that great....Any nation in the world could use the same logic to attack us, and with greater justification.

Katrina was a "National Disaster" not a "local disaster," just like the Florida Hurricanes were in 2004. Not to mention, that it would have been a great showcase as to how well our internal defense can perform under crisis, instead of the piss-poor and tragic result that it wrought.

"Strong-Armed Dictators" See Mushie and Putie, not that we really supported Russia materially anyway, which led to the re-nationalism phenomena to begin with. But Bush and Putie are "soul mates" by definition.

"Using a dead man..." Osama is dead, that's why he is only important enough to show on audiotape during election times.

Unless I'm mistaken, the Supreme Court ruled that that subversion of the FISA courts were unconstitutional, as well as many other issues that run in direct contrast to the courts and the constitution.

You are also conveniently forgetting the 2004 Election skirmish over Stem Cell Research, which may now not even require discarding embryos anyway. But hey, good thing we let Korea get that patent...I'm sure our researchers would never have figured that out with a little more Governmental support...Yet we bomb bomb bomb!

And as far as Bush the stuttering John...I'm embarrassed personally that represents me to the world.

As for the rest, oh screw it!

BTW, the 'rapture' stuff is not biblical. It was concocted by a cult called the Millerites and refined by the Watchtower Society -- making it about 150 years old.

It's Christian Science Fiction.

OMG!

Oohrah et al:

You are all....Morons.

Drop the damn Bible and step away from the fuckin' religion ALREADY!

It seems the room inexplicably has its collective panties in a twist over something that we seem to agree on: this predictor guy is a KNUCKLEHEAD!

Now let's go and find a topic we really disagree on so we can insult each with true satisfaction!

OMG!
Oohrah et al:
You are all....Morons.
Drop the damn Bible and step away from the fuckin' religion ALREADY!
Posted by DUMPLING1


See? More proselytizing in the DR.

Hey Dumpy: At least Oorah & Co. are not trying to convert you to their way of thinking.

"Katrina was a "National Disaster" not a "local disaster," just like..."

Ha!

Katrina was Louisiana's disaster for building a city in a fucking bowl.

ummm...considering that 50 percent of the US population lives on a coastline, prone to Hurricanes your sentiments are the same right????

Where do you live pray tell?

Or should we all move to Kansas instead....oh wait, TORNADO!! RUN!!!!

Or earthquake, or fires, or Iowans, or locusts.

Most of us are prone to some sort of disaster.

Now let's go and find a topic we really disagree on so we can insult each with true satisfaction!

Hey we can't talk this way to people face to face. We need an outlet somewhere and this is it.

Lemme put it to you another way, I lived in Tampa for five years...great city, a little too crowded for my liking.

Save for the overabundance of Strip Clubs and Waffle Houses, nobody has much bad to say about Tampa really. It has even been picked to host another Superbowl in a few years.

In 2004, if Hurricane Charley would have run the course it was predicted to do until the last hour, Tampa would have been submerged just like NOLA.

Do you really think that GWB and co. wouldn't have rushed to the scene to help his brother like they did for the rest of the state because the city was built on low ground???

I'll save you the time to respond: OF COURSE NOT!

Now let's go and find a topic we really disagree on so we can insult each with true satisfaction!
Hey we can't talk this way to people face to face. We need an outlet somewhere and this is it.
Posted by Ray


Ray - a good outlet for sure. You are not one to toss out gratuitous insults just to puff yourself up and that is appreciated. My comment above should have included a Chris-type ::grin::

Do you really think that GWB and co. wouldn't have rushed to the scene to help his brother like they did for the rest of the state because the city was built on low ground???

I'll save you the time to respond: OF COURSE NOT!

Posted by bocaink


Boca - genuinely curious: in case of such an emergency, how would you compare the local/state team (Mayor of Tampa/Gov of FL) and emergency capabilities vs. Nagin/Blanco & Co.?

Bocaink, It actually goes like this:

Bush took over a economy already in recession. The supposed budget surplus was a fairy tale built on military cuts and the internet bubble. During the final years of Clinton unemployment went from 3.7% to over 5%. The Nasdaq dropped from 5000 points to around 2000 points a drop of 60%. Economic growth came to a standstill, but yet he still had time to come all over that blue dress and pardon drug dealers and personal friends.

Bill Clinton did nothing to stop the terrorist who attacked us on or before 911. Bill Clinton did not make the FBI and CIA share intelligence. Bill Clinton did not capture the perpertrators of the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, Kholbar Towers, or our African Embassies. Bush has prevented all attacks since 911 in this country. Bush drove both Al Qaeda and the Taliban out of Afghanistan. Now it seems that we are winning against Al Qaeda in Iraq also.

As for alienating our allies, France elected a conservative pro-american president and so did canada.

You can swallow all the democratic talking points you want but I know better.

Bee Swell

What scares the treacle out of me is following a car which sports the bumper sticker "in case of rapture vehicle will be unmanned" I mean really, should that person be allowed behind the wheel?

I saw an episode of Dr. Who recently which was interesting, I think it was called the "End of the World" when Earth finally got too close to the sun and burned up. Rose (the Dr.'s side kick) said "oh all the poor people" and the Dr. said "there are no people Rose, they left long ago, spreading out throughout the galaxy". I am sure that we are going to royally fuck up this planet, and like the selfish, little rats that we are we will then pack our bags and head off to destroy somewhere else. I have very little confidence of human beings being responsible stewards of any planet that they choose to infect, we are, as a species, just too self centered.

Litlebritdifrnt wrote,

"Dr. said "there are no people Rose, they left long ago, spreading out throughout the galaxy". I am sure that we are going to royally fuck up this planet, and like the selfish, little rats that we are we will then pack our bags and head off to destroy somewhere else."

Don't worry Tom Cruise has a spot for you in Scientology.

Bee Swell

Doc, not that my fragile ego needs this or anything, but in which category do you place Mr Fair?
;0)

A keeper

Ray, I've never encountered a man that's read as much Scripture as you appear to have done and not understood it.

That's comical Zed. The whole freakin Bible is composed of star myths from the Zodiac. I'm in the process now of building my case with graphics.

Yes I know people have been believing this stuff for thousands of ears. That's why physical evidence is so powerful.

Posted by Ray at 2008-01-01 01:07 PM |


Ray's desires to be the high priest of when you're dead you're dead that's it. NO-THING. All this learning for naught. But Ray's proud, he's learned a bunch and NO-THING at the same time. It's really NO-THING to be quite proud of.

That's quite a lil jail Ray's built for himself and he wants lots n lots of company.

Join Ray in his quest for NO-THING, you've got NO-THING to lose. You can trust Ray. He's go his own website with lots and lots of proof of NO-THING.

Once again, I almost fell off the chair laughing YKW.

I don't think I've ever seen a democratic talking point in my life...However, I see you have parroted the old Repub talking points from '04.

BTW, It's a known fact that I voted for Bush in '04...so you see well...ummm....err......

Under Clinton's watch every domestic terrorism suspect on our soil was apprehended and prosecuted. And like your '04 predecessors love to espouse, what does Clinton have to do with what Bush has done again????

The economy was heading toward a downturn in 2000 no doubt, but we still had a strong middle class regardless, two towers in NYC, a budget surplus no matter how you want to discredit it.

BTW What post 9/11 attacks that Bush prevented are you referring to??? If you mean that FBI-baited abortion in Miami, I give him all the credit in the world...If you mean the DC snipers, the Anthrax mailings, or any post 9/11 attack in Iraq, I beg to differ greatly.

Oh and the point is not lost on you that the Republicans were even unsuccessful at prosecuting a Blowjob.

Try a paper bag instead....I hear they are really easy to prosecute.

Tell me left wing lunatics if you don't believe in God how do you explain your support for the delusional demcratic candidates like Hillary and Obama who do?

A keeper
Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Right on! We will agree and disagree but we will do so with decorum. And Happy New Year.

Not that long ago Ray was making light (mocking) language. If I remeber correctly even going so far as the posit it for the ills of humanity.

Ray's an interesting study, though his emptiness is self inflicted he just can't come to grasp with SOMETHING larger than self.

Just be good because good is good even if there's really no such thing as good. Afterall, it's only a word. Right, Ray?

Bush took over a economy already in recession.

The 2000 recession was brought on partly because investments in the Internet companies was wasted. This is fairly typical of new markets. People are afraid not to be in the game, and they put money into dubious schemes.

Then again, the stock market itself was overblown. Greenspan responded by tightening credit and raising interest rates, choking the economy because of inflationary fears.

Another bubble was created by the Y2K glitch. Responding to demand all of the computer manufacturers built new fab plants to supply business markets. By June of 2000 there was a price war that would cripple Compaq and many smaller firms.

Add in firms like Lucent who invested in the wrong technology, and the accounting scandals led by Enron, and you have a serious loss of confidence in the investment market. This wasn't helped by offshore investment in countries in Asia, notably China, where companies like WalMart used surrogates to take advantage of low wages and even slave labor.

Of course to pretend that there's any major difference between the two parties when it comes to corporate business is to ignore the facts.

The one thing Ralph Nadar said that holds true today is that the ONLY difference between them is how fast they fall to their knees at the altar of big business.

The only bright note as he head into the New Year is that Ron Paul raised $19,540,000 in the 4th quarter, and now he can start running some ads. All the rest are still sucking on the crack pipe of DC politics. May they all be Raptured up and disappear.

Ham sandwiches are pretty easy to indict as well.

"Evidence is it's own authority..."

Is not even logical.

Right on! We will agree and disagree but we will do so with decorum. And Happy New Year.

That's a New Years' resolution I'll try and keep! Best wishes for the coming annual turn of the wheel to you and yours.

I was just curious about what historians and archeologists thought of you views, Ray. Even athiest ones.

Your position is you don't have to give a damn. That's fine, but it's not scholarship, and sure as hell not science.

Not I Doc, with all due respect....I plan on spending 2008 smacking everyone back into the middle...

It's about time.

In Revelation, Jesus said he would come soon. Don't you think that after 2,000 years, we can safely conclude Jesus was wrong.

Anyway, Jesus time is almost all over. In not too many years the sun will enter Aquarius on the vernal equinox and the Age of Pisces will fade into history.

Posted by Ray at 2008-01-01 01:48 PM |


Indeed, never mind that ONE DAY of the Lord is like a thousand to men.

Or God is not slack.

Blah blah blah, Ray.

As one of the posters has already stated. Amazing how little of the book/books you actually comprehend for a guy that claims to have read/re-read and re-read some more.

There's a verse in there about your types, Ray. I won't bother citing it as I'm almost sure you're already aware.

Why don't you cite the verse I'm refering to for us, Ray?

Bocaink wrote,

"Under Clinton's watch every domestic terrorism suspect on our soil was apprehended and prosecuted."

Lets see I believe all of the 19 highjackers were in the country under Bill Clinton. Were they apprehended? Were they prosecuted? Did the FBI under Clinton not know they were here and taking flying classes?

There was no apprehension for the african embassies until Bush was president, no U.S.S. Cole apprehension until Bush was president.

Basically Bill Clinton sat on his ass while the storm was brewing. All he cared about were polls, getting pussy, stealing white house furniture, his shitty library, and pardoning his friends.

The only bright note as he head into the New Year is that Ron Paul raised $19,540,000 in the 4th quarter, and now he can start running some ads. All the rest are still sucking on the crack pipe of DC politics. May they all be Raptured up and disappear.

Posted by OzarkAggie at 2008-01-01 06:33 PM |


Tell me what Ron Paul has done in the last 20/25 years of his tenure.

His history doesn't match his rhetoric.

I'll wait.

Well, Bocaink, that was the Widow Cliquot talking. It's just a New Year's resolution, afterall. . .

And how was Clinton responsible for prosecuting people who did not commit a terrorist act again??? Sorry, the pre-cogs must have been in the shop that week.

I'm talking about The OK city bombings and the WTC '93 bombings...

He was even overzealous with Waco and Ruby Ridge, but I'm sure that would have been acceptable 'pre-emption' if Bush were in charge.

No other attacks occurred on US soil during Clinton's watch.

He was accused of 'wagging the dog' in response to the Embassy bombings and the Cole happened as he was leaving office...leaving the realistic proposition iffy at best. Both attacks were not on US soil.

Once again, why are still being obsessed with Clinton when Bush's record of incompetence is staring you in the face? It's 2008 for crying out loud (thank God)

Ok, sorry for the hasty contextual word omissions..but you still get the point.



And Doc, that was just a generalized resolution. More or less, don't be surprised if I dish a little out to everyone regardless of party.

But I'm confounded, what is Widow Cliquot????

If it's alcohol, I could only wish right now.

OIC now....nahh, a little J. Roget last night.

I've just become inspired by the poetic waxing of one Mr. Tadowe. I figured his days on this planet are numbered, so someone has to start taking reps on the sideline.

He was even overzealous with Waco

He waited far too long before he went after the chrito-wackos,because the christian right would have benen upset, as they were when he eventually went in. Koresh was a mass murderer and child molester but all the righties can whine about is Clinton didn't give him more time to molest the kids.

If Koresh had been muslim the Republicans would have been howling if Clinton hadn't nuked him immediately. But because he was a "christian" his ATF killing ways were a-okay with them.

Tell me what Ron Paul has done in the last 20/25 years of his tenure.

He's been a lone voice in the wilderness krispy. Just one of 435 members of the House. Not much he can do in that situation.

Yet he has also been consistent in his support of the Constitution. Perhaps you'd be well advised to consider what he has opposed, or bills he's tried to sponsor.

Personally I never thought I could have more disdain for a President than I had for Bubba Bill, but little George has managed to change my thinking.

Unfortunately the European invasion of this country brought boatloads of religious wackos, including the ones who believe in the Rapture, and so we are stuck with a population consisting of these Fool's offspring. It's hard to hope for better, yet Ron Paul does offer that opportunity.

Can you believe it's 2007? I already wrote a check and had to double-check myself when I almost wrote 2006! I hope you had a wonderful New Year's celebration.
Today on the show we talked about New Year's predictions, specifically from evangelist Pat Robertson. His big prediction is that a major terrorist attack will happen somewhere in the U.S. after September of this year and it will affect millions of people. He says he received word from God about this event. He's put out predictions before -- some right and some wrong. Hopefully he will not be right about this one.

Of course, Pat also supported RudiG's failed attempt at the nomination, so what do you expect. Guy couldn't tell you where the sun rises, with a compass and three guesses.

Join Ray in his quest for NO-THING, you've got NO-THING to lose. You can trust Ray. He's go his own website with lots and lots of proof of NO-THING.

Posted by Kris_P_Bacon at 2008-01-01 06:29

Comments like that to be expected from someone who's been running away from reality all his life.

Bush has prevented all attacks since 911 in this country. Bush drove both Al Qaeda and the Taliban out of Afghanistan.

Clinton prevented attacks in this country longer than Bush did. If he hadn't inherited WTC1 from Poppy Bush, there never would have been an alqueda attack in America on his watch. Al queda and the taliban are surging in afghanistan, according to the Pentagon. Something to do with not having enough troops to do the job.
Which is what Bush is best at.
By the way,it's been 6 1/2 years since 9-11. Where's Osama,( smoked out dead or alive yet?) and why are we still fighting in afghanistan and Iraq?
Oh yeah, Youknowwho is the worst Commander-in-Chief in history.

"Dec. 29, 1992



Al Qaeda's First Attack


In an apparent plot to kill U.S. servicemen headed to Somalia, a bomb explodes at a hotel in Aden, Yemen and kills two Austrian tourists. Two Yemeni Muslims -- who had been trained in Afghanistan -- are injured and later arrested. Intelligence officials believe this is Al Qaeda's first attack.

The Associated Press later reports that two of the Yemenis detained for the 2000 attack on the USS Cole were involved both in this 1992 Aden bombing, and a series of other attacks in 1993."

So basically its all George H Bush's fault. No surprise, Republicans fuck up pretty much everything they do.

"what is Widow Cliquot????"

Sorry, champagne, Veuve (the widow) Clicquot. Really great, special-occasion stuff.

A good new year to you.

"Boca - genuinely curious: in case of such an emergency, how would you compare the local/state team (Mayor of Tampa/Gov of FL) and emergency capabilities vs. Nagin/Blanco & Co.?"- Mr. Fair.


Sorry I missed that post...The mayor of Tampa was (I think still is Pam Iorio)...she is a moderate Republican and an extremely delightful individual. We never had a real crisis in the city so it is very hard to judge. To speculate, however, I believe she would have deferred to the State, run at the time by Jeb Bush. As evidenced in the 2004 hurricanes elsewhere, Jeb was able to get plenty of help from his big brother...muttering something about how he was owed a favor for 2000 and 'red state,' whatever that was supposed to mean. :)

Seriously, though. When the 04 hurricanes hit, no federal or state resource was spared in the immediate aftermath. What came to pass after the initial response, however, was much of the same post-hurricane problems that happened in NOLA...non-payment of claims, contractor fraud, endless rows of FEMA housing lasting for years, and rubble in the Hurricane's path as of 2007.

Whereas we saw the horrors on TV six and seven days after Katrina, however, in FLA, rows of cleanup vehicles and supply trucks clogged the interstates coming from all over the nation. Nobody was barred entry into any area, and help arrived quickly.

From an eyewittness perspective, the difference was stark.

And to you as well Doc.

"You subversive liberal/communist anti-American Ilk"

j/k

As one of the posters has already stated. Amazing how little of the book/books you actually comprehend for a guy that claims to have read/re-read and re-read some more.

BTW Kris, like all the others, I could pick you apart all day long. You're just barking like a little mutt from a distance. I have facts and evidence. The joke is that you're the one who has nothing and believes in nothing.

You can swallow all the democratic talking points you want but I know better.

YOU. KNOW. NOTHING.

But at least you brought out some bullshit right wing talking points for Spud to demolish.

Let's begin, shall we?

Bush took over a economy already in recession. The supposed budget surplus was a fairy tale built on military cuts and the internet bubble. During the final years of Clinton unemployment went from 3.7% to over 5%. The Nasdaq dropped from 5000 points to around 2000 points a drop of 60%. Economic growth came to a standstill, but yet he still had time to come all over that blue dress and pardon drug dealers and personal friends.

Bush took over the best economy the coutry had seen since the early seventies.

Not being as big a whore to the MIC as BushCo are he managed to save a couple of bucks here and there and was getting things ready to actually make a dent in the obsene natioal debt.

Dumbya took that surplus and turned into the biggest deficit in the history of the country. BushCo turned DC into an ethics free zone allowing the climate to emerge which practically encouraged the sub prime housing melt down which has devestated the US currency in international markets. There is no longer any trust in the US dollar nor should there be. After 7 years of reckless, feckless spending and borrowing BushCo has turned the US from an economic powerhouse to a country that no longer manufactures anything but bombs and movies (many of which are bombs in their own right). Bush makes the angel of death look like a piker in direct comparison. The Real unemployment figures in the US are no longer reliable because of the way they are now factored but Spud suspects that they are worse than ever.

Wot else ya got?

Bill Clinton did nothing to stop the terrorist who attacked us on or before 911. Bill Clinton did not make the FBI and CIA share intelligence. Bill Clinton did not capture the perpertrators of the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, Kholbar Towers, or our African Embassies. Bush has prevented all attacks since 911 in this country. Bush drove both Al Qaeda and the Taliban out of Afghanistan. Now it seems that we are winning against Al Qaeda in Iraq also.

Al Quaeda in Iraq? The whole reason there are any AQ in Iraq is because of GWB. Bill Clinton did not allow any serious attacks to take place in the US on his watch. Bush sat on his hands and stoppped the people who's job it was to protect the US from such attacks from doing their jobs. Bush was, in effect, the 20th hijacker on 9/11. Clinton tried to get OSB but Bush allowed Bin Ladens family to flee the US the day after 9/11 and then allowed OSB himself to flee into the FATA in Pakistan later on like the old family friend he is. The world muslim population is now much more inclined towards jihadism and terrorism because of thenumber of Muslim that have been killed because of GWB's policies to date.

TBC.

Be Well.

As for alienating our allies, France elected a conservative pro-american president and so did canada.

France elected the conservative Sarkosy in order to deal with the angry islamists in his midst who have been enraged by Bush's policies.

Canada elected a Conservative (who is more liberal than most American Democrats, btw) in order to oust a party that had been in power too long and was growing too corrupt. Canada's love affair with conservatism is practically over by now, due in large part to the way American fundie conservatives have tried to over-influence the new PM.

Clinton was a philanderer.

Bush is a War Criminal.

Clinton pardoned Marc Rich.

Bush communted the sentence of his lawyer Scooter Libby for the traitorous act of betraying an NOC CIA spook trying to keep WMD out of the hands of madman.

Bush will no doubt, if he's allowed to serve out his term without being impeached, indicted and imprisoned, also throw out a whack of blanket pardons as every president has done since the shameful practise began.

It's like trying to argue with an apologist for Mussolini talking to YKW. "Sure he was a vicous, ignorant, despotic madman but at least the trains ran on time!" Thing about Bush is not even the trains run on time under his admin.

Bush is quite simply the worst president in the history of the United States and Cheney is the worst Veep ever. Their co-presidency has been one of the most shameful chapters in american history.

Inarguably.

Be Well.

I was born in Canada and lived half my life there and there is not a single point that you made that I would disagree with. Bravo.

"Inarguably."

What is it with you guysgals always moving to eliminate any discussion?

Taking Gore a little to literal, yes?

Inarguably.

Whenever someone says that, I know that it is very "arguable".

Clinton swept too many things under the rug and failed to make the tough choices necessary to protect this nation against the rising tide of Islamic extremism. His was a terrible "peacetime" Presidency that squandered many opportunities to strenghthen the US position in the world and safeguard America, its interests and it's allies.

It was on Clinton's watch that the "loopholes" that led to 9/11 were created. It was on his watch that the perception of the US as a weak superpower incapable of defending itself against acts of war was firmly planted in the minds of Islamic militants around the globe. To blame Bush for not undoing all the terrible decisions Clinton made over his 8 years in the 8 short months he had prior to 9/11 is disingenuous to say the least.

History will be increasingly unkind to Clinton.

As for Bush's legacy, as I have said before- the jury is still out. Only time will tell if he primed the pump to allow for a moderate, pro-western transformation of the Middle East or lit the fuse to WW3. Certainly, the failure to find WMD's was the biggest intel blunder in US history if not the world's. And if we knew then what we knew now -- the "urgent" imperative to invade Saddam would not have existed. But nobody has the luxury of hindsight in the moment like all the armchair quarterbacks on the Left and in the left-leaning Press have now.

And the reason Bush hasn't been impeached and there hasn't even been an investigation into his actions in the run up to the war is because for all the accusations, namecalling, and heated rhetoric calling Bush a war criminal and comparing him to Hitler and Mussolini, etc. they won't stand up to real scrutiny. The democrats just don't have the credible evidence necessary to come close to proving that "Bush lied us into war". The fact is that the consensus view by both Clinton, Bush and numerous intel agencies around the world was that Saddam did have stockpiles of WMD's and was trying to build and get more. It is only in hindsight, that the few who dissented from this view look like geniuses -- in the same way a horseplayer that picks a longshot that wins does. Lost in all the hyperbole by the Left is the fact that Saddam had every reason to bluff the world and especially his neighbors into believing that he was more powerful then he was. In fact, the generals in his inner circle were shocked when Saddam told them just 6 weeks before the invasion that they would not have the WMD's they had expected to use against us.

It should also be remembered that the US policy of regime change for Iraq had been in place since 1999. And after 9/11, a murderous dictator like Saddam with a long track record of support of terrorism, attacking neighbors, and thumbing his nose at the world -- was too dangerous to just leave in power. And those that believe Saddam was just a benign threat are just naive. His history said otherwise. So whether we eventually removed Saddam by force with the unanimous support of the security council or aggressively supported a democratic insurgency against his regime -- Saddam had to go if there was to be any hope of lighting a fire for democracy, individual liberty and the free market in the Middle east.

Clinton swept too many things under the rug and failed to make the tough choices necessary to protect this nation against the rising tide of Islamic extremism. His was a terrible "peacetime" Presidency that squandered many opportunities to strenghthen the US position in the world and safeguard America, its interests and it's allies.

Bowa-
re: "As for Bush's legacy, as I have said before- the jury is still out."

As it is on the topic of both natural selection and anthropogenic climate change according to Bush.

For those that think Bush has strengthened our position in the world I need only point to the falling dollar and the scorn and ridicule heaped upon the US by pretty much every industrialized nation on the planet. As far as Bush's expenditure of military might, he has alienated our allies and strengthened our enemies; he has bungled the Afghan war with his foray into Iraq; he has botched the search for bin Laden, and in the process bogged the military down in a nation that was no threat to the US.
For those who say that Iraq was an actual threat to the US (Bowa and others), I challenge you to document it. While there was all sorts of saber-rattling about Saddam, no serious case had ever been made that Saddam was an immediate or serious threat to the US until the Bush administration made it, and you bought it.

Bowa-
re: "In fact, the generals in his inner circle were shocked when Saddam told them just 6 weeks before the invasion that they would not have the WMD's they had expected to use against us."

Really? I'd like to have a link to that info. If it's an unsourced editorial, you can skip it.

Bowa-
One more thing before I go:

You wrote, "It is only in hindsight, that the few who dissented from this view look like geniuses -- in the same way a horseplayer that picks a longshot that wins does."

Your ultimate point seems to be that you were really fucking wrong, as were those whom you listened to and respected. And now we should listen to you and those others who were really fucking wrong about a more than significant policy disaster... because the opinions and conclusions of those who differed with your conclusions are meaningless according to you and your esteemed policy analysts, who were soooo fucking wrong that it will haunt the US and the world for decades?

And you don't respect the opinions of those who KNEW you were wrong at the time because your only exposure to those analyses were filtered and corrupted by those people who were REALLY FUCKING WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING!

Happy new year.

Bowa-
You don't get it. Party affiliation has nothing to do with truth.
(Oh, by the way, thanks for reminding us all that the NYT was a key cheerleader in support of the war)

Bowa-
If there's one thing I'd like you to get into your head, it's this:

The NYT and the Washington Post are ESTABLISHMENT media outlets who largely reflect the current government/corporate power arrangement while being all for gay parenting and paid mommy-leave.

Wise up.

Have a good 2008, as it only comes once.

Oh, by the way, thanks for reminding us all that the NYT was a key cheerleader in support of the war

The news story is from March, 2006.

Have a good night. Hope you had a good new years.

And what is Bowa's source for this?

". . . Heavy as they are, the costs of inaction must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them." -- President Bill Clinton

I don't doubt that there is one. But I am curious of the ENTIRE content.

Bowa-
What bugs me is that you and others have gone to war with the key print media ostensibly over the war when they were the main cheerleaders for it. Your real beef is with their social stance, and of course any present criticism of the myriad ways in which Bush has fucked up.

"Have a good night. Hope you had a good new years."

Hope yours sucked, Bowa.

I was born in Canada and lived half my life there and there is not a single point that you made that I would disagree with. Bravo

~RosemountBomber

Ta fer the nod, Rosemountbomber, did ya happen to play a little football while you were in the Great White North? Spud is ask cos of yer nom de blog, of course.

Other folks don't quite see it as you do unfortunately.

Bowa fer instance...

As for Bush's legacy, as I have said before- the jury is still out

No, Bowa, as Dumbya et al have sed over and over again...

"Only History will be able to judge this administration"

Clue to Bowa and Cheney and his li'l pet Chimp.

The jury came back a while ago.

Deliberations didn't hardly take any time at all.

With wot we know to date the Bush-Cheney co-presidency is already, easily, the worst administration in the history of the nation. As time goes by and we learn more and more about the wot really went on, it will become patently obvious that they were greedy, unheeding War Criminals who never should have been allowed to escape jail.

"BushCo: The more you learn, the more you loathe"

History will be increasingly unkind to Clinton

Wot an idiot! Could you be any more wrong?

His was a terrible "peacetime" Presidency that squandered many opportunities to strenghthen the US position in the world and safeguard America, its interests and it's allies

Bullshit.

BushCo is a terrible "War-time" Presidency that took every opportunity to weaken the US position in the world, to de-value the American dollar, to make America and indeed the entire world much less safe and to piss off it's traditional allies and abandon the long term interest of the entire country, in order to make short term monetary gains for themselves, their cronies, Big Oil and the new corporate mercenary class.

The only question historians will ask down the road will be...

And these guys didn't go to jail because why again?

Were people really that deluded and brainwashed and ignorant?

And the sad answer to that would be YES.

In case they have difficulty believing in that level of denial and ignorance they will always have Bowa's postings in blog-world to get a sense of the deliberate cognitive dissonance that kept folks from the truth.

Ta fer that, Bowa.

If nothing else yer a great bad example fer future historians to puzzle over.

The jury isn't out Bowa.

You are out... "out to lunch"

Don't fergit to tip yer server now!

Do sommat right fer Christsakes!

Be Well.

PS: See also:

Out of yer mind.

Out of options.

Out of credibility.

The only question historians will ask down the road will be...

And these guys didn't go to jail because why again?

Forstarchsooth, on the right thread!

"Companies like Enron"

Who loaned the corporate 727 to Bush.

Who loaned the corporate 727 to Bush.
Posted by Zatoichi


Remember how many millions Terry McAuliffe made off of Global Crossings?

Now Spud go back to tending your canadian terd farm you worthless fucking know nothing

~Knownothing

Uh-huh, Well ...Spud was gonna take yer advice but then Spud remembered that yer a shit-fer-brain bush blower who couldn't find his ass with both hands if ya had all day to look and a copy of Grey's Anatomy to help ya.

Be Well.

PS: Also ...ya keep spelling "turd" wrong.

Spud refuses to take advice from folk who can't spell monosyllabic words correctly.

Is spuddish policy! ^_^

Reality rears it's ugly head.

Of course we must give Enron credit for it's one true invention, as miserably stupid as it may be, it's proof of human imbecilic gullibility; Virtual Assets.

What bugs me is that you and others have gone to war with the key print media ostensibly over the war when they were the main cheerleaders for it.

They were only the main cheerleaders at the beginning because Bush was not saying anything that Clinton hadn't said a few years before. So if they believed the comments then, why would they not believe the same comments now?

And when we didn't find WMD's the media got just as much egg on its face as the US Military did. A lot of trust was broken with the american people by all involved.

How each faction has dealt with that "egg on its face" has been instructive. The President just showed greater resolve in completing the mission in Iraq and has had much success in helping to stabilize the country the past few months.

The MSM was hurt by getting Iraq wrong in the beginning -- so now many of the outlets seem determined to portray our troops and the mission in the worst possible light.

Anti-war democrats and liberals claim that since the primary reason for the war (WMD;s) did not exist -- that we have no lawful reason to be there at all, and must withdraw immediately.

The Democrats in Congress are the most torn-- on one hand they understand the importance of establishing a pro-west moderate muslim government in Iraq, on the other hand they hear the cries of the netroots that scream because no WMD's were found it is an "illegal war" and they must pull the plug on it. So far the congressional Democrats have only paid lipservice to the netroots, but they opened up the purse strings for the President.

Spud refuses to take advice from folk who can't spell monosyllabic words correctly.

Is spuddish policy! ^_^

Words like "for", "love", "said", "what"? What about two syllable words? How about people who don't use the grammatical person correctly? Grammar in general?

You don't trust yourself IOW? *whew* I feel better. I used to think it was just an arrogance thing. Now I know it is a simple matter of spud's advice is not to be taken.

It's a real arrogant asshole that somehow believes the it will all end in their lifetime.

How old is Christianity? ...and you think somehow that 2007 is the time?

"on one hand they understand the importance of establishing a pro-west moderate muslim government in Iraq,"


Gee, reality has changed the dreams of the neocons. When we first invaded Iraq iw was a pro-west, secular government we wanted to establish in Iraq, somehow that got changed to a Muslim government of Iraq. Gee....I wonder how many moms and dads would happily send their American kids off to create a Muslim government ANYFUCKINGWHERE????

Neocon strategy for winning at football.....just keep moving the goal posts.

Just checked...

2008rapture.com already in use.

2009rapture.com is "owned" but not operational.

2010rapture.com is currently available! -- does that mean 2009 is right?

Knownothing, is that an adopted nickname or the one your parents gave you? Either way, it certainly suits you.

Neocon strategy for winning at football.....just keep moving the goal posts.

Posted by danni

FF for danni.

I've never heard any scientist make predictions about the imminent end of the world.
The world will be here for a long freakin' time; whether or not human beings will be on it is another question.

Hey I think the Rapture has occurred!

Well at least the link went Poof!

"Well at least the link went Poof!"

Posted by Zap

Did you get a car?

.....the rapture will occur when I can afford a restored '65 Vette........

Well at least you sheeple are still on Earth and can now fall in line behind Mike Huckabee and have this whole scam run on you Christians all over again. Huckabee supporters would follow anyone with a cross on thier backs off a cliff.



I stand corrected. - Bowa

As usual.

Happy 08'

got here late...but this calls for another Carl Sagan quote!

One prominent American religion confidently predicted that the world would end in 1914. Well, 1914 has come and gone, and - whole the events of that year were certainly of some importance - the world did not, at least so far as I can see, seem to have ended. There are at least three responses that an organized religion can make in the face of such a failed and fundamental prophecy. They could have said, Oh, did we say '1914'? So sorry, we meant '2014'. A slight error in calculation. Hope you weren't inconvenienced in any way. But they did not. They could have said, Well, the world would have ended, except we prayed very hard and interceded with God so He spared the Earth. But they did not. Instead, the did something much more ingenious. They announced that the world had in fact ended in 1914, and if the rest of us hadn't noticed, that was our lookout. It is astonishing in the fact of such transparent evasions that this religion has any adherents at all. But religions are tough. Either they make no contentions which are subject to disproof or they quickly redesign doctrine after disproof. The fact that religions can be so shamelessly dishonest, so contemptuous of the intelligence of their adherents, and still flourish does not speak very well for the tough- mindedness of the believers. But it does indicate, if a demonstration was needed, that near the core of the religious experience is something remarkably resistant to rational inquiry. [Carl Sagan, Broca's Brain]

And I would like to address the concerns some have about the fierceness of some of our responses to the Religious Right. As everyone loves to point out this is a predominately "Christian" nation. As such we feel we are in the minority. So this is not Christian bashing this is taking the opportunity to point out the flaws in the Big Lie...just like we charge in bravely (and sometimes fiercely) to point out the Big Lie of George W Bush & Company whenever we can!

Forgive us our Trespasses as there is a WAR on and people are dying...Because of Religion! And we are a bit worried about having a foreign policy of Armageddon. It is called the expectancy factor.

Time already for another Carl Sagan Quote?

OK!

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. it is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. (So the old bamboozles tend to persist as the new bamboozles rise.) [Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection]

Donnerboy, I am sure if Carl Sagan could reach you right now he would ask you to forgive his ignorance!

Of course Carl Sagan also believed in evolution, life on other planets, and a lot of other stuff for which there is no real evidence. I think they call it junk science or Scientology.

Bee Swell

**** Of course Carl Sagan also believed in evolution, life on other planets, and a lot of other stuff for which there is no real evidence. I think they call it junk science or Scientology.
Bee Swell
Posted by YouKnewWho *****

......anyone who thinks that evolution is "junk science" is wilfully ignorant.......

.......and yes Scientology is a stupid religion.....every bit as stupid as Islam, Christianity and worshipping the Hindu Monkey God..........

Of course Carl Sagan also believed in evolution, life on other planets, and a lot of other stuff for which there is no real evidence...

Carl Sagan did not Believe in anything that had no evidence for it. That is the nature of science unlike Religion which would have you believe in all kinds of things like demons and angels and heaven and hell and life after death and Intelligent Design (Creationsim) with not one shred of EVIDENCE other than some moldy parchments written by the ancients who were mostly illiterate compared to todays standards.

YKW has been bamboozled and is too embarrassed to admit it. Some of us got over it and moved on.

You can't convince a "believer" of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe. [Dr. Arroway in Carl Sagan's Contact (New York: Pocket Books, 1985]

And BTW-Carl Sagan "reaches me" all the time.

Every time I pick up a book of his or read his writings his thoughts reach through time to directly me.

For that I am deeply grateful.

We do indeed stand on the shoulders of giants.

The Mayans have it set down at 21 December 2012.

My friends and I already have the caterers set up for 20 December.

My friends and I already have the caterers set up for 20 December.
Posted by LetUsReason


Don't forget the dancing girls!

"Don't forget the dancing girls!"

Forget the girls...bring on Chippendales!!

Forget the girls...bring on Chippendales!!
Posted by Lisa


Hmm...2012 - gives me 4 years to try and trade my keg for a sixpack.

Dear elbow--

yea verily! Perhaps you should read your own bible a bit more closely and not "selectively" quote it.

Mark 13:30

30Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

31Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

32But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

apparently the world has already ended?

also Mathew verse 24:34 (which appears to be copied from Mark)

33So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

34Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

35Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

36But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

yup! God has spoken... the world has ended. sorry Humans! You have been served!

oh wait! maybe a Generation to Jesus is thousands of years...kinda like the days are in Genesis?

Or the Christians all prayed and God interceded on our behave?

Or perhaps Jesus(God) miscalculated?

Or perhaps the world has really ended and this is hell!

Which is it Elbow? God has spoken and he cannot be wrong!

behave = behalf

Superhero Donnerboy, capable of super-analysis of The Bible, strangely has one weakness: the inability to consider interpretations that differ from his!

Tune in next time, when Donnerboy literally throws pearls before swine and runs up a huge bill at Tiffany's.

Donnerboy is of course the Boy Wonder sidekick for Atheistman, strange visitor from another planet.

30Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.


Pay attention lil feller.

Pre-flood = 1st generation

Post-flood = this (2nd) generation

God has spoken and he cannot be wrong!

No, but we, like little children hearing the words of their parents, are often wrong in trying to understand them.

There are various interpretations and understandings of the passages which are raised here.

If you wish scripture to read like an engineering manual, a newspaper account, or a science text book, then I can understand people's difficulty with its ambiguity.

However, why should it be read like that? In fact it would be anachronistic to read these texts in such a way.

Of course it is important for you to read them and other passages in the most literal way possible and not accept any possible shades of meaning that could become lost in translations. It is very useful for justifying your scorn and ridicule.

In this way the anti Christians on this thread are no different than many of the people they disparage. They choose the meaning of the bible text that best suits their own beliefs about religion and close their minds. It becomes easier to dismiss when you pigeon hole it into something you don't like or seems irrational to you. It makes you feel good about yourselves instead of letting it challenge you.

I have seen this before with my kids when they read poetry. When they cannot understand or follow an easily accessible literal meaning, they dismiss it as stupid and irrelevant. It is much easier than saying or admitting that it requires work and thought and the consideration of other opinions and voices and other possible interpretations.

Cheers

Of course it is important for you to read them and other passages in the most literal way possible and not accept any possible shades of meaning that could become lost in translations. It is very useful for justifying your scorn and ridicule.


WRONG of course.

I point this out only because the Fundamentalist attempts at doing this very thing.. but when I do it I am wrong but when they say the Earth was created in 6 days or God Hates gays we are to take THAT literally.

You people have to make up your mind. Either the Bible is the Inerrant Word of God ....or not.

you can't have it both ways.

WRONG of course.

I point this out only because the Fundamentalist attempts at doing this very thing.. but when I do it I am wrong but when they say the Earth was created in 6 days or God Hates gays we are to take THAT literally.

You people have to make up your mind. Either the Bible is the Inerrant Word of God ....or not.

you can't have it both ways

The obvious and correct solution is that both you and the fundamentalist are wrong.

You equate being the inerrant Word of God as being literally true in every passage. So do the fundamentalists. There is not reason why it has to be this way. Sometimes the truth comes across metaphorically, sometimes it comes across symbolically, sometimes it comes across literally.

Wisdom and insight from a Judeo-Christian perspective comes from working with the texts and trying to understand its various levels of meaning--when the literal should give way to the allegorical, and anagogical. This is how the ancient rabbis of Jesus' time and before approached the text. It seems wise to follow their lead.

(Of course unless it is more convenient for you to want to be able dismiss the entire thing quickly and easily. Then by all means see it in terms of black and white. That is an easier way then attempting to approach the text in the way that the writers of the text knew and understood and what theologians have known for thousands and thousands of years.)

For you, I have to be wrong, "of course ." You will most likely argue against any sophisticated readings of the text because if you accept the polysemous nature of scripture you may have to give up what you hate and you don't want to do that.

I have found that people are the most reluctant in giving up the things they love the most and hate the most.

Cheers

"The obvious and correct solution is that both you and the fundamentalist are wrong."
POSTED BY GRENDEL


Grendel - bingo. I am finding that the anti-God crowd has a lot in common with certain Fundamentalists.