Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs

Scott Roeder, a man accused of shooting Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller, confessed to the slaying Monday. "Because of the fact preborn children's lives were in imminent danger this was the action I chose. ... I want to make sure that the focus is, of course, obviously on the preborn children and the necessity to defend them," Roeder told AP in a telephone call from jail.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

Manypaths

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

What a scumbag.

His new home will be probably in El Dorado. Or quite possibly either Lansing or My hometown. Hope He loves communal living.

Larry

Kansas doesn't have the death penalty??


If not--life forever behind bars.

He claim the "Necessity Defense".

What a crock.

Yes unfortunately Kansas DOES have the Death Penalty.

www.kscadp.org

Hey Larry did you get insurance yet?

I would think it would be at the top of your list of things to do.

rwd


Hey Larry did you get insurance yet?


I would think it would be at the top of your list of things to do.


rwd

#6 | Posted by rightwingdon at 2009-11-09 06:11 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

They are sending Me an application RWDon. So how is My colon doing?? How many Pollyps do I have??

Larry

Damn Christian extremists!!! - The Left

I heard he said Kyrie, eleison as he pulled the trigger.

Kill a physician for Christ. Do it now! Billy El Cid. (herm)


#9 | Posted by herm at 2009-11-09 06:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Aborting an unborn child is no different than having a tonsilectomy! - HERMENGELE

Found that painless and honorable way yet HERM?

Aborting an unborn child is no different than having a tonsilectomy!

Wrong again, Cid. A tonsilectomy will leave you with a sore throat.

#7 | Posted by LarryMohr

Just because rcade gave you a reach around is no reason to deflect,its childish.

What I care about is you misrepresenting yourself on the health care issue.

Apparently lying,to you at least, is ok.

You have become irrelevant as well as a liar.

rwd

Where the fuck did I Lie You SOB ??? Where????? I have been turned down by every insurance company that I have applied to THAT IS FACT Baby where You want to believe it or not is upto You. You have had it for Me ever since I have stood up and declared the Iraq War a War Crime and those who committed it and participated in it as War Criminals. That is the fucking truth as well RightWingedDon. You hate me because I remind You of that stinking truth. I am sorry but thems the breaks.

Larry

#13 | Posted by LarryMohr

WOW BABY!!

The fact is Larry you ARE able to get health insurance but you are to damn lazy to help yourself.
Waving rejection notices around is lame.

5 minutes on the google and I gave you the information you need to receive insurance.I am willing to bet even when they accept you you will not be able to afford it because you don't want to work for it.You just want someone to take care of you Larry.

You get on your high horse and do a lot of proclaiming but when it comes to personal responsibility you fall short.This is a fact.And that is why i'm against government health care, because of slobs like you.

Thanks for reminding everyone you think our GI's are war criminals.

Now what say you.

rwd

Kiss My Ass RightWingDon. I was unaware of that health insurance option. I am not qualified for Medicaid nor medicare(Too Young) I am sorry You love fucking around up My ass but I wished You would kindly quit. Unless You want to take Me out to dinner first THEN I might let You sniff around up there. You dig RWDon??

Larry

You love fucking around up My ass but I wished You would kindly quit.


#15 | Posted by LarryMohr

You wished? But now you don't? Make up your mind Larry.

Its always about the ass,right Larry?

Go whine to rcade you pathetic pussy,that is who you are Larry

You can't take the truth Larry.

rwd

You know that insurance company that You showed Me. I have been looking at bit on their website. I CAN NOT AFFORD that thing even if I qualify for it. 400 Dollar Premiums ??? My G-d dude I am a poor bastard. No wonder You showed it to Me. Get My hopes up to get them shot down. Typical Righty Tighty.

Larry

That is 400 dollars a month NOT Yearly.

WICHITA, Kan. - A man accused of shooting a Kansas abortion provider confessed to the slaying Monday, telling The Associated Press that he killed the doctor to protect unborn children.

Posted by Manypaths

I noticed he didn't mention God to justify his actions.That takes the wind out of the Christian haters argument that they try to use when justifying the actions of muslims who murder in the name of God.

Find a new scapegoat clowns.

rwd

This was a terrorist attack perpetrated by christians, I don't know why everyone is afraid to call it what it is. The government needs to be proactive and shut down their weekly meeting places.

There is also evidence of it being part of a vast conspiracy, members of his terrorist cell are still operating out in the open.


Kansas doesn't have the death penalty??
#3 | Posted by MURPHY

Yes unfortunately Kansas DOES have the Death Penalty.
#4 | Posted by LarryMohr

Kansas had the death penalty until 1907, when the legislature abolished it. The penalty was restored in 1935, although no executions took place untl 1944. Between 1954-1960, no death sentences were carried out. (Gov. George Docking explained the lack of executions between 1957-1960 by saying, "I just don't like killing people.") The US Supreme Court set the Kansas penalty aside in 1972 it was another 18 years before the state went back to the death penalty (1994). However, in the 15 years since it was reinstituted Kansas has not executed anyone. (Lots of information at www.kscadp.org)

In 2003 the State of Kansas commissioned a study that concluded the "estimated cost of a death penalty case was 70% more than the cost of a comparable non-death penalty case" (www.deathpenaltyinfo.org).

Here's some more, from a summary of that study (same source):

◦The investigation costs for death-sentence cases were about 3 times greater than for non-death cases.
◦The trial costs for death cases were about 16 times greater than for non-death cases ($508,000 per death case; $32,000 per non-death case).
◦The appeal costs for death cases were about 21 times greater.
◦The costs of carrying out a death sentence (including death row incarceration) were about half the costs of carrying out a non-death sentence in a comparable case.
◦Trials involving a death sentence averaged 34 days, including jury selection; non-death trials averaged about 9 days.

More recently in Kansas a GOP state senator suggested the death penalty cost too much and is not an effective deterrent (www.deathpenaltyinfo.org).

I CAN NOT AFFORD that thing even if I qualify for it. 400 Dollar Premiums ???

That is how the right rationalizes the status quo.

If you cannot afford insurance you are "choosing" not to be insured.

This was a terrorist attack perpetrated by christians, I don't know why everyone is afraid to call it what it is.

Because in this instance, the terrorist is white.

this idiot is a wackoid dressed in christian clothing. he and many others of his ilk have no idea what a christian is, they just spew the bs they are taught to say

I want to make sure that the focus is, of course, obviously on the preborn children and the necessity to defend them

You mean you wanna take focus off of yer stillborn sense of morality and the neccessity of locking you up for life like the mad dog you are.

Be Well.

Given Scott Roeder's ties to militant anti-abortion groups, and their goal to drive doctors out of practice, his murder of Dr. Tiller is more an act of terrorism than what we know so far about the Fort Hood massacre.

Violent religious fantacism is one of the biggest ills in our society.

"Violent religious fantacism is one of the biggest ills in our society."

Yeah, so much worse in number than all the other violent crime offenders in the world who do not have religion in their lives.

This dude should be executed.

So nobody watched the video huh?

You know I try and I try to shed different lights on these issues, but to no avail.

Sometimes, I feel my efforts are being wasted......

his murder of Dr. Tiller is more an act of terrorism than what we know so far about the Fort Hood massacre

yawn....

I listened to the video, Many.

What do you want me to say about it...that it's funny that I'm considered an "idiot f***"???

This was a terrorist attack perpetrated by christians, I don't know why everyone is afraid to call it what it is. The government needs to be proactive and shut down their weekly meeting places.

#20 | Posted by NoGov4Me

Oh, give me a break. Are we now going to call all murders terrorism? If anything it should be called a hate crime. More political correctness. In no way was it terrorism. For one thing, he only killed one person. Terrorists usually go for as many as they can get at one time. Also, he said he did it for the unborn children, not because God told him to do it. Or, at least, he didn't do it it God's name. And even if he did, it wasn't perpetrated towards someone of a different religious background. Put shortly, it was not terrorism.

In no way was it terrorism.

Driving abortion doctors out of practice through a campaign of harassment is a political act. Roeder was a part of those efforts, so there's a possible terrorism component to it.

Terrorism is the use of violence to achieve political ends.

The same kind of "true believer" resolve that motivates binLaden, Beck or Shrub. Logically inconsistent and dangerous to others.

n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

You are free to have your own opinion but not your own reality.

Why does it matter if you label him a terrorist or not. He is still a murderer. Christianity does not teach killing others who reject your beliefs. Islam has that covered.

Christianity does not teach killing others who reject your beliefs.

Have you ever read the bible?

You would be shocked to know that you are dead fucking wrong on that.

"Have you ever read the bible?


You would be shocked to know that you are dead fucking wrong on that."

I have read my Bible, Many...and reread it.

Care to point out any of Jesus's teachings that prove your claim?


You seem to be confusing the OT with the NT, MP.

Matthew 10:34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword.

Oh wait, am I misinterpreting what Jesus meant about a "sword?"

If that's so, do you think it might be possible you Infidels are misinterpreting the Qu'ran?

Not Jesus' teachings Lisa, as Jesus didn't write one word of the bible. Other people wrote about him, but he didn't write anything.

Couldn't find a inked turkey quill I guess. Son of God. Lord of Men........just couldn't find a pen when he needed one.

But a lot of the bible has nothing to do with Jesus at all. You can't discount the parts of that book that you don't like just to feel good about the other parts.

But as far as "Christianity does not teach killing others who reject your beliefs" the bible most diffinately does teah to kill others who reject your beliefs and in no uncertain terms.

Christianity does not teach killing others who reject your beliefs.

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Sorry, not going to let people pick and choose. It is what it is in its entirety

alot of christians would love to get rid of the OT and focus solely on the NT, but alas, its all a part of the same book, and being included, must be taken equally and measure for measure, without supersession.


The reference is to the sword of the spirit, in this case a spirit of discord.

www.tektonics.org

They would still have Romans to explain.

Romans 1 :29-32 "Those filled with unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, hate for god, despite, proud, boasters, inventions of evil things, disobedience to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, unnatural affection, implacable or unmerciful nature: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death".


A lot of non-Christians, who likely have never read either, would like to put Christianity into the OT, when it is only prophesied there.

Christianity is NT, the Law is OT. Tough to understand if you haven't read it, I know.

Sorry, not going to let people pick and choose. It is what it is in its entirety
#42 | Posted by Manypaths

Usually not defending religions around here, but the New Testament voids all that OT stuff. The Old Testament is only included as a way to add historical legitimacy to the claims of the New.

Snoofy:

How is it that if you interpret the Bible wrong, then WE interpret the Koran wrong?? LOL


Matthew 10:32-37 is where Jesus speaks about belonging to Him. He calls for an open confession about Him from His followers.

He acknowledges that even a household will be divided.

The "sword" he refers to, is His judgement.

And I don't mean to attack you or what you believe, but when hypocricy like this is displayed:

Christianity does not teach killing others who reject your beliefs. Islam has that covered.

#37 | Posted by slicksterWilly

I think it is only fair to highlight the similarities of the religions. When someone like Slickwilly claims his god has a bigger dick than others', well a little reality needs to be introduced into the discussion.

Believe what you want, keep it to yourself and you're alright in my book.


-that they which commit such things are worthy of death".


Death here being separation from God.

But the verse itself is one of the most misused there is, especially by Christians who see it as a list of no-nos, when Paul says prior that these things are obvious to all, nothing new.

People who only know what they think they know about the bible from what they get from televangelists are as confused as the tv evangelists.

#47 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

Whatever makes it easier to swallow the desires of Constantine. I wonder what he thinks about still ruling over millions of people.

So the basis of Christianity is that God got it wrong the first time around?

Wow.....I have never been that confident.

#45

Many:

There is a HUGE difference between Romans 1 :29-32 where the wrath of God is discussed and being taught to kill others as your previous post stated.

We are NOT taught to KILL others, Many.

As Christians, we follow the teachings of Christ, Many. And the OT does have some instruction in it that still holds true today, Killing is NOT one of them! Jesus has made us not of the law....those things you want to focus on.

Jesus taught peace, love, patience and forgiveness.

To imply otherwise is not being honest, Many.

Jesus was not sent here to "write"...He was sent here for a far more important purpose.

He was written about...His words are marked.

"Believe what you want, keep it to yourself and you're alright in my book."

There seems to be a double standard here.

We should keep our beliefs to ourselves, but those without those beliefs are free to insult, misrepresent and lie about our beliefs...but can openly post about them.

Odd that.

Does that mean that the only way someone should be considered "alright in my book", is if someone gives me the same consideration that you believe you deserve?

It's easy to love the lovable, Many.

Try loving the not so lovable! : )

-the desires of Constantine

Constantine's only role was to gather the scholars of the day who put together a compilation of writings dating back 2+ millenia at that time for the OT, and writings as soon as 25 to 40 years after the events of the NT.

"So the basis of Christianity is that God got it wrong the first time around?"

Not at all.

God had a purpose for everything He has done and will do.

Crap, fucking thing deleted a well constructed post.

Anyway, I don't want to attack what you believe as I don't care. I was just holding up a mirror to an individual who was attacking the believes of others in order to feel better about himself.

That's your typical Christian today, not you Lisa. May peace be with you.

Oh yeah.....

Jesus taught peace, love, patience and forgiveness.

I'll buy that. So did Gandhi. So did Lennon.

The pity is so many of His followers failed the lesson. Just look at nanc and try to point out the Peace, Love, Patience, Forgiveness.

It is nice to see that some people, like you Lisa paid attention.


"So the basis of Christianity is that God got it wrong the first time around?"


Not at all.


God had a purpose for everything He has done and will do.


#55 | Posted by Lisa


yet somehow I retain the power of self will i.e. the ability to change god's creation.

Actually I think Jesus was very conflicted over the use of violence or nonviolence to reject Roman oppression and Jewish complacency -- remember the part when Harvey Keitel says to Willem Dafoe: "First you say fight, then you say love, come on already, make up your mind!"

-It is nice to see that some people, like you Lisa paid attention.

With "friends" like Niceville, takitez, The Chumpel, nanc.... who needs enemas?

Jesus had the same problem.... religious hypocrites, whom he thoroughly castigated in terms most Christians wouldn't want to read in the Aramaic.


Some on the right will defend this terrorists actions while decrying the terrorist actions of Hasan at Ft Hood.

Why is that? They're both terrible, but somehow, some of you will cheer this man on.

"confused as the tv evangelists."

I don't think the televangelists are confused. Wrong, yes, but not confused. Their actions and interpretations are quite deliberate.

en.wikipedia.org

The reference is to the sword of the spirit, in this case a spirit of discord

Christianity is NT, the Law is OT. Tough to understand if you haven't read it, I know

but the New Testament voids all that OT stuff

The "sword" he refers to, is His judgement.

Death here being separation from God

There is a HUGE difference between Romans 1 :29-32 where the wrath of God is discussed

Jesus taught peace, love, patience and forgiveness



whole lot of interpretating going on.


Many are deliberate, especially the big timers, but they sow confusion none the less.

-whole lot of interpretating going on.

Perhaps if you studied the texts in the original languages? Or at least in English.


"but they sow confusion none the less."

It may be madness, yet there is profit in in't.


-whole lot of interpretating going on.


Perhaps if you studied the texts in the original languages? Or at least in English.



#65 | Posted by Corky----Doesn't get irony.

"yet somehow I retain the power of self will i.e. the ability to change god's creation."

And He knows exactly what you will do!! : )

And Everything is done in God's time...not our own.

Some day, Truth...I have an amazing story to share with you.

I can't wait to share it.

-yet there is profit in in't.


Every few decades it seems the "prosperity gospel" nonsense makes a cycle and we get these charlatans ripping people off again.

They just have better technology these days.

A whole lot of different interpretation??

LOL

Actually Many, Corky and I are saying the same thing...just using different verbage.

"Every few decades it seems the "prosperity gospel" nonsense makes a cycle and we get these charlatans ripping people off again."

When I lose the last remains of my conscience, that may be my career changing move.

-Doesn't get irony.

That's what nanc uses on her husband's clothes.

Manypaths in your stupidity your claim Christianity teaches the killing of those who reject it. In every so called quote you provided in support of your stupidity, you simply quoted the Old Testament. Even the New Testament quotes you provided were teachings using illustrations from the old testament.

FACT: Mohammad expanded the religion of Islam through the point of the sword. Just as the nation of Israel did as described in the Old Testament.

The difference is Jesus showed how all of this was not enough for mans relationship with God in the new testament. Islam has yet to change its ways.

The truth hurts.


"yet somehow I retain the power of self will i.e. the ability to change god's creation."


And He knows exactly what you will do!! : )


And Everything is done in God's time...not our own.


Some day, Truth...I have an amazing story to share with you.


I can't wait to share it.

#68 | Posted by Lisa


yet you see no problem with that logic? Guess even Hitler was doing god's will so he must be in heaven enjoying the fruits of the almighty.

If god knows what my choice will be I have no choice.

Either god or will exist. they are mutually exclusive

FACT: Most Muslims look at those parts of the Quran as you look at the OT, and do not espouse forced proselytization.

"Just look at nanc and try to point out the Peace, Love, Patience, Forgiveness."

Sweetie, unfortunately some people are luke warm. I used to be the exact same way. I admit it...you need to! : )

When we go knocking on the door, Jesus will say to some...depart, I do not know you. That will be due to their luke warmness.

I want Him to greet me at the door and say...it's about time you got here..now it's a party and pull me in!!! : )


"It is nice to see that some people, like you Lisa paid attention."

Well, I take no credit, Many. God embedded His Word and Jesus's commands into the tablet of my heart.

I give all credit and praise to Him.

-Either god or will exist. they are mutually exclusive

Hardly.

www.carm.org

I think it is only fair to highlight the similarities of the religions. When someone like Slickwilly claims his god has a bigger dick than others', well a little reality needs to be introduced into the discussion.

Believe what you want, keep it to yourself and you're alright in my book.


#49 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-11-10 11:16 AM | Reply

Manybaths the last thing i need from you is your perception of reality.

Mohammad expanded the religion of Islam through the point of the sword.

crusades
inquisition

Lisa, it's a quick read. Just a thought.

"yet you see no problem with that logic? Guess even Hitler was doing god's will so he must be in heaven enjoying the fruits of the almighty."

I don't make God fit to the image I want Him to be Truth. He is what He is...all knowing, has a purpose for everthing.

Are some of those purposes bad events in history? Yes. But I am NOT all knowing so I can't give you a reason as to why.

Some I can. Some I can't.

People tend to focus on the bad. I acknowledge them, then try to look at what may have transpired that was good out of that bad.

One day, I'll explain to you why.


"If god knows what my choice will be I have no choice."

Not true, sweetie! You have the choice, you make the choice...God just knows what it will be. He doesn't MAKE you make that choice.



-Either god or will exist. they are mutually exclusive


Hardly.


www.carm.org


#77 | Posted by Corky


it must be nice to have a head so empty it can live with such cognitive dissonance.

crusades
inquisition

#79 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-11-10 12:03 PM | Reply

Ignorant typical response.

Truthhurts, the crusades were an attempt to take back Israel, Jersulem from the Islamic invaders who took it in the first place. So don't act as though the crusades were attempts to convert the population to Christianity.


OR if you are really interestd in the philosophy of free will v God....


plato.stanford.edu

Logically, God knowing what we are going to do does not mean that we can't do something else. It means that God simply knows what we have chosen to do ahead of time. Our freedom is not restricted by God's foreknowledge; our freedom is simply realized ahead of time by God.


from your link

This logic has more jumps than a spastic pogo jumper.

god made everything 10,000 years ago or so

god made truthhurts

god knows the choices I am to make in my life

yet I have the freedom to choose.

if the future is written, ie god's knowledge, than i must do what that future says, my choices are dictated by god's "plan"

god's will be done, but he doesn't accept the responsibility for his actions. i will burn in hell for not believing.

your god is seriously passive agressive.


It must be nice to throw ad hominem instead of argument..... especially when one has no argument.


-god made everything 10,000 years ago or so

Been watching TV evangelists again.

-god made truthhurts

Mistakes have been made.

-god knows the choices I am to make in my life

yet I have the freedom to choose.

Thinks these are mutually exclusive....why?

-if the future is written

Says who?

Did someone mention confusion?

#80

Many:

I've read the link you provided for me.

I can see you want to discuss something from it...lol.

What would you like to discuss?

hahahahaha no argument

your own argument is so filled with holes I have difficulty creating a fabric in it to argue against.

all you can do is post links that are pointless.

ie. the presence of god and free will is a logical constuct is the theme of your first link.


it takes cognitive dissonance to accept that premesis.


See here are the two mutually exclusive conclusions one must hold in one's head at the same time:

1. God is almighty, created all things, knows the past, present and future.

2. You have free will thus are able to impact or change the future.

They are mutually exclusive concepts.

Either the future is written and therefore, unalterable, therefore you have no personal ability to impact it and you are living a preexisting script
OR
the future is not written, the actions and choices of individuals writes the tale as we go along.

Your link wants to walk the line that it is written yet we write it. that is cognitive dissonance.

Discuss? OK.

How do we burn the pages now?


-god knows the choices I am to make in my life


yet I have the freedom to choose.


Thinks these are mutually exclusive....why?



If god knows what my choices will be then I must make those choices.

If god know I am going to go to Subway and buy a meatball sub, than i have no choice. That is what I am going to do, right. I am doing god's will, correct as he created the future, correct?


Either god's will be done or man's will be done.

Snoofy:

How is it that if you interpret the Bible wrong, then WE interpret the Koran wrong?? LOL

Easy. I'm not a Christian. I don't understand the Bible like a Christian does.

You're not a Muslim. You don't understand the Qu'ran like a Muslim does.

Get it?


Knowing the future and dictating it are two different things.... but then, if the ability to grok the yin and the yang of a thing is too difficult for you, I can see where you would confuse that with cognitive dissonance, a term which, much as Inigo Montoya mentioned, I do not think means what you think it means.

"
Discuss? OK.


How do we burn the pages now?"

I love your mind, you know that?

Despite what you show here at times...you are a very gentle soul! You can't hide that from me!! : )

Ok, you certainly want a long discussion. lol

By "burning the pages" do you refer to ending the different religions?

Getting back to one meaning?


Perhaps I can help, though. To an omniscient being, have done and will do are the same. Does that help?

"You're not a Muslim. You don't understand the Qu'ran like a Muslim does."

So you assume I'm not learning it?

How silly!!! : )

BTW...I'm learning it from a couple of Muslims.

Does that help you understand how I may understand some of the Koran to date?

Some of us do not stay uniformed, Snoofy.

No, no need to discuss. "The truth waits for anyone who wishes to find it."

That's all. Enjoy your day.

"To an omniscient being, have done and will do are the same. Does that help?"

Omniscient being? You'll have to ask Joe over at LegalBoomerang.com


Joe is an omniscient pettifogger... the worst kind!

"You're not a Muslim. You don't understand the Qu'ran like a Muslim does."
So you assume I'm not learning it?
How silly!!! : )
BTW...I'm learning it from a couple of Muslims.
Does that help you understand how I may understand some of the Koran to date?
Some of us do not stay uniformed, Snoofy.

Good for you. There's no substantive reason all the children of Abraham should not get along. And usually they do.

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously.


At some point in the past, god created all things including the past the present and the future. Or if you aren't comfortable with that, god had knowledge of all these things.

Therefore, all of MY ACTIONS are preordained, are they not? They must fulfill that which god knows.

The hour of my birth and death are known to him (that is explicitely stated in the bible if I am not mistaken).


So I come along and after a few years I am even able to manipulate my surroundings. But everything I do must fulfill that which god knows is going to happen.

Yet you would have us believe that I can effect the future. Well as the church lady says, "Isnt that convenient"

I didnt choose to be born. I did not choose my DNA, I did not choose my environment around me.

So if I did not choose those things, which impact the choices I make dramatically in some instances. how can you say I have the freedom to choose anything?

Perhaps I can help, though. To an omniscient being, have done and will do are the same. Does that help?


#95 | Posted by Corky


actually that doesnt help

however, To an omniscient being, knowledge and IS are equivalent.

Now combine that with your sentance and you might begin to see the light.

1. God is almighty, created all things, knows the past, present and future.

2. You have free will thus are able to impact or change the future.

They are mutually exclusive concepts.

Really? Funny Flag.

- To an omniscient being, knowledge and IS are equivalent

The definition of omniscient is, "having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things."

So an omniscient being can know what happens without dictating the event. And what happens can be what you chose, or not.

In the bible story, God knew what Adam would choose to do, but Adam chose to do it.

So, there are two things, cognitive dissonance and omniscience, which don't mean what you think they mean.

Western thinking is such a bitch, eh?


I would suggest a study in determinism v free will, which needn't be religious at all.

Maybe that would help.

www.spaceandmotion.com

In the bible story, God knew what Adam would choose to do, but Adam chose to do it.

TH: Isnt that convenient.


So, there are two things, cognitive dissonance and omniscience, which don't mean what you think they mean.

Western thinking is such a bitch, eh?



sorry god created adam knowing he would bite the apple, therefore adam had to bite the apple. He could not choose otherwise because god already knew he would bite the apple.

again you have to have a certain emptiness upstairs to accept the cognitive dissonance in your argument. In other words, you dont let the blatant contradiction in what you are saying bother you in the least.

Must be nice to be permitted to accept contradictions without upsetting your perception of the world.

Again, I am not making the argument that god is dictating the choice (that is actually another argument that could easily be made), but the existance of knowledge by the omniscient makes it an IS, see since god knows it will happen it will happen otherwise god is not omniscient and since it will happen it really isnt my choice now is it.

basic logic, really is a bitch isnt it.

see this is where you should be telling me to accept it because of faith. logic and your argument are two things that cannot meet.

"xistance of knowledge by the omniscient makes it an IS, see since god knows it will happen it will happen otherwise god is not omniscient and since it will happen it really isnt my choice now is it."

That is based on the flawed assumption that time is linear to a god.

isnt that convenient


take time out of the equation then

if god knows what i choose than I can only choose that thing.

or is god learning as individuals decide?

it is written in the bible god knows the time of your birth and your death. so either the bible is wrong or god knows something that I could have a choice over. clearly this is a definitive statement on something god knows. if god knows that i have no "choice" but to adhere to what god knows, correct?

That is based on the flawed assumption that time is linear to a god.

#107 | Posted by salamandagator at 2009-11-10 01:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

I doubt that there is a biblical God at all--but if there is---either He knows what will happen or He doesn't. Either way, the statement you dispute is correct.

- since it will happen it really isnt my choice now is it.

It will happen whether it was your choice or not, so it could still be your choice.

I hope your density is intentional, otherwise black holes have new competition.

-sorry god created adam knowing he would bite the apple, therefore adam had to bite the apple

Theatre of the absurd. God also created Adm knowing that he would give to and tell Adm that he had free will to choose whether to bite the apple or not.

That God knew what he would do does not dictate that he didn't do it of his own free will.

-I didnt choose to be born. I did not choose my DNA, I did not choose my environment around me.

-So if I did not choose those things, which impact the choices I make dramatically in some instances. how can you say I have the freedom to choose anything?

-Again, I am not making the argument that god is dictating the choice

You should have a talk with yourself and try to get your story straight. At least with yourself.


Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?

#111 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-11-10 01:51 PM | Reply | Flag: Desperation sets in

That God knew what he would do does not dictate that he didn't do it of his own free will.


Isn't that convenient.


all arguements aside, god must be truly cruel to have created adam knowing he would bite the apple and then knowing that his descendants would spend eternity in hell.

why cant your god accept responsibility for his actions. he created this imperfect pawn, he created the temptations-sounds almost like a bored child looking for something to play with.

however, the facts are simple,

god knew I was going to choose chicken and fries for lunch, therefore I had to have chicken and fries for lunch, I had no choice in the matter.

afraid to answer the question I presume you are.

-all arguements aside

I'll take that as a, "run away, run away!".

Moldy old paradoxes you read somewhere are really not a problem either, no matter whose logic one uses.

www.existence-of-god.com

"if god knows what i choose than I can only choose that thing."


How are you confusing knowing what your choice will be and making the decision for you?

The determination is made by you but he would be able to know your choices before hand how does that take away from free will.


Think of it like a television show, if you read the script before hand you know what will happen even if you did not write the episode. He simply knows what choices you will make.

That is the idea of an omnipresent God. He is everywhere he knows everything including what decisions you will make.


But you are still hung up on the idea that he has to play by the rules we do. God as an idea has no limitations set by time or space, his reality is different from our own. This is a concept that i do not think we can completely grasp but if there is a God of that power then the complexity of his being is beyond what we can understand.


"Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?"

I still like the "can god microwave a burrito so hot that even he can not eat it/"

"Think of it like a television show, if you read the script before hand you know what will happen even if you did not write the episode. He simply knows what choices you will make."

That's a bad analogy. If there is a script, there is no choice.

Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?

#111 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-11-10 01:51 PM | Reply

Isn't that convenient.

god knew I was going to choose chicken and fries for lunch, therefore I had to have chicken and fries for lunch, I had no choice in the matter.

Dumb as dirt FLAG.


Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?


#111 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-11-10 01:51 PM | Reply


Isn't that convenient.


god knew I was going to choose chicken and fries for lunch, therefore I had to have chicken and fries for lunch, I had no choice in the matter.


Dumb as dirt FLAG.

#118 | Posted by slicksterWilly at


Translation: you got nothing.

The choice is of the writers.


How are you confusing knowing what your choice will be and making the decision for you?


omniscience makes Knowledge into IS.

therefore, there is no uncertainty for me to choose from.


ahhhh I get it you are confused.

Yes people have the illusions of choice. yes we can think we are making a choice, but god's will be done right. it is god's plan we are fulfiling, correct?


The choice is of the writers.



#120 | Posted by salamandagator


annnnnnn dddddd god wrote the script.

thanks for playing.

Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?

#111 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-11-10 01:51 PM | Reply

Why do you limit the power of God to the physical world you understand.

Translation: you got nothing.

god knew I was going to choose chicken and fries for lunch, therefore I had to have chicken and fries for lunch, I had no choice in the matter.

When my children were toddlers, I could give them instruction on not to do something, knowing all along, what they would do. Because the knew no better.


-all arguements aside


I'll take that as a, "run away, run away!".


Moldy old paradoxes you read somewhere are really not a problem either, no matter whose logic one uses.


www.existence-of-god.com


#115 | Posted by Corky



ahhhh yes the old stand by of god means whatever we need it to mean to satisfy our beliefs.

Isnt that convenient.

When my children were toddlers, I could give them instruction on not to do something, knowing all along, what they would do. Because the knew no better.

Because the kids were by nature, selfish and lived in the moment.


When my children were toddlers, I could give them instruction on not to do something, knowing all along, what they would do. Because the knew no better.


#123 | Posted by slicksterWilly


yet your children suprise you, which would be an indication that they have free will.

being the omniscient one, god supposedly knows without error what the choice will be, therefore our choices are preordained, therefore there is no uncertainty, therefore, no choice.

we have the illusion of choice (if there were a god that is)

yet your children suprise you


(on occassion that is)

being the omniscient one, god supposedly knows without error what the choice will be, therefore our choices are preordained, therefore there is no uncertainty, therefore, no choice.

Not true. You can have a choice, but because GOD is outside of time, GOD knows what you choice you will make. That does not mean they are pre-ordained or pre-arranged. It means GOD knows what you will do. It is not difficult to understand how GOD could know what you will do, and not have an influence on your decision.

Why do you limit the power of God to the physical world you understand.


I choose to have god's power to have it both ways.

oh wait, I am not permitted that choice

Then I choose not to play, I choose not to be born, oops I dont have that choice.

Well I choose to be born a believer, oops questioning is in my DNA,ooops no choice there.

Well I choose to be born to parents and an environment that will foster belief is god, oops no choice there.

I would choose otherwise, but I am incapable of choosing otherwise because I am what I am and that's allthat I am.

Not true. You can have a choice, but because GOD is outside of time, GOD knows what you choice you will make. That does not mean they are pre-ordained or pre-arranged.


TH: WOW you ability to logically jump is amazing.

It means GOD knows what you will do. It is not difficult to understand how GOD could know what you will do, and not have an influence on your decision.

TH: not arguing god's influence on my decisions, that is another arguement all together. Just pointing out the impossibility of there being an IS and choice living in harmony. They cannot live together, the fabric of the universe would split.

So when people pray for 'something to change' or for 'something to happen', they are not following the example of Jesus. If you look at the example of Jesus, he never asked God to change anything that he wasn't willing to accept as it was. He always prayed for more understanding of God's intent for his life and how he could fulfill God's work. His prayers, were not about changing things around him, but about changing the way he dealt with the things around him.

-omniscience makes Knowledge into IS.


Sorry, that's not in the definition..... you must be using your very own dictionary again.... isn't that convenient.

And here I find you a logical answer to your silly stone question and you ignore it. Typical.


-omniscience makes Knowledge into IS.


Sorry, that's not in the definition..... you must be using your very own dictionary again.... isn't that convenient.

And here I find you a logical answer to your silly stone question and you ignore it. Typical.


Who told you all this bullshit about God in the first place and why did you believe them?

I have a story about 3 pigs and a wolf if you want to hear it.

Did you know pigs can talk? Yeah! No shit.

It says so right in the book.

I would choose otherwise, but I am incapable of choosing otherwise because I am what I am and that's allthat I am.

#129 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-11-10 02:17 PM | Reply

Isn't that convenient.

So you choose what suits you at the moment. Nuff said.

well there is some wisdom to seeking to not fight what is, much of the stress and anxiety in life is worrying over things you cannot control. Much peace arises from letting go of attempts to control things outside of one's own control.

Much peace arises from letting go of attempts to control things outside of one's own control.

#136 | Posted by truthhurts

So why are you still talking to these Jesus lovers?

#134 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-11-10 02:22 PM | Reply

Well, it is either God or no steak. I think I ate your uncle Venakatishmish for lunch.

Sorry, that's not in the definition..... you must be using your very own dictionary again.... isn't that convenient.


And here I find you a logical answer to your silly stone question and you ignore it. Typical.



#133 | Posted by Corky


you found me an answer that is not an answer-god is anything I want it to be is not an answer and that the is basis of your response.

The definition of omniscient is, "having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things."


that is your definitiion presented by you. complete knowledge means you know all things so if you know it, that is what IS, correct?

thus god knows your choices, that has not been argued against, soooooooo if that choice is known by the all powerful OZ,one cannot choose otherwise, thus no choice at all. Sorry you cant have it both ways.


I would choose otherwise, but I am incapable of choosing otherwise because I am what I am and that's allthat I am.


#129 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-11-10 02:17 PM | Reply


Isn't that convenient.


So you choose what suits you at the moment. Nuff said.

#135 | Posted by slicksterWilly


I unlike some accept I am not perfect and am open to change. Those who refuse to learn, well I believe they are hopeless.

"annnnnnn dddddd god wrote the script.

thanks for playing."

This from a guy that needed cliff notes for cat in the hat.

Your brain power amazes me.


That's fine. I fucked baby Jesus last night just for the cum of it.

#139 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-11-10 02:26 PM | Reply

HAHAHA, did you name you blow up doll 'baby Jesus'? Or is that the name of your right hand?

So why are you still talking to these Jesus lovers?

#137 | Posted by Manypaths


slow day at work

thus god knows your choices, that has not been argued against, soooooooo if that choice is known by the all powerful OZ,one cannot choose otherwise, thus no choice at all.

So God was really fucking over the Devil when it came to Job? He knew what Job would do?

What a sneaky little bastard that God is. Does that make Him a fucking liar too?

"I am what I am and that's allthat I am."

That's Popeye, you silly!! : )

Yeah, same here TH.

And there is a small amount of fun involved.

Many:

We are all tested in our faith.

It's like a muscle...the more we use it the stronger it becomes.

I unlike some accept I am not perfect and am open to change. Those who refuse to learn, well I believe they are hopeless.

#141 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-11-10 02:27 PM | Reply

So you know someone who thinks they have all of the answers and is perfect?


"annnnnnn dddddd god wrote the script.


thanks for playing."


This from a guy that needed cliff notes for cat in the hat.

Your brain power amazes me.




#142 | Posted by salamandagator at


LOL! your post #116 is amazing in its inability to follow the arguements at hand. you made my arguement for me but are incapable of seeing it.


"I am what I am and that's allthat I am."


That's Popeye, you silly!! : )

#146 | Posted by Lisa


yeah but I cant stands me spinach

-so if you know it, that is what IS, correct?

Knowing it and having chosen it are, most obviously, two different things.

But you are giving black holes a bad name as being the densest objects.

One can only hope it is intentional.

#139 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-11-10 02:26 PM | Reply | Flag: He wouldn't even go out with you

#148 | Posted by Lisa

The vast majority of Christians test my faith every single day.


thus god knows your choices, that has not been argued against, soooooooo if that choice is known by the all powerful OZ,one cannot choose otherwise, thus no choice at all.


So God was really fucking over the Devil when it came to Job? He knew what Job would do?


What a sneaky little bastard that God is. Does that make Him a fucking liar too?

#145 | Posted by Manypaths


take a trip to a pediatric oncologist's office and tell me god isnt a sadistic son of a bitch

Manypaths, when does your VISA expire. Can't you take your wisdom and help your native country? It is a complete shit hole due to the cow worship stuff. Please return to it and help them. You are too smart for us and have all the answers.

See?


That's fine. I fucked baby Jesus last night just for the cum of it.

#139 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-11-10 02:26 PM | Reply


Is that the 8lb, 6oz version?


I unlike some accept I am not perfect and am open to change. Those who refuse to learn, well I believe they are hopeless.


#141 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-11-10 02:27 PM | Reply


So you know someone who thinks they have all of the answers and is perfect?

#149 | Posted by slicksterWilly


you were the one attempting to ridicule me for how and why I make the choices I make. If the shoe fits....

#155 | Posted by slicksterWilly

Whatever you have to continue to make up in order to feel better about yourself. Realize most people view your attempts as pathetic.

Is that the 8lb, 6oz version?

#157 | Posted by 101Chairborne

Yes, and it comes with 5 holes!

Ever been wristed?


Here is the writing of an actual atheist intellectual, bemoaning the fact that he shares the same beliefs as juvenile punks like Many and Twoothy.

www.huffingtonpost.com

Sorry, not an atheist.

Do try again.

(See how blind you are?)

you were the one attempting to ridicule me for how and why I make the choices I make. If the shoe fits....

#158 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-11-10 02:34 PM | Reply

Not trying to ridicule you or your choices. Just arguing with you.


-so if you know it, that is what IS, correct?


Knowing it and having chosen it are, most obviously, two different things.


But you are giving black holes a bad name as being the densest objects.


One can only hope it is intentional.


#139 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-11-10 02:26 PM | Reply | Flag: He wouldn't even go out with you

#152 | Posted by Corky at


you continue to attempt to argue that I am saying god is making the decision, that is not what I am saying (now please dont attempt that again). god's knowledge makes the "choice" not a "choice" but a fulfillment of god's will. god wrote the script when he achieved knowledge of all that is to be. If you want we can argue the inconsistency of an all powerful creator who supposedly created all things and entities with will (i.e. the power to create).


Really, you are a theist then? Or just confu... er, I mean agnostic? You likely think you are God.

#150


You could get a lot further if you banished you preconception before starting an attempt at logical analysis.

See how blind you are?

#164 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-11-10 02:37 PM | Reply

I agree GOD's script is written. But the actors are not chosen until they are needed.

There is no difference between Free Will and regular choice.

That biblical believers state the God gives Free Will, and that it is different than plain old regular choice is an indication of their inability to reason correctly. There is no difference between the two.

-god's knowledge makes the "choice" not a "choice" but a fulfillment of god's will

More asininity. Omniscience is knowledge, not source.

That God knew you would choose to be asinine, does not mean he dictated it to be so.

I keep it to myself. Why don't you try it Cork?

who said I was an athiest?

Not sure if there is a religous system that actually defines my beliefs but that is another story.

and frig it, workjust came in so will ahve to tata for now

-I keep it to myself.

Nothing requires little space, eh?


-god's knowledge makes the "choice" not a "choice" but a fulfillment of god's will


More asininity. Omniscience is knowledge, not source.


That God knew you would choose to be asinine, does not mean he dictated it to be so.


#170 | Posted by Corky


but if god knew I was to be asinine, who POSSIBLY could I choose otherwise?

"you continue to attempt to argue that I am saying god is making the decision, that is not what I am saying (now please dont attempt that again). god's knowledge makes the "choice" not a "choice" but a fulfillment of god's will. god wrote the script when he achieved knowledge of all that is to be. If you want we can argue the inconsistency of an all powerful creator who supposedly created all things and entities with will (i.e. the power to create)."



Ouch!
So you are not saying that god is making the decision just that he made the decision when he wrote the script?

Again Ouch!


Out of ideas?
Now you are resorting to conflicting statements?
Dude, they are in the same paragraph, who is suspending logic now?

I think Corky calls anyone who hasn't fallen for the baby jesus crap is atheist. He thinks Christians have a monoploy on God. Just another instance of Corky being dead wrong.


-who said I was an athiest?


So fuckin' funny. Two turds, and neither of them floats, roflmfao!!

"He thinks Christians have a monoploy on God. "


That is a major problem with most organized religion now. It was never meant to be a with us or against us mentality.

Nothing requires little space, eh?

#173 | Posted by Corky at 2009-11-10 02:42 PM | Reply | Flag: woke impersonation

-but if god knew I was to be asinine, who POSSIBLY could I choose otherwise?


He knew your choice was going to be asininity. Nothing special about you there.

psst corky, all I am doing is arguing against the insanity of free will vs an all powerful god.

not making ANY claims as to my belief system.

It was never meant to be a with us or against us mentality.

That ain't what the book says.

It was never meant to be a with us or against us mentality.

But I agree with you.

#179 I might be offended if I knew what that meant.

But at least it isn't, "God knows everything, so that means he dictates everything.", horse manure.



"you continue to attempt to argue that I am saying god is making the decision, that is not what I am saying (now please dont attempt that again). god's knowledge makes the "choice" not a "choice" but a fulfillment of god's will. god wrote the script when he achieved knowledge of all that is to be. If you want we can argue the inconsistency of an all powerful creator who supposedly created all things and entities with will (i.e. the power to create)."




Ouch!
So you are not saying that god is making the decision just that he made the decision when he wrote the script?


Again Ouch!


Out of ideas?
Now you are resorting to conflicting statements?
Dude, they are in the same paragraph, who is suspending logic now?

#175 | Posted by salamandagator at


actually you are correct in my failings there, of course the failing is attempting to explain logically the beliefs of those I am arguing with, that is where I erred.

trying to make sense of the dissonance of the otherside's arguement is where I failed.

If you want to get that work done, I'll hold down the fort for awhile.

"#179 I might be offended if I knew what that meant."

You forgot to say "eh".

Anyone in the Twin Cities? I need a Consultant with HC experience.

(Multitasking!!!!)


#179 I might be offended if I knew what that meant.


But at least it isn't, "God knows everything, so that means he dictates everything.", horse manure.


#184 | Posted by Corky


yet you have failed in over 180 posts to provide any sustantiation to refuting the arguements being made beyond, god is what i say it is.

-not making ANY claims as to my belief system.

That would be difficult, as you apparently have none. And cowardly as well.

I mean, those who criticize others beliefs without defining their own and opening them up to critisism?

Pretty shallow, says here.

ooooh mighty christian of you to call me a coward.

and saying I have no beliefs.

judge not lest ye be judged I believe it is written.

god is what i say it is.

To Corky's defence, isn't that kind of what God is? Put the books down, the fairy tales away, isn't God whatever Corky says it is?

Of course, God is what I say it is then to.

And you.

But it's when you try to explain it beyond that, that people fail and arguments start and wars prevail.

And THAT is the problem that Religion, all religions, bring to society.

You're defending Kooky? :O(

seems we should be able to debate the meaning of life and all without killing each other, but I guess when you call someone on their bullshit, however, well developed in their own minds, people are liable to get agitated.

There are many paths to God. Yours isn't the only one. But in a Christians mind there is only one, and all those not on that path are going straight to hell.

Well fuck you too then.

-yet you have failed in over 180 posts

Vernon's Calculator.

And, with benefit of his own dictionary definition of omniscient to include that knowledge means origination, and that a well thought out, logical argument is, "god is what i say it is.", how could one lose?

"god's knowledge makes the "choice" not a "choice" but a fulfillment of god's will"

Hmmm....

if I put a cookie on the table and tell my son not to take it because I didn't want him to have it right now but I think he's gonna grab that cookie anyway, and he does take it when I'm not looking...how is that a fulfillment of MY will??

I told him not to.

God's will for us is to all be saved.

He took it anyway.

Some choose not to believe.

Did he not just use his free will to decide to take that cookie against my wishes.

Did some not believe, using their free will not to accept God?

It's a choice, Truth. But definately not God's will to have those not believe just because He knows some won't.

The only thing you don't know is you don't know.


The Paradox of the Stone

Some of the various arguments for atheism claim that the concept of God is incoherent, that there are logical problems with the existence of such a being. Perhaps the best known of these is the paradox of the stone: Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?

Either God can create such a stone or he can't.

If he can't, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent.

If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent.

Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God. God, therefore, does not exist.

Problems With the Paradox of the Stone
Although this simple argument may appear compelling at first glance, there are some fundamental problems with it. Before identifying these problems, however, it is necessary to make clear what is meant by "omnipotence".

Christian philosophers have understood omnipotence in different ways. Ren Descartes though of omnipotence as the ability to do absolutely anything. According to Descartes, God can do the logically impossible; he can make square circles, and he can make 2 + 2 = 5.

Thomas Aquinas had a narrower conception of omnipotence. According to Aquinas, God is able to do anything possible; he can part the red sea, and he can restore the dead to life, but he cannot violate the laws of logic and mathematics in the way that Descartes thought that he could.

If Descartes' conception of omnipotence is correct, then any attempt to disprove God's existence using logic is hopeless. If God can do the logically impossible, then he can both create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it, and lift it, and so can do all things. Yes, there's a contradiction in this, but so what? God can, on this understanding of omnipotence, make contradictions true.

Descartes' understanding of omnipotence therefore doesn't seem to be vulnerable to the paradox of the stone. Descartes can answer the question "Yes" without compromising divine omnipotence.

Aquinas' understanding of omnipotence, which is more popular than that of Descartes, also survives the paradox of the stone. For if God exists then he is a being that can lift all stones. A stone that is so heavy that God cannot lift it is therefore an impossible object. According to Aquinas' understanding of omnipotence, remember, God is able to do anything possible, but not anything impossible, and creating a stone that God cannot lift is something impossible.

Aquinas can therefore answer the question "No" without compromising divine omnipotence.

The paradox of the stone, then, can be resolved; it fails to show that there is an incoherence in the theistic conception of God, and so fails to demonstrate that God does not exist.

from the above unread link

no offense lisa but you aint a goddess.

god supposedly knows all including whether your child is going to take the cookie. his knowledge of the choice no longer makes that a choice. The only result CAN POSSIBLY be what god knows is to be the result. therefore, it is not a choice of your child, he can only do that which satifies that which god knows.

NOW WRT to the knowledge vs origination, I might argue that any belief that has god creating all things, makes god the creator of the knowledge that god knows.

-you call someone on their bullshit

And then there are those who hide their own bullshit, apparently afraid of it's stench.

#198 | Posted by Corky


translation: god can mean anyting I want it to mean.

- his knowledge of the choice no longer makes that a choice.

That's just insane. And you could try shouting it, but it will make no more sense that way.

It is nowhere included in any definition of, "omniscience".

So, tell us how you arrive at that conclusion.... by way of Mars?

"no offense lisa but you aint a goddess."

Well according to my husband I am!! : )

"god supposedly knows all including whether your child is going to take the cookie. his knowledge of the choice no longer makes that a choice. The only result CAN POSSIBLY be what god knows is to be the result. therefore, it is not a choice of your child, he can only do that which satifies that which god knows."

Yes He does know whether or not my son would take that cookie.

God did not FORCE my child to take that cookie, Truth.

If that were the case, then I would agree with you.

My SON decided to go against his mothers wishes and take that cookie.

There is a distinct difference between being MADE to do something and someone knowing whether we will or not.

See what happens when you name things?

"That ain't what the book says."


Not so, It gives specific directions as to bringing the teachings but also says that if it is not welcomed or received to "shake the dust from your feet"

LOL Many!!

#201 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-11-10 03:08 PM | Reply | Flag: Has no argument at all

I'm done with this thread, it is moving to fast to continue while trying to get some work done.

Have fun.


I'll check back later to see if, "his knowledge of the choice no longer makes that a choice." deserves anything other than a "Makes things up" flag.


"Makes things up" flag.

#209 | Posted by Corky

Corky? Be careful there kettle.


#201 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-11-10 03:08 PM | Reply | Flag: Has no argument at all

#207 | Posted by Corky at 2009-11-10 03:13 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: Doesn't understand the concept of perfect knowledge.

That's fine. I fucked baby Jesus last night just for the cum of it.

#139 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-11-10 02:26 PM | Reply | Flag: Mohammed law

RCADE?

#212 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2009-11-10 03:53 PM | Reply

Let that fool have his blow up dolls. Who cares.

Driving abortion doctors out of practice through a campaign of harassment is a political act. Roeder was a part of those efforts, so there's a possible terrorism component to it.


Terrorism is the use of violence to achieve political ends.

#34 | Posted by rcade at 2009-11-10 10:42 AM | Reply | Flag: Fail

Sorry RCADE - dead wrong on this. How is closing down an independent business connected to politics? How does it modify abortion laws? How does it influence politicians to change said laws? (to protect the doctors????)

They could be considered acts of ideological terrorism if all the attacks are perpetrated for a common idealogical goal and are not single attacks motivated by an individuals moral compass.

-Doesn't understand the concept of perfect knowledge.


Yep, It's a definite "Makes Things Up" Flag... or two.

I see Cap'n Payback is at it again.


LOL.

Great jorb there.

#214 | Posted by ELCIDCE90

You're wrong.

RCADE is right.

Deal with it. I understand your inability too do so, but it doesn't take away from the fact that you're wrong.

Just because you agree with the terrorist doesn't mean it isn't terrorism.

#217 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-11-10 04:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Deal with what? I don't condone this guys actions asshole. It is NOT political. How is murdering a bunch of abortion doctors going to advance making abortions illegal?

If you would have read my post instead of playing with your butt plug, I stated that:

"They could be considered acts of ideological terrorism if all the attacks are perpetrated for a common idealogical goal and are not single attacks motivated by an individuals moral compass."

Where in that did I absolutely state that it was not terrorism? If he acted along with a group it could be considered ideological terrorism. If it was a single event motivated by his own morality - it is what libtards would call a hate crime.

I understand your inability to stop drinking the libtard koolaide and spouting libtard talking points, but it does not take away from the fact that you're an ASSHOLE for accusing me of agreeing with this killer. You are the one in agreement with a killer - Dr. Tiller. that is.

"Scott Roeder, a man accused of shooting Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller, confessed to the slaying Monday."

Obama says he was probably just stressed out. Let's not jump to conclusions. Oops, sorry, wrong murderer.

n/m

This was a terrorist attack perpetrated by christians, I don't know why everyone is afraid to call it what it is. The government needs to be proactive and shut down their weekly meeting places.

#20 | Posted by NoGov4Me at 2009-11-10 04:43 AM | Reply | Flag: Why start now? Moslems have been doing this shit for years and the government hasn't done fuck all.

This was a terrorist attack perpetrated by christians, I don't know why everyone is afraid to call it what it is.

#20 | Posted by NoGov4Me at 2009-11-10 04:43 AM

That's exactly right. Kind of like how the Ft. Hood shooting was a terrorist attack perpetrated by a muslim, but people are afraid to call a spade a spade.

"the Ft. Hood shooting was a terrorist attack perpetrated by a muslim"

Really? Was the VA Tech shooting a terrorist attack as well? And how about the Columbine shooting...terrorist attack?

I know, we don't want to call the Ft. Hood shooting by an individual who objected to military activity against Muslims, tried to contact Al-Qaeda, and shouted "God is great" as he gunned down a bunch of our military a terrorist act because it might somehow reflect on the president as having not prevented an act of terror. I will just say that the idea that it was somehow Obama's fault is a lame ass right wing talking point, so I'm not pushing an agenda by calling a spade a spade.

"I know, we don't want to call the Ft. Hood shooting..."

You're calling one lone action a "terrorist attack". I'm just wondering if you do the same when a mailman goes postal, or when the VA Tech shooter gunned down folks. Terrorist attack? Or only when the perpetrator, acting alone, is a Muslim?

I'm just wondering if you do the same when a mailman goes postal, or when the VA Tech shooter gunned down folks.

#224 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-10 07:52 PM

Well, if the mailman tries to contact terrorist organizations and the attack is done in response to U.S. policy, like say for example, attacking a military base while objecting to military action against Muslims, then I'll agree it's terrorism.

Terrorist attack? Or only when the perpetrator, acting alone, is a Muslim?
#224 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-10 07:52 PM
Your lame ass attempt at painting me a bigot who is calling this a terrorist act out of some sort of hatred of Muslims rings hollow considering the first sentence I posted in this thread was That's exactly right in response to This was a terrorist attack perpetrated by christians.

If you're going to respond to posts, at least have the courtesy to read them first.

The Wichitaw shooter had actual backers, people who suddenly disappeared once the shit hit the fan.

The muslin shooter acted alone.

Which one is the terrorist again?

Well, if the mailman tries to contact terrorist organizations

But if he is unsuccessful, as the FT hood shooter was, it's not terrorism. Lone gunmen are not terrorists. Terrorists belong to organizations that exist for the sole purpose of killing civilians to strike fear into the population.

Sorry.

"and the attack is done in response to U.S. policy"

So the guy who shot up people because he thought Obama was 'coming after his guns'...terrorist?

"Your lame ass attempt at painting me a bigot who is calling this a terrorist act out of some sort of hatred of Muslims rings hollow "

Except you didn't want actions to be taken against the Christians, and you quite obviously want actions to be taken against Muslims.

But if he is unsuccessful, as the FT hood shooter was, it's not terrorism. Lone gunmen are not terrorists. Terrorists belong to organizations that exist for the sole purpose of killing civilians to strike fear into the population.

Sorry.

#227 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2009-11-10 08:00 PM

Terrorism is the use of violence for political purposes. That can be done by an organization or an individual.

That he tried to contact Al Qaeda just further paints a picture of his motives, to use violence to advance a political purpose (attack the military for their violence against Muslims).

Sorry.

Except you didn't want actions to be taken against the Christians, and you quite obviously want actions to be taken against Muslims.

#228 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-10 08:02 PM

WTF are you talking about? Where am I advocating that action be taken against Muslims?

The muslin shooter acted alone.

#226 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2009-11-10 07:58 PM | Reply

You know this because you talked to the shooter? Or someone knows this because they talked to the shooter?

"Where am I advocating that action be taken against Muslims?"

You're calling this a terrorist attack.

So...again...did the guy who shot up people because he feared Obama was going to take his guns commit a terrorist attack?

"Terrorism is the use of violence for political purposes."

Well in that case most "interventions" by the US military in the 20th century were acts of terrorism. And of course, the Founding Fathers were terrorists. Not disagreeing with you, just pointing out the implications.

Danforth's just making up shit. LOL!

First he accuses me of thinking terrorist acts are specific to Muslims immediately after I completely agreed with the label of the Tiller murder an act of Christian terrorism.

Then he says I obviously want actions to be taken against Muslims for the Ft. Hood shooting, when I have advocated no such thing. Obviously I think the perpetrators of these crimes should be punished (regardless of religion), and that's it.

Surprising coming from said poster, but pathetic nonetheless.

"Then he says I obviously want actions to be taken against Muslims for the Ft. Hood shooting,"

You were the one who set the parameters for a "terrorist attack". I'm just trying to get a little clarification: did the guy who shot up people because he was afraid his guns were going to be taken away commit a terrorist attack?

Well in that case most "interventions" by the US military in the 20th century were acts of terrorism. And of course, the Founding Fathers were terrorists. Not disagreeing with you, just pointing out the implications.

#233 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-11-10 08:10 PM

Fair point.

You know this because you talked to the shooter? Or someone knows this because they talked to the shooter?

#231 | Posted by slicksterWilly at 2009-11-10 08:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

I know this because I can read. If information comes to light proving the Ft hood shooter had the direct backing of Al Qaeda, or some such organization, then i will call this a terrorist attack. I am not in any way trying to defend the reprehensible actions of the Ft Hood Killer, I just want clarity here, and I don't want this to be another excuse to bash muslims, to call a muslim asshole a terrorist while giving a pass to non muslim assholes, for the purposes of kicking the koran in the nutsack. (which foxnews is already doing)

Look, not every bit of bloodshed is terrorism, nor is every death a tragedy. Words have meanings, and not sticking to them...Is why we have flocks of people calling the president a fascist, communist, and a socialist...as though these terms are interchangeable.

As I said, words have definitions that have been agreed upon. Let's use them appropriately.

Surprising coming from said poster, but pathetic nonetheless.

#234 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-11-10 08:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Honestly, I think we're all getting a bit ahead of ourselves here in our agendas.

I don't want this to turn into YET ANOTHER muslim bash. Live or die, you seem to be trying to be fair, we just disagree so far. As to danforths reasoning, ask him. I don't purport to speak for him, and he certainly doesn't require my "help", such as it is.

did the guy who shot up people because he was afraid his guns were going to be taken away commit a terrorist attack?

#235 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-10 08:14 PM

Why wouldn't it be? The guy may have been nuts, but if he used violence to further some political goal, how is that not terrorism?

terrorism
noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
dictionary.reference.com

I'm just trying to get a little clarification

#235 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-10 08:14 PM

Riiight... lol!

And you were trying to advance the notion that I hate Muslims and want "actions" taken against them, immediately after I agreed that the Tiller killing was "Christian" terrorism.

Fuck off asshole.

#237 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2009-11-10 08:15 PM | Reply

Agreed, but don't forget the statements from fellow officers regarding his loyalty oaths and unwillingness to do his job without injecting his religious beliefs. And as this article states, his reaching out to a very well known terrorist organization.

Honestly, I think we're all getting a bit ahead of ourselves here in our agendas.

I don't want this to turn into YET ANOTHER muslim bash. Live or die, you seem to be trying to be fair, we just disagree so far.

#238 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2009-11-10 08:17 PM

Thanks, and I think you're right about the agenda thing.

For what it's worth, I completely disagree with the right's attempt to use this to bash Obama. Like I said, it's a lame ass right wing talking point.

I also agree, Alex, that it's not an indictment of all Muslims in the same way Tiller's killer isn't an indictment of all Christians (just the loony ones who think it was justified).

Agreed, but don't forget the statements from fellow officers regarding his loyalty oaths and unwillingness to do his job without injecting his religious beliefs. And as this article states, his reaching out to a very well known terrorist organization.

#240 | Posted by slicksterWilly at 2009-11-10 08:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hey, if he did indeed get actual backing from terrorist organizations, then this IS a terrorist attack.

If he didn't, then it was a lone wolf scenario. Not only Im I trying to avoid the 1 millionth muslim bash news item this year, I also don't want to further erode the seriousness of the "terrorist" definition.

Crying wolf with this term(especially when its a muslim perpetrator) has become a really bad habit for Americans since 9-11.

Tiller's killer isn't an indictment of all Christians

No, but it is most definitely an indictment of the specific loons he was in contact with that pushed him in this direction.

Tillers murderer is responsible for his actions, but he did have some support. It just remains to be seen if this was monitary in nature.

No, but it is most definitely an indictment of the specific loons he was in contact with that pushed him in this direction.


Tillers murderer is responsible for his actions, but he did have some support. It just remains to be seen if this was monitary in nature.

#244 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2009-11-10 08:27 PM

Agreed.

and

the loony ones who think it was justified

"if he used violence to further some political goal, how is that not terrorism?"

Because it's a lone wolf action. Not unlike the Ft. Hood murders.

"you were trying to advance the notion that I hate Muslims and want "actions" taken against them, immediately after I agreed that the Tiller killing was "Christian" terrorism."

Answering a post that also included a suggestion to shutter churches, which you conveniently ignored.

"Fuck off asshole."

Awww...did widdle wiv-o-die get his feewings huwt?

Answering a post that also included a suggestion to shutter churches, which you conveniently ignored.
#246 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-10 08:32 PM
I didn't include that part because I didn't agree with that part of the post. (duh) Why would I, as a Christian, agree with shuttering Christian churches? I quoted the part I agreed with, and said I agreed with it. And even if I did agree with shuttering Christian churches, how would play into your strawmen that I wanted "actions" taken against Muslims, but not against Christians?

"Fuck off asshole."

Awww...did widdle wiv-o-die get his feewings huwt?
#246 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-10 08:32 PM

What, you don't think that's an appropriate response to such a fine builder of strawmen as yourself? lol!

I'm all ears if you've got something better.

strata-sphere.com

Scott Roeder, identified Sunday as a possible suspect in the slaying of prominent Kansas late-term abortion provider George R. Tiller, is known in anti-abortion circles as a man who believes that killing an abortion doctor is justifiable.

Two abortion opponents who had previously encountered Roeder, 51, said the Merriam, Kan., resident expressed support for their view that lethal force is not a criminal offense if it protects the lives of unborn children.

it really bothers me no one thought to alert the authorities on this man, who already had a criminal record for carrying illegal bombs in his car.(he got off because the car search was illegal) This same man who went to Tiller's clinic several times espousing his violent rhetoric.

Operation rescue, which Roeder was a member of, dropped their website to hide from possible criminal prosecution. Gee, you'd think they'd be proud of their organization, and let it stand up to legal scrutiny...

Here's one of Roeder's comments on that board:

Scott Roeder Says:
May 19th, 2007 at 4:34 pmBleass [sic] everyone for attending and praying in May to bring justice to Tiller and the closing of his death camp. Sometime soon, would it be feasible to organize as many people as possible to attend Tillers church (inside, not just outside) to have much more of a presence and possibly ask questions of the Pastor, Deacons, Elders and members while there? Doesn't seem like it would hurt anything but bring more attention to Tiller.

Believe what you want, keep it to yourself and you're alright in my book.


#49 | Posted by Manypaths

That is why I think there should be a "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy for Religious Beliefs in the Military...just like for sexual the preference of gays or lesbians.

And I think LISA would be surprised to see a big reduction in negative comments about her Sky Beings and Angels and Demons and Zombie Gods and such. If we don't hear such nonsense being spouted in support of irrational thinking such as the Anti-Choice crowd or the Attacking other countries because God told me too crowd then we can't ridicule them near as much!

But, then what would NANC and Takeitsleazy and the Tadpole talk about?

Scott Roeder Says:
May 19th, 2007 at 4:34 pmBleass [sic] everyone for attending and praying in May to bring justice to Tiller and the closing of his death camp. Sometime soon, would it be feasible to organize as many people as possible to attend Tillers church (inside, not just outside) to have much more of a presence and possibly ask questions of the Pastor, Deacons, Elders and members while there? Doesn't seem like it would hurt anything but bring more attention to Tiller.


#248 | Posted by Alexandrite


I think Roeder is refering to the trial of Tiller when the 19 year old Downs Syndrome woman died (sepsis) after a two day abortion. She was 28 weeks pregnant. That is the praying for justice part.

As for asking questions--that would be a better way to vent--protesting needs a permit. If he had gone to the church--he would have been arrested for disturbing the peace.

Roeder committed murder and will see justice.

His 'Necessity Defense' probably won't be allowed by the judge. If he gets on the stand he gets to admit the murder and rant about his beliefs.

He was wrong to do this.

"I'm all ears if you've got something better."

Well, you seem to be the only person calling the Pittsburgh shoot-up an act of terrorism.

Fry him just like the Beltway sniper and god willing, the ft hood, fuckfaced, moslem, pig fucking wallowing scumbag islamicfundie he truly is.

Off them both

Oops and this fundie too!

Well, you seem to be the only person calling the Pittsburgh shoot-up an act of terrorism.

#249 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-10 11:17 PM

As far as I knew terrorism was violence with a political purpose. That seems to be the dictionary definition. Is there an official definition outside of that? I'm more than willing to accept another definition of terrorism if I'm wrong. My biggest point of contention was that bull shit implication that I was declaring it terrorism simply because a Muslim did it.

As far as I knew terrorism was violence with a political purpose.

#252 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-11-11 02:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

How does that differ from our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan?

From the embedded video (I assumed nobody would comprehend the acronym FtEV):

"...if you're so pro-life and you're so pro-child, then adopt one that's already here that's very unwanted and very alone and needs someone to take care of it, to get it out of a horrible situation. OK? People say, "Why don't you do that!" and I say, "'Cause I hate fuckin' kids and could care less." Couldn't give a fuck. Don't care at all about abortion. It's your choice, case closed, the end, bottom line. . . . You're not a human till you're in my phone book. There. My hat is now in the political ring." ~ Bill Hicks

Sooo....

Will we see those most vociferously opposed to abortion - the N.A.N.C.-Murphs, Chapels_of_Hate, Jacqui_Se_Maos, et al., adopting a horde of fetuses in the near future?

Doubtful! Especially if they're *BLACK* fetuses!

Why, why, why, why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place, huh? Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked.

Conservatives don't give a shit about you until you reach 'military age'. Then they think you are just fine. Just what they've been looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. Pro-life... pro-life... These people aren't pro-life, they're killing doctors! What kind of pro-life is that? What, they'll do anything they can to save a fetus but if it grows up to be a doctor they just might have to kill it?They're not pro-life. You know what they are? They're anti-woman. Simple as it gets, anti-woman. They don't like them. They don't like women.They believe a woman's primary role is to function as a brood mare for the state.


Hey, any time I can synthesize a bit of wisdom from the late comics Bill Hicks and George Carlin...I'm a happy guy!

watch the carlin clip here: www.youtube.com

"How come when it's us it's an abortion, and when it's a chicken, it's an omelette? Are we so much better than chickens all of a sudden? When did that happen, that we passed chickens in goodness?" ~ G.C.

www.youtube.com

He was wrong to do this.

#248 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-11-10 10:05 PM

Princess Obvious stating, well...the obvious.

Good job Muffy!

Here's a cookie!

Sorry RCADE - dead wrong on this. How is closing down an independent business connected to politics?

Abortion is the most hotly divided political issue in this country. Anti-abortion activists have protested at clinics for years in an effort to drive them out of practice. Several doctors have been killed by people who were actively involved in this effort, including Roeder.

It's clearly terrorism to murder an abortion doctor as part of an effort to drive doctors out of practice.

I will support retro-active abortions of all the people who voted for obama or mccain and still have the sticker on their car and are talking on the cell phone while driving...

Kansas Capital Murder Crime
In Kansas, the capital murder crimes for which the death penalty can be invoked include the
following:
●● Intentional and premeditated killing of any person in the commission of kidnapping, or aggravated
kidnapping, when the kidnapping or aggravated kidnapping was committed with the intent to hold
the person for ransom;
●● Intentional and premeditated killing of any person under a contract or agreement to kill that person
or being a party to the contract killing;
●● Intentional and premeditated killing of any person by an inmate or prisoner confined to a state
correctional institution, community correctional institution or jail or while in the custody of an
officer or employee of a state correctional institution, community correctional institution or jail;
●● Intentional and premeditated killing of the victim of one of the following crimes in the commission
of, or subsequent to, the crime of rape, criminal sodomy, or aggravated criminal sodomy, or any
attempt thereof;
●● Intentional and premeditated killing of a law enforcement officer;
●● Intentional and premeditated killing of more than one person as a part of the same act or
transaction or in two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a
common scheme or course of conduct; or
●● Intentional and premeditated killing of a child under the age of 14 in the commission of kidnapping,
or aggravated kidnapping, when the kidnapping or aggravated kidnapping was committed with
intent to commit a sex offense upon or with the child or with the intent that the child commit or
submit to a sex offense.

LM

Based on the above I do not think Roeder will get the lethal injection cocktail he so rightly deserves. Instead I will have to pay for this piece of shit until he dies, now that is a shame. I am hopeful that he receives the Bob Bordella, Jeffrey Dahmer treatment and is taken out in prison.

LM

"How are you confusing knowing what your choice will be and making the decision for you?" - Corky

You should read Dune, Corky. Frank Herbert answers your question.

I noticed he didn't mention God to justify his actions.That takes the wind out of the Christian haters argument that they try to use when justifying the actions of muslims who murder in the name of God.
Find a new scapegoat clowns.
rwd

#19 | POSTED BY RIGHTWINGDON

The fuck is a sick and twisted xtian.. Only turds like yourself use nuance to absolve any relation..You shit stains have your own self righteous "jihad" in the name of christ.. how about shooting yourself and save the tax payers from having to fry you later.

We are instructed to do a lot of things in the name of Christ, Legio;

Give food and drink to those in need, coat when one is cold...all in the name of Christ.
We give thanks in His name.
We pray in His name. We do a lot of things in His name....

But killing isn't one of them.

You can put the broad brush away now and get out the 2" one.

Love,

A Shit Stain

"But killing isn't one of them.
You can put the broad brush away now and get out the 2" one.
Love,
A Shit Stain"

I really don't think your a shit stain, but it's fun to type.....so

Shit stain, didn't you say you were an OT bible version believer? Please explain the following then:

"Next we headed for the land of Bashan, where King Og and his army attacked us at Edrei. But the LORD told me, 'Do not be afraid of him, for I have given you victory over Og and his army, giving you his entire land. Treat him just as you treated King Sihon of the Amorites, who ruled in Heshbon.' So the LORD our God handed King Og and all his people over to us, and we killed them all. We conquered all sixty of his towns, the entire Argob region in his kingdom of Bashan. These were all fortified cities with high walls and barred gates. We also took many unwalled villages at the same time. We completely destroyed the kingdom of Bashan, just as we had destroyed King Sihon of Heshbon. We destroyed all the people in every town we conquered men, women, and children alike. But we kept all the livestock for ourselves and took plunder from all the towns." (Deuteronomy 3:1-7 NLT)


and that is only the tip of the iceberg, can give many, many more KILLING quotes from that book....

LM

Execute this murderer and remove him from the gene pool. Like the D.C. sniper - that is why the death penalty is necessary.

Post a comment
Comments are closed for this entry.
Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable