John Kerry touts his war record in his campaign and reminds us every 10 min that he is a 'war hero' but in reality he was a man who joined the likes of Jane Fonda to speak out against the war. I really don’t have a problem with speaking out for what you believe is right but I find it a bit hypocritical to brag about your war experience in order to get a job when you were against the very things that you did in the first place.
Here is a copy of a flyer that his group passed out to the Americans people. John Kerry was a member of the group that passed this flyer out. Next time your see an ad with John Kerry's 'war buddy's' remember that he is talking about them in this flyer. Here is a copy of the minutes from one of their meetings and shows John Kerry as a member.
I have a HUGH problem with this and believe that when you go to the trouble of sending out this kind of propaganda you are not a ‘war hero’, you are a traitor.
Posted by cwilli at March 8, 2004 09:11 PM | TrackBackAnyone interested in the real story of John Kerry's war record should read this:
http://www.tastymanatees.com/archives/000433.html
Posted by: cwilli at March 8, 2004 09:26 PMIn addition, Bush is in the back pockets of the big oil companies as their campaign donations grew the taxes on them that were used to clean up toxic sites they made by extracting fossil fuels were removed. Also George ol' boy wants to waste s**tloads of money on dumb ass space programs and ship all our jobs overseas. Both suck. Vote for someone other than bush and kerry, send a message to the party fat cats that we're not going to accept business as usual in Washington D.C.
It's time Washington went back to representing the "people" instead of their buddies back home.
Posted by: muddy at March 9, 2004 11:21 AMAfter the fake photograph ... real tract ?
It must have been so bad to oppose the independance of a country ...
Anyway. How come no one's commenting on the links I posted. I figured those Pro gold people would suit your tastes...
Read what they say about greenspan's economics, about debt in general...
Just have a look and comment. The page won't bite and I guarantee you some interesting stuff
http://www.depression2.tv/week/index.html
Muddy, I agree the Bush's domestic programs have been dismal as best but I honestly believe that Kerry would be worst. Also a vote for someone else would be the same as not voting at all. This is who we have to choose from...
I never said that I agreed with everything Bush has done. However there are 3 reasons why Bush will get my vote:
1. National security. Bush has continued the philosophy that Regan started. Security by military might. **that should get them going :?)** I dont think that it is an accident that we have not been attacked again. I also believe the Kerry would not support our military just like he didnt in the past. He would most likely bow down to the UN and they may very well end up in control of our military. Even indirect control would be a very bad thing. Kerry will almost certainly stand behind the international criminal court. That would be a VERY bad thing.
2. Christianity. It is under attack in this country and I believe Bush will do the right thing. Just like he has in the past. I believe he will protect religious rights from those who believe that everyone should have rights except the religous (you know who you are).
3. I dont understand the thought of voting for someone who says he will raise our taxes. If you think it will be just the rich who will have higher taxes than you need to do some research on what Kerry has promised. It is a proven fact that tax cuts stimulate the economy. I got WAY more this year when I did my 2003 taxes. I am not the 'rich' elite that Kerry said was the only ones who got any tax relieve. I got it too.
On the flip side there are 2 things that Bush has done/not done that bothers me
1. Medicare reform. He is not fixing the problem only putting a HUGH expensive bandaid on it. Also he is creating a generation of elderly who is dependant on the Government.
2. Jobs leaving the country. We should impose trade sanctions on countries like China who employ slave labor because of the lack of human rights. We need to even the playing field.
Again I do not agree with everything that Bush has done. However Kerry is a real danger to our country.
Again a vote for anyone else is like not voting at all, IMHO.
Posted by: cwilli at March 9, 2004 01:16 PMMuddy:
"Also George ol' boy wants to waste s**tloads of money on dumb ass space programs..."
Look, baby....I've always stated that we (mankind) are creatures of habit, and creatures of control....BUT we are *also* creatures of curiousity and creatures of a profound wanting to explore. So therefore it's only natural *for* mankind to want to explore "space and beyond". It's our natural instinct. And we would be untrue *to* our nature if we didn't try to achieve the next level. Sweetie, you know I love you....but space exploration *is* going to happen one way or another and I believe it *can* very well be important so....get over it!!!
***I say that with love, my dear :-) ****
"...and ship all our jobs overseas."
Ok, I don't mean to sound like a nieve idot here but....doesn't at least *some* of the fault (if not most of it) fall into the hands of the CEO's and presidents of the corporations and companies that are *doing* the actual moving overseas? I mean, I'm sure one of the MANY reasons the big wigs of these companies make the decision to move is because of the economy set in motion by the gov. BUT also...isn't some of the other reasons because that the companies themselves are too cheep to pay their employees what they are worth and realize they ( the corporation(s) ) can get cheeper labor else where ?
"Vote for someone other than bush and kerry, send a message to the party fat cats that we're not going to accept business as usual in Washington D.C."
Sounds like a GREAT idea AND I would *love* too. Unfortunatly, there's not many good choices out there ( as so far, I don't care much for Nader's politics). Give me a better choice...and I'll think about it. Until then, this election year is in consistency with all the rest.....voting for the "lesser of the evils" - so to speak :-/
Besides, I happen to agree with what Cwilli said in his: #1 point about the military. And that happens to be one of the main deciding factors for me this year (as it has been for every election year before this, for that matter) and I somewhat agree with Point #2 - the bad thing about Bush "sticking up for Christianity" is that I don't believe in some of his tactics....for instance (and I just KNOW I'm going to regret bringing this up :-) ) :
Bush wants to make an amendment in the Constitution to make a marriage between a man and woman - only. Now, though *I* do personally (as you know) believe marriage *should* be that way....there shouldn't be an amendment in the Constitution for stating it. It needs to be the decision of each individual state - ONLY! Personally, I think Bush is a bit hypocritical on this one. Granted, we don't know what the amendment would entail (maybe it *would* give the power only to the states to decide - who knows). However, Bush has clearly stated that judges and other officials should not be the ones deciding for the people of what the people *themselves* want. Yet, he would support an amendment that would put that kind of a decision in the hands of the federal government to decide *for* us. That doesn't sit well with me.
cwilli:
I did like the line you stated:
"I don't think that it is an accident that we have not been attacked again."
AGREED! I don't remember the name of the man who said it (though I can clearly see this man's face in my head), but some political analist (I believe he is anyway) stated that Bush is doing such a good job on fighting terrorism and doing his best to keep those monsters off of our soil that people are almost forgetting that these terroists are still a major threat to us. Therefore, because people are starting to feel somewhat safe again, their minds are moving to other concerns and that's why some are not noticing the good job Bush is and has been doing in this situation. That's why - in a wierd way - Bush's "winning" the war on terrorism is starting to hurt him and not help him. Kinda stupid, huh?
That wasn't his exact words but that was the message....AND I'ts kind of scary to think some people have (for lack of a better term) "moved on". We cannot *afford* to let our gaurd down! Especially not NOW!
I hope that everyone recognizes that by act of this very thread it is demonstrated the reality of how the 2 party system is perpetuated. To suggest that voting for any person other than one from either of the 2 richest and most corrupt parties is a “throw away” vote only serves the purposes of the very same 2 richest and most corrupt parties. As mrs. Muddy has said, “she is going to choose the lesser of 2 evils.” I just realized right this very moment how funny that is considering the fact that neither Osama Bin Ladin nor Saddam Hussein were subjects of this conversation.
Would Jesus vote for “the lesser of two evils?”
National security is very important, but GW hasn't been president from Dec. 7, 1941 until now. It is more likely he had more to do with the initial attacks than any lack of attacks there after. Perhaps we put too much trust in those who are most powerful.
Would Jesus trust either GW or John Kerry?
Christianity is not under attack. It is actually more likely that Christians are freer now to practice Christianity than any other religion in this nation, to disagree with that is dangerously closed minded. The real debate centers around the division of church and state, as well as providing equal protection to all groups regardless of religious creed. Not everyone is on the same side for these debates.
Wasn't Jesus crucified from calling into question the legitimacy of the popular religious institutions of his time?
The whole issue about taxes is just another smoke screen and divisive tool for those who still fail to realize that such topics only serve to perpetuate the two party system. Regardless of how little or how much Federal taxes you got back, all local governments are feeling the strains of the huge federal deficit and flight of jobs. The income tax is a war tax and is arguably unconstitutional. The fact is that there are more working class that elite. The elite get more tax breaks than the working class. Most of the taxes they pay is on money that is made by money, often your money. The working class continues to pay taxes on what we make by investing our actual ATP (energy) and time, not to mention sacrifice valuable family time. Very few of the working class makes money from their money. Money can make money even while one sleeps. More tax is being saved on this type of income for a very few, than that being saved by the many working classs...which end up even cutting into their sleep.
Who do you think Jesus would suggest we tax?
Now this should be a video. They show some demonstrators, which side do you think Jesus would be on?
http://www.guerrillanews.com/countdown/
Posted by: BamB00zLed at March 9, 2004 11:43 PMI just noticed the URL http://www.tastymanatees.com/
That ranges up there Beefy Buffalo and Naked Natives...oh wait, have you tried our Cauliflower Condor?
Well I am sure it is about as fair and balanced as any other news source.
Posted by: BamB00zLed at March 9, 2004 11:47 PMBamboozled:
"As mrs. Muddy has said, “she is going to choose the lesser of 2 evils.”."
Actually, I was half joking :-)
"I just realized right this very moment how funny that is considering the fact that neither Osama Bin Ladin nor Saddam Hussein were subjects of this conversation."
Sweetie....why should *you* find it funny that Bin Ladin nor Hussein were the subjucts of the topic when *you* NEVER stay on *any* subject without straying off of it yourself at least once or twice? Isn't that the "pot colouring the kettle black"?
"National security is very important, but GW hasn't been president from Dec. 7, 1941 until now. It is more likely he had more to do with the initial attacks than any lack of attacks there after."
Actually, Clinton is the one who cut back our intellegence after the cold war was over because he felt we just didn't need it anymore. AND Kerry was one of the Senators who went along with the idea.
If Clinton had been any kind of a leader with half the brains of a piss ant, he would have realized that even though *one* threat seemed to be over, that the United States (being the most powerful nation on the planet) was constantly and consistantly hated by *someone* out there and he therefore should have realized that we needed our intellegence more than ever. The way I see it...Bush is now cleaning up after Clinton's royal mess.
I remember asking cwilli and Skywalker about a week or so ago (from their military perspective) which administration was thee *worst* for our military and intellegence. They confirmed what *I* figured out on my own a long time ago.... The Clinton Administration.
"Perhaps we put too much trust in those who are most powerful."
Actually, I trust (and I'm talking *complete* trust) very few people in this world and not one of those people are in "powerful" positions.
"Would Jesus vote for “the lesser of two evils?”."
"Would Jesus trust either GW or John Kerry?"
"Who do you think Jesus would suggest we tax?"
I don't know, I don't know, and.....oh, yeah....I don't know.
Tell you what. You ask Him and get His response then *you* can get back to us on that answer :-)
Regardless of the level of satire intended, you did not say you were going to choose the better of 2 goods. You used the word evil, and since we are taught that the war on terrorism is a war between good and evil I thought it very relevant to ponder why the two most evil doers were not the subject of conversation when one says they are going to pick the lesser of two evils. In the current situation, I thought it more likely we would be discussing Bin Laden or Hussein when referring to evil, but in reality you were referring to GW and Kerry. That is what I thought funny...and relevent.
Clinton vs. GW, the whole debate only perpetuates the closed minded binary thought process that perpetuates the two party system. This type of debating serves the Republicrats and the Democran equally. Their interests and priorities are not shared by the common tax paying citizen. They are the elite and their interests are elitist interests.
I ask the Jesus questions because I want to hear the opinion of Christians which I am not. Jesus is dead, or in heaven, and considering the fact that I lack the faith to consider the divinity of Jesus of Nazarath to be truth, I most likely will never have the opportunity to ask him anything. But I figure asking living Christians would be the next best thing, especially living Christians who know his truths as you do.
Let's say I believe in the divinity of ABC. I claim that my actions are in accordance to the teachings of ABC and that the policy of the mortal leaders, in whom I put vast amounts of trust in, also act according to the doctrines of ABC. If someone does not believe in ABC and asks me to clarify some of the teachings of ABC, or to rectify some inconsistencies between the understood teachings of ABC and actual manifestations of those teachings, then I, as a believer and practicer of ABCism, it is my duty, as a good ABCer, to ask all pertinent questions. It also makes sense that a believer of ABCism is more qualified to answer any questions of ABCism, than a non-believer.
Therefore, I ask you questions about the teachings of Christ.
You, of course, can ask me anything you would like about ABCism.
Posted by: BamB00zLed at March 10, 2004 08:18 AMCORRECTION;
, it is my duty, as a good ABCer, to ask all pertinent questions.
ANSWER, or attempt to ANSWER all pertinent questions. But in reality either will suffice according to the doctrines of ABCism.
Posted by: BamB00zLed at March 10, 2004 08:22 AMBamboozled:
"since we are taught that the war on terrorism is a war between good and evil..."
First off, what I said IS a well known figure of speach (picky picky picky :-) )
Secondly:
Yes, the war on terrorism is - in a big way - a war between good and evil....but it is NOT a "holy war" as the extremists want people to believe. However - while we're on the subject....the one thing you should know about me is that I do not necessarily go with what society or the gov. *teaches* us to believe (unless it just *happens* to naturally falls under what *I* believe already) because for the most part, they don't know what they're talking about - in alot of ways. Besides, I don't need someone to do my thinking anyway....I do my thinking pretty well on my own.
"Their interests and priorities are not shared by the common tax paying citizen. They are the elite and their interests are elitist interests."
I'll give you that one to a major (though not an entire) degree.
"...I lack the faith to consider the divinity of Jesus of Nazarath to be truth, I most likely will never have the opportunity to ask him anything."
Not trying to be preachy or anything but it's only that way because you *choose* it to be that way. I'm sure you've figured that one out already, though.
"Let's say I believe in the divinity of ABC."
You mean the broadcasting station? Now I know we need to have a heart to heart :-) What's wrong....was CBS, NBC and all the others busy that day? :-D LOL!
What exactly would the commandments be for that religion?:
1) Thou shalt have no other stations nor affiliates before me.
2) Thou shalt not take the name of thy CEO's and production companies in vain.
3) Remember the reality shows and keep them smutty.
4) Honor thy remote.
5) Thou shalt not turn the channel.
6) Thou shalt not sell thy t.v.
LOL...ok, ok....I'm done :-)
Seriously, though....look, we all have things in life that are important to us (and maybe I've said this before so forgive me if this is a "rerun" - however, being the ABCer that you are, I'm sure your used to those :-P ). Anyway, whatever those things are that *are* important to us, then we need to make decisions and choices that are consistant *to* those "importances" - so to speak.
Having a military that is strong and able to defend me/us at any given moment is one of the most out of *many* important "things" to me (but you've probably already guessed that, huh?). So, because of that, I would need to vote for the candidate that would support and uphold that.
However, let's say *your* most important issue to you is a clean environment. Then you would need to vote for the candidate that would uphold *that*.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that - in my opinion...God convicts our hearts in different ways in order to fulfill *our* specific destinies here on earth. Now, it's up to us to have our priorities straight (that would included putting God first - as well as His Word - so that we can heed to His proper direction for our lives). So that's why *I* believe that would lead us to vote for different people....in order to be consistant with what we feel our destinies to be according to what we feel God telling us.
Look, this is NOT really comming out as well as I'd like it too so here's my final thought:
I believe that our Nation (or any other country for that matter) should be run similar to that of a household. In the sence that - Just as the husband provides and protects for his wife and children - so should the leader of our nation provide (to a *degree*) and protect *us*. That's why I personally believe that our nations security should come first and foremost and everything else (economy, taxes...and so on) should follow suit.
Most of the reason I made the statement:
"voting for the leaser of the evils"...
is because that even though Bush (in my opinion) has protected us on the homefront...he still has screwd up other things. And it's *those* things that make me feel like voting for Bush will be a "catch 22" for me. But Kerry is someone who I feel does not have his priorities straight and that's why I will not be voting for him.
Hope I'm making sence :-)
Posted by: mrs. muddy at March 10, 2004 12:53 PM1) Thou shalt have no other stations nor affiliates before me.
2) Thou shalt not take the name of thy CEO's and production companies in vain.
3) Remember the reality shows and keep them smutty.
4) Honor thy remote.
5) Thou shalt not turn the channel.
6) Thou shalt not sell thy t.v.
LMAO!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Dont forget
7) Thou shalt always reply 2 times to everyone elses 1.
Ah,yes.....thanks, cwilli.....how could I have forgotten that :-)
Posted by: mrs. muddy at March 10, 2004 01:53 PMJust to state a simple fact:
Fewer US troop died during Clintons 8 years than in any Republicans 4(or 8) year term since WWII. Who is worse for the American troops? (we all know marines love to die.)
Simple Fact:
More Americans have died (3,000+ on 9-11) because of the Clinton cutbacks in security (FBI/CIA) not to mention that fact the Clinton had 3, yes 3 chances to have Osama handed over to him and he REFUSED even though Osama was on the 10 ten list. (Sudan offered AFTER the first attempt on the WTC)
If we had to choose, who would you rather have die? A military member who volunteered who was told that their job could kill them or an American just getting to work right after droping their kids off at day care?
I already know the answer from you Bennyhill, both. That is as long as the economy is good and you still have a good job.
Dont worry Bennyhill someone else will protect your family (we all know your type dont like to fight).
Posted by: cwilli at March 11, 2004 10:35 AMBamboozled:
"Fewer US troop died during Clintons 8 years than in any Republicans 4(or 8) year term since WWII."
That's because Clinton didn't have the balls to take care of the business at hand. (he was too busy using those "balls" for another activity involving someone else).
"(we all know marines love to die.)"
No....the Marines (and all the other forms of our military) love to *protect* their interrests - us - AND fight for what they believe in.
cwilli stated:
"Simple Fact:
More Americans have died (3,000+ on 9-11) because of the Clinton cutbacks in security (FBI/CIA)"
Yeah, Bamboozled....I'm definately going to have to go with cwilli on this one.
Posted by: mrs. muddy at March 11, 2004 11:41 AMThe weeks before these attacks, President GW Bush was on the longest vacation ever taken by a US president... Somehow this is Clinton's fualt? Dont get me wrong, I hate Clinton too, but he was my favorite Republican president.
"More Americans have died (3,000+ on 9-11) because of the Clinton cutbacks in security (FBI/CIA) not to mention "
'more' than what? finish your thought. more than the 20,000 Afghanis killed in 'enduring freedom'?,nope more than the 10,000 dead Iraqi civillians so far?,nope More than 400,000 Americans killed by the tobacco industry yearly(the tobacco industry is a huge supporter of both parties)? More than the uncounted masses of Americans who no longer 'count' as unemployed and are on the streets due to the policies of spending that cause job and tax revenue losses while at the same time increasing debt for future generations of American collaterals(taxpayers)?
3000 dead in suicide attacks is horrible... we have spent approx $2 trillion since then on defense to fight this terror. wars, airport security equip, security details, overtime for troopers, bloated, no-bid defense contracts... It works out to about $1billion of taxpayer money spent for each 9/11 life lost. Are we any safer today against a large jet being crashed into a tower? Bush has done little in response to the 9/11 tragedy other than to waste the assests of the American people and to kill even more people worldwide, greatly increasing the kind of anti-american feelings that led those 20 saudis to make the suicide attacks.
You seem to get on a moral high horse about how a civilian is so much worse to lose than a conscript... do we lose 400,000 soldiers in battle each year? Yet politicians on both sides are quick to shift priorites to aviod exposing how they all work for the tobacco corp. Also somehow Intelligence decisions under Clinton that allowed Osama to remain at large somehow justify Bush's new wars? intteresting especially when you consider that Saddam and Osama were both created by Bush Sr.'s CIA (along with Noriega, Pinnocet and others) and possibly have been fulfilling their mission as CIA pawns all along. After all, who benefits more from the current climate, Bin laden living day to day in a cave waiting to be turned in for reward money by his closest friend, or perhaps it is the richest %0.1 of men in the world who benefitted most from this 'terror', you know, the guys who own millions of shares of defense contractor stock and have all kinds of respect from the average bloke so long as 'the enemy' is out there and is scaring us into being nice little sheep who trust these same people who made Osama to protect us from him.
"Fear will keep them in line" -Darth Vader
once humanity grows out of this self-hating state im sure a world government will arise that unites us all in a false-fear and hatred of some space aliens that may or may not be real.
It is the nature of power to manipulate the weakest, not to protect them... I don't want them to 'protect' my family, the governments' "protection" so far has made more Americans prisoners than any other country (per capita).
"(we all know your type dont like to fight)"
Yes, us Christians do not support fighting, killing, Imperial conquest, crucifixion and imprisonment by a contrived State.
Jesus' last words were something like "Forgive them Father, they know not what they do" a noviolent forgiver even as he was executed by the dominant military power of the time.
In the Bush family bible he must have said "Go now my followers and extract bloody revenge on Judas and all those like him"
Posted by: bennyhill1978 at March 11, 2004 01:41 PM"That's because Clinton didn't have the balls to take care of the business at hand. (he was too busy using those "balls" for another activity involving someone else)"
Funny joke but i believe fellatio is performed on the penis, not the balls (boy do i feel bad for muddy)
Mrs. Muddy you must have forgotten that the US forces under command of Gen W Clark and under Clinton's orders went into Kosovo, stopped a genocidal dictator, turned him into the world court for a real war crimes trial and saved thousands of lives while remaining within their normal budget and without losing a single American Soldier in battle. A true victory for the US Armed services.
The US military has been fighting wars against foreign powers in all but 3 of its years of history (the civil war) Our government is a warlike one. Some people are under the impression that we were not fighting during Clinton's years... not true.
Posted by: bennyhill1978 at March 11, 2004 02:03 PMbenny:
When I was talking about Clinton not having the "balls....", I ment on how to deal with Sadam and Bin Laden. And yes, I do veguely remember something about Kosovo - though someday I will have to re-read it again for memories sake (when I don't have a dozen other things on my plate to take care of first :-/ )
"fellatio is performed on the penis, not the balls"
Yes...I know how it's done....and you KNOW what I ment. Like, you said - it WAS a JOKE!!! :-)
"(boy do i feel bad for muddy)"
LOL! WOW! There's sssooooooooooooooo much I could say to that one BUT for the first time today, I shall act like a "proper lady" (not to mention going against my natural humor) and not give out "tmi" by revealing the words taunting me in my head :-D Besides, I don't want to embarass my Muddy :-) ***Love ya baby****
"The US military has been fighting wars against foreign powers in all but 3 of its years of history (the civil war)"
The Civil War lasted 4 years. Besides isn't "civil war" an oxy-moron? There was nothing "civil" about it :-) I think someone in history was being a smart ass....or at least trying to have a morbid sence of humor perhaps?
Posted by: mrs. muddy at March 11, 2004 02:45 PM"What's so civil about war anyways" - Axl
LOL
Yes the civil war was from 1861-1865, but on July 16 1863. The USS Wyoming (counter)attacked the Japanese. My point was that there have only been 3 years in our history where there US military did not use force abroad, 1861, 1862 and 1863, and in those 3 years the US was engaged in war with itself.... just a commentary on the culture of violence that has persisted at the very top levels of our American government. Too incredible to be true? (http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/foabroad.htm)
Posted by: bennyhill1978 at March 12, 2004 12:15 AMbenny:
Ah....gotcha. Good point not to mention quite an interresting tid bit of history.
Good show :-)
BTW: that link you gave didn't go through for me - however, I Yahood it and found it. Normally, I google...but I thought I'd be "unpredictable" for a change (besides, I'm always complaning to myself about "being *too* predictable" ). I'm happy to say my strategy worked....*I* spiced up my *own*
life :-)
“The weeks before these attacks, President GW Bush was on the longest vacation ever taken by a US president... Somehow this is Clinton's fualt? Dont get me wrong, I hate Clinton too, but he was my favorite Republican president.”
So you actually think that they recruited, planned and executed this entire operation inside Bush vacation? Come on man, you smarter than that. That fact that you even know this and bring it up only shows your red-hot seething hate for Bush. This hate is blinding your objectivity and therefore you will never be able to see any other point of view. Debate with you is useless. However I will defend my points.
“'more' than what? finish your thought.”
Uh there was actually more to that sentence than it appears you got. If you re-read it you will see that I DID finish the thought (perhaps your seething hate prevented you from seeing it);
“More Americans have died (3,000+ on 9-11) because of the Clinton cutbacks in security (FBI/CIA) not to mention that fact the Clinton had 3, yes 3 chances to have Osama handed over to him and he REFUSED even though Osama was on the 10 ten list. (Sudan offered AFTER the first attempt on the WTC)”
“more than the 20,000 Afghanis killed in 'enduring freedom'?,nope more than the 10,000 dead Iraqi civillians so far?,nope More than 400,000 Americans killed by the tobacco industry yearly”
So now your trying Baboozled’s strategy of just throwing random figures out there when they don’t have a point in what we were talking about. We were talking about Americans. You pointed out that more of OUR troops died under Bush and I pointed out that more AMERICAN civilian’s have died under Clinton. Please try and stick to the point. Besides it does not surprise me that you blame the Government for the tobacco industry and you would probably be the first one who would be bitching if the Government banned tobacco. Again seething hate blinding your objectivity. Have you ever heard of being responsible for your own actions? Millions quit smoking every year so it’s not impossible. Of course its all the Governments fault right? Your world is totally absent of any personal responsibility. Everything is the Governments fault.
“we have spent approx $2 trillion since then on defense to fight this terror. wars, airport security equip, security details, overtime for troopers, bloated, no-bid defense contracts... It works out to about $1billion of taxpayer money spent for each 9/11 life lost. Are we any safer today against a large jet being crashed into a tower?”
Yes we are. Not a single attack on our soil since 9/11. So I would say money well spent. Besides if one of your family members would have been killed in another attack after 9/11 you would be the first one bitching that the Government isn’t doing enough. Again seething hate blinding your objectivity.
“do we lose 400,000 soldiers in battle each year? Yet politicians on both sides are quick to shift priorites to aviod exposing how they all work for the tobacco corp”
The funny thing is that I know you smoke and I know you would be the first to speak out against the Government if they banned tobacco. Now that’s hypocritical if I have ever seen it. Then again you would speak out against the Government not matter what they did.
“Yes, us Christians do not support fighting, killing, Imperial conquest, crucifixion and imprisonment by a contrived State.”
You so miss the point and you are wrong. Christians have done that very exact thing many times. Besides that wasn’t my point but again you are blinded by your hate against our Government so I am not going to repeat my point.
Again your hate is blinding your objectivity and therefore you will never be able to see any other point of view. I can live with that. I am just glad that we don’t actually live in the world that you see.
In fact, turn off the TV. Turn off the liberal media who would love to drag you down with how this country sucks. Stop reading the news for just 1 week. How is your life? I will tell you this. Mine is GREAT! I have never done better in my life. When you get sucked into the propaganda you start to lose focus of what is going on in your own backyard. Thats when the hate starts to build. Eventually you get to where you are at Bennyhill. Red hot seething hate against any form of authority.
Good luck with that.
Posted by: cwilli at March 12, 2004 10:10 AM"Bush and I pointed out that more AMERICAN civilian’s have died under Clinton. "
Somebody is blinded by something for sure... exactly when did you decide Clinton was president on 9/11/01? The facts simply are wrong. Time Magazines Woman of the year 2001 was the FBI 9/11 whistleblower that was ignored by those in charge.. they had the knowledge of 9/11 beforehand it is a fact. Bush was president, not clinton, and he was on vacation. these are facts.
How is it that the person advocating non-violence and peace is the one suipposedly consumed by hate?
Your advice "Turn off and ignore the truth" speaks volumes as to how much truth backs up your position. You live in a fantasy world where Clinton is stil president whenever Bush screws up.
"So you actually think that they recruited, planned and executed this entire operation inside Bush vacation?"
I had never thought of it that way but now that you mention it- it makes perfect sense. I guess Bush did plan and execute this entire 9/11 operation while he was supposedly on vacation... After all, he is the one man on earth that has most profited from 9/11. 3 years later he has nothing positive to say so he will try to get re-elected by threatenening to do it again.
8 years of Clinton cutbacks caused the terrorists to slip in under the radar. If he would not have done the cutbacks we would have been able to stop them. If he would have taken Osama when he had the chance (3 times) than we would have been able to stop them.
"You live in a fantasy world where Clinton is stil president whenever Bush screws"
Please explain exactly what Bush did to screw up and cause 9/11.
and please dont stop posting like you did when I asked you for proof that the 10 commandments were tools of Hebrew oppression.
Posted by: cwilli at March 12, 2004 01:38 PMSorry this is long, I think we all know who hates my writing, so this apology goes out to them. Also, while I have your attention, it's spelled BamB00zLed.
So here goes:
------------------------------------------------------- Above this line is post-edited.
“This hate is blinding your objectivity and therefore you will never be able to see any other point of view.”
“Before pointing out the splinter in someone else's eye, remove the plank from your own.” Jesus (I think)
“(we all know your type dont like to fight)” --- What about the people like Jesus?
Now watch this:
Guess who says this line:
“That fact that you even know this and bring it up only shows your red-hot seething hate for Bush. This hate is blinding your objectivity and therefore you will never be able to see any other point of view.”
Then guess who says this line: “Dont get me wrong, I hate Clinton too, but he was my favorite Republican president.”
Now guess who says this line:
“Uh there was actually more to that sentence than it appears you got. If you re-read it you will see that I DID finish the thought (perhaps your seething hate prevented you from seeing it);”
Then guess who says this line: (the following was post edited for dramatization)
Who can take tomorrow
Dip it in a dream?
Separate the sorrows
And collect up all the cream
The candyman
The Candyman can
The candyman can
The candyman can
Cause he mixes it with love
And makes the world taste good
And the world tastes good
“Clinton had 3, yes 3 chances to have Osama handed over to him and he REFUSED”
Why do you think that is Cwilli?
What do you think the decision making process was in each one of those 3 chances? Who do you think made the decisions?
Who would have been the enemy if he was captured?
“now your trying Baboozled’s strategy” -
I rarely put out figures, I don't know any figures at all really. I mean you can check my past reading, but I think I can safely say you won't find many figures in any of my writing. Perhaps your mind might interpret it's own reference of figures having being influenced by thought while reading. I put URLs, I'm lazy like that of course, but no figures, and definitely no random figures.
Now guess who said this:
“Again seething hate blinding your objectivity.”
“Besides it does not surprise me that you blame the Government for the tobacco industry and you would probably be the first one who would be bitching if the Government banned tobacco.”
Actually, I think it is safe to suggest that bennyhill was alluding to the reality that the tobacco industry has a greater influence on the Gov't rather it being the other way around. The Gov't is used as a tool of control and validation for taxes, which then in turn subsidies the corporate industries – in this case tobacco. I don't know how subsidies work in the tobacco industry, but I would guess that at one time they were subsidiesed but probably not now, they get tax breaks which is the same thing. And if not currently than it was probably as a result of the efforts of the organizations such as the ALCU. But who knows, I leave the “numbers” to you guys...and of course TV. And I am sure bennyhill would bitch if the Gov't banned cigarettes as it is yet another violation of civil rights. But he wouldn't be the first one to bitch, because I think we can all agree if it were to happen, he wouldn't be the first one to find out. Why do you think that is cwilli? You don't disagree with the “random numbers” so why do you think it is that they are not banned, but other things are? Why do you think a strand of pubic hair on a CD case is banned but something that kills 400,000 people a year isn't? Do you think it has more to do with the Gov't or the tobacco industry?
“Again seething hate blinding your objectivity.”
“Not a single attack on our soil since 9/11.”
This is called a false positive. The lack of a meteorite hitting Earth does not mean it cannot happen. If we all prayed really hard for it not to happen, and it still doesn't happen, you cannot suggest that it hasn't happened because we prayed. What happens if a meteor does hit? What then? Does that disprove prayer?
“Again seething hate blinding your objectivity.”
“So I would say money well spent.”
That's funny, because that is exactly what the people who are making it are saying.
“Besides if one of your family members would have been killed in another attack after 9/11 you would be the first one bitching that the Government isn’t doing enough. Again seething hate blinding your objectivity.”
Thanks cwilli, see you're picking up the slack.
Yes, perhaps bennyhill would suggest the Gov't isn't doing enough to stop terrorism, but may agree that the Gov't did do enough to increase terrorism.
1+1=2.
“Now that’s hypocritical if I have ever seen it.”
What do you call a Christian who says trying to understand what Jesus would do is “irrelevant?” Now, be aware, that I am not calling you a hypocrite, I am asking you what you would call it. I am the critical.hypocrite, I've already established that, I just want to make sure my seething hatred doesn't blind my objectivity. Objectivity is maintained by asking as many questions as possible, I am asking you a question.
Here's another: What would Jesus call it?
“You so miss the point and you are wrong. Christians have done that very exact thing many times. Besides that wasn’t my point but again you are blinded by your hate against our Government so I am not going to repeat my point.”
What is funny is that I respond to each paragraph and then read on. Keepin' it real you know. And I wrote my last response and read the immediately preceding quote above. Cwilli, you attack bennyhill for hating the Gov't, while in fact bennyhill only suggests that the Gov't is being mismanaged and manipulated by those outside and beyond the controls of the Gov't. Of all the reading here I've done on muddysmind.com, I don't recall reading anyone accusing you of LOVING the Gov't. To suggest someone LOVES unconditionally is equal but opposite to suggesting someone HATES the Gov't unconditionally.
“Again your hate is blinding your objectivity and therefore you will never be able to see any other point of view.”
Should we have a contest?
“I can live with that. I am just glad that we don’t actually live in the world that you see.”
You have informed us of what you are able and unable to live with. The world is more as bennyhill sees it than as you see it.
“Cwilli, I hope you're right.” - BamB00zLed while discussing WMD w/ cwilli. I won't even go there. But I did go there. Mmmmm, perhaps I am blinded.
“We promise according to our hopes, and act according to our fears.” - some big ass name I don't remember.
Cwilli, I hope you don't feel ganged up on by me taking sides with bennyhill. I've been ganged up on before, and it is not a pleasant experience. We just happen to agree, and our agreement is shared in what I just said, so just let me know. The last thing I want you to become is defensive. I think it is safe to say that you might partake in such a practice if we all felt like calling DF a weak as French pussy who “couldn't even be a pimple” on any of our asses. Uh, oh. I think I might have just made you defensive...but was I wrong?
I am a CRITICAL HYPOCRITE.
“In fact, turn off the TV.”
Isn't it amazing, WE ALL AGREE ON SOMETHING. WE ALL AGREE IN SOMETHING. LET'S HAVE A FUCKING PARTY, AND I AM TOTALLY SERIOUS ABOUT THAT.
DAVE/BUSTER'S NEXT SATURDAY!!! I'll send an email.
“Turn off the liberal media who would love to drag you down with how this country sucks.”
Ah man, we had a streak going there. Some media is liberally slanted (Number 2 in agreement column), but it is far from liberal when speaking comparatively and relative to what you would consider conservative. Debates such as we have here are not presented on TV demonstrates that. Gathering from what you've called me, my views may be liberally slanted as well, and there is nothing liberal about the mass media which is driven by advertising, which is driven by consumerism, which is driven by manipulation of the masses, which is driven by money, which is driven by power. All other things which serve this general pattern serve to facilitate each other. Most of these things are not liberal ideals, and most of who you call liberal in Washington are in cahoots with the media. Look at Kerry. There is a reason for all of this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/10/politics/trail/10TRAIL-MONEY.html?ex=10795
This article is from the liberal media.
Cwilli, what do you think that reason is?
“Stop reading the news for just 1 week.”
It's interesting how this is suggested as a way for us to be in agreement.
“Mine is GREAT! I have never done better in my life.”
Imagine that. Aren't our conversations usually subjected on how poor off so many other people are? Like the lazy niggers and the fanatical camel jockeys. Oh, the slant eyes have it pretty bad too. Fuck, who has the time to care any more about the neked Red skins. Too bad we still didn't have slaves, but now we gotta pay these lazy niggers min. wage.
“When you get sucked into the propaganda you start to lose focus of what is going on in your own backyard. Thats when the hate starts to build. Eventually you get to where you are at Bennyhill. Red hot seething hate against any form of authority.”
Cwilli, you truly are poetic sometimes.
“Again seething hate blinding your objectivity.”
Love you all, and god bless America. Don't get me started on that. I will leave some things to think about.
Would Jesus bless slavery, Manifest Destiny, capital murder, tactical nukes, invasion of privacy? Should I stop?
Would Jesus stop?
Posted by: BamB00zLed at March 13, 2004 04:00 PMI just thought I'd put a disclaimer and advise in no way did I suggest that I am trying to emulate Jesus by the stop question.
That mo' fo' got killed for not stopping, and I like living.
Posted by: BamB00zLed at March 13, 2004 04:02 PMSorry, this is the 3rd post in response to a lesser number of previous posts, I truly am sorry. It's just I think so much and not all of it is at the same time.
I have a wonderful question, which results from my lack of knowledge and experience in more than one subject.
Would Jesus be a Marine?
That's a great question actually. Who knows? Am I being steroetypical of Marines? Am I suggesting something about a man who was supposed to have lived over 2000 years ago? Is there a difference between a black Marine and a white Marine? Even though it is technically volunteery, is there a difference between a Marine who came from poverty and one that didn't? If he were a Marine, what would his rank be? Would he be a career Marine? What he be an Expert Rifleman? If he were a Marine, he would be a rifleman, but would he be an Expert rifleman?
Would Jesus be more likely to do Tai-Chi or boxing?
Would Jesus use a computer?
Would Jesus listen to Rush Limbaugh?
Would Jesus get his stomach stapled?
Would Jesus be a CEO?
Would Jesus own stock in Chevron?
Actually, I really only intended to post the one Jesus/Marine question, but got carried away.
Now this is not an attack, as they are all questions. The purpose of the questions is to gather the opinions of both Christians and non-christians. I would say, that if Jesus was alive today, based on what I've learned about him, that he very well might be a Marine. Now, if he were a Marine he'd have to be broken down to be built back up, so the question is, would he be a Career Marine? Who knows, he was able to resist Satan afterall...
But I haven't read the Bible nor believe in Jesus as Christians do, so I am not qualified as much as some others to answer these questions.
Would Jesus have a problem with these questions?
"and please dont stop posting like you did when I asked you...[fill in the blank]"
Simply poetic.
Posted by: BamB00zLed at March 13, 2004 04:33 PMSee I'm still thinking.
As far as I understand the terms barbarism and diplomacy, one of the differentiating factors between the two, is the use of concessions. Some may call it give-n-take, some may call it recipricocity, some may call it Karma.
If you don't remember cwilli, one time you had said that I (me=BamB00zLed) only see what I want to see, or something to that affect, and I cannot agree with you more. At work I fail to see what I write on fax cover letters, or fail to see a proper zip code. In battling with the postman, he repeatedly demonstrates that I don't see “or current resident” by not “returning to sender” as I had instructed.
(so very frustrating, but he was right this time...bastard.)
Just after the last post, which was produced by electricity, produced by either the burning of coal or nuclear fission. That electricity ran through a computer manufactured by Sony, and dominant foreign company built by subsidiesed reconstruction dollars. I drove to the store, away from my house owned by Countrywide in my internal combustable engine vehicle that my daddy bought for me in 1997. While walking in the parking lot I made a couple laugh and befriend me in a matter of moments, while just having previously criticized them silently. I bought salad in a plastic bag, instead of just a head of lettuce. Why? Because I am lazy and I can, and I already have lettuce. But the lettuce might be too old or unacceptable to the chef who will prepare the meal. I couldn't verify because I had forgotten my cell phone, upon which I pay Verizon for service of waves and towers which dominate the air our citizenry is supposed to control in it's entirety. I bought 98% fat free Bryer's ice cream. I think it's supposed to be the best, but compared to the others, this has 15% more ice cream! Only now do I realize that I can't even remember the price or if it was even cheaper than any other brand. I don't even know if that 15% equated to more actual onces.
You see, my point is, that we live in a world as it is today. And it seems that not everything is worth fighting for, dying for, killing for, or even defending. It is as it is, and we are just the citizenry, and this is our world. We should not be locked in battle between or among ourselves as we are all slaves. Some have different skin color. Some speak different languages. Some work in the house, and some are stuck in the field. Some houses are nicer than others, and some fields refer to baseball, football, medical, or law. We all live in a system, that is inherent to it's nature, that cares more for it's own perpetuation than the laborers who perpetuate it.
Oh, yeah. I even bought beer. But this is Hoegaarden witbier-bierre blanche. I think it means white beer, but I figured I'd try it.
Cwilli, I don't mean for you to feel the need to be defensive and I definitely don't like the attacks I sometimes feel are directed toward me. A lot of it could be my own blindness as I just mentioned. However, regardless what the cause, the emotions illicited are not enjoyable, and that is why I sincerely mean it when I say I do not wish to instigate such responses in you.
My intention is not to create division between or among us, but to suggest we have more in common with each other than we do with those who prefer such divisions to exist. When the masses stay divided then much more is reasonably possible for those who's intention it is to divide.
I am BamB00zLed and a Critical.Hpyocrite.
Here are some more song lyrics: (sorry, but if I had the talent of poetry, I provide my own.)
Hypocrisy Is The Greatest Luxury
by Disposable Heroes Of Hiphoprisy
Album : Hypocrisy Is The Greatest Luxury
Life these days
can be so complex
we don't make the time
to stop and relfect
I know from first hand experience
one can go delerious
seriously it can be like that
But before I put my foot in my mouth
'cause that's what I'm about to start
talkin about
please let me confess before all the rest
that I'm afflicted
by this addicted like most in the US
It's tough to make a living when you're an artist
It's even tougher when you're socially conscious
Careerism, opportunism
can turn the politics into cartoonism
Let's not patronize or criticize
Let's open the door and look inside
Pull the file on the state of denial
Hypocrisy is the Greatest Luxury
Raise the Double Standard
The bass, the treble
Don't make a rebel
Havin' your life together does
AMERICA
has an image of a young one
fast livin' not give an expletive
no respect for his
or the lives of those around him
Suicidal, homicidal or at very least
extremely unbridled
How convenient for those
who would like to destroy him
The problem has never been our political logic
but the way we enact it
We can imagine a perfect society
but can't maintain a decent relationship
The failure found in the luxuries
not in the hardships
Hypocrisy is the Greatest Luxury
Raise the Double Standard
BamBOOzLed:
Sweetie - with ALL due respect - there are decaffeinated brands on the market that taste *just* the same as regular :-)
Posted by: mrs. muddy at March 13, 2004 09:51 PMBamboozled:
What would Jesus do?
You seem to be *very* fascinated with that question. Ok then. I'll give you another point of view from me. But before I do, I would like to ask YOU a question, actually - a couple of questions, Ok?
Are you asking so as to know how to deal with your *own* life? When you get my answer will you be able to handle it? My answer is pretty simple, actually. But I wonder if you would be willing to accept a *simple* answer and not (with all due respect) "dissect" it 'to the hilt'. AND once you do recieve my answer (not saying my answer is *theee* right or only one... ) would you be willing to actually follow what might *be* Jesus's "response" and example?
Ok ok ok. Enough with *my* questions....here's my response.
What would Jesus do?
He would pray.
He would pray to His Father to guide Him and comfort Him. Just like He did in the Bible when He always prayed. He prayed to His Father.
That's it. Now, was that the answer you were looking for? Or was it the answer you feared the most. Does it comfort you? Is that something you would be willing to try? Or now that you know...will you just shy away from asking again?
Look, I'm really not trying to put you on the spot. The thing is, with a question like that....well, personally, I think the question was just made "popular" so that it would cause everyone to stop and think twice about their actions. In no way, shape or form do I intend to belittle someone asking that question...but as I stated in the past....it's kinda silly *to* ask.
Simply because, there's a few things that personally, I *can't* imagine Jesus doing. I can't imagine Jesus having sex...but does that mean it's wrong. Does that mean that every man and woman should stop making love to their spouses? Of course not. (and before you - or someone else does - don't bring up the theory that some historians think Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. Maybe He was....but most likely not....however, it's not my point anyway).
I also can't imagine Jesus giving birth through labor. (Now, aside from the fact that it would be impossible for a man to experience that anyhow - not to mention waaayyy too painful to draw up the mental picture). But does that mean that labor is wrong? Obviously not. I've gone through it twice myself - which is my limit, by the way as I have now retired my womb and hung up my ovaries....FOREVER! :-)
As a humorous side note. I was watching a comedian on tv about 2months ago. I don't remember his name or anything but I do remember what he said. He was talking about being at the movie theater watching the movie when the cell phone of the guy infront of him started to ring. The guy picks up the phone and "quietly" starts talking to the person on the other end. So this comedian says:
"hey mister, you better hang up that phone, I'm trying to watch the movie"
And the guy response by saying:
"yeah? Well, I'm trying to talk on the phone!"
The comedian replies:
"Hey, man, you better hang that up before I get really mad!"
The guy then asks:
"Oh, yeah, what are you going to do about it?!"
The comedian talks to his audence and says that at that moment he remembered the bracelet he was wearing: WWJD...(What Would Jesus Do?)
So he thought:
"What would Jesus do? What *would* Jesus do?"
The comedian then informed us:
"That's when I turn around - set the guy on fire and sent him to hell!"
Of course, obviously he didn't actually *do* that (that's why they call it "comedy" ) but, I LMAO on that one for 5 min.
Posted by: mrs. muddy at March 13, 2004 11:41 PMMrs. Muddy, I thank and commend you for be Christian enough to take on the tough “Jesus” questions. I will do my best to answer your questions to your satisfaction.
Are you asking so as to know how to deal with your *own* life?
Good question, but I ask you questions about Jesus not for myself in a religious sense, but in a logical sense. I see many inconsistencies between the policy and actions of those who claim to be acting in a Christian manner when compared to what I understand of the teachings of Jesus. Since there are others, including yourself, who know more about Jesus than myself, I ask you to clarify those discrepancies.
When you get my answer will you be able to handle it?
Always.
My answer is pretty simple, actually. But I wonder if you would be willing to accept a *simple* answer and not (with all due respect) "dissect" it 'to the hilt'.
I don't think I can make any type of commitment or obligation to this request.
AND once you do receive my answer (not saying my answer is *theee* right or only one... ) would you be willing to actually follow what might *be* Jesus's "response" and example?
I will not follow anything that is presented as divine instruction from a mortal being. If you got him to come down himself and do a Power Point presentation, then I'd be more inclined to be part of HIS Holy Flock.
Now, was that the answer you were looking for?
Would it make sense if I said it wasn't the answer I was looking for, but still am not surprised to have gotten that answer.
Or was it the answer you feared the most.
If I expressed any level of fear for anything beyond global catastrophe, then I apologize. Some people may experience fear from Question/Answer sessions, but those are usually the ones who have something to hide.
Does it comfort you?
Not really, because of the inconsistencies I recognize is that of our highest, self-declared Christian leaders. It seems they are doing more profiting and killing than praying. Can you further extrapolate?
Is that something you would be willing to try?
I've been praying for 27 years.
Or now that you know...will you just shy away from asking again?
Pah...lease. Mrs. Muddy, you should know me better than that. I will never stop asking.
“I think the question was just made "popular" so that it would cause everyone to stop and think twice about their actions......it's kinda silly *to* ask.”
Isn't this the whole idea behind Christianity and a way of living in a more Christian manner. What would Jesus say? Would he say asking what he would do is just a fad? An “in” thing? Would Jesus think it's a silly question?
Mrs. Muddy, I applaud your imagination of Jesus having sex and giving birth, and find it wonderfully thought provoking.
But how about something more realistic, and we'll do it comparatively:
We know Jesus didn't support the power of the Roman empire and that of the Jewish high priests...we he support any US Administration that profited from war?
Posted by: Critical.Hypocrite at March 14, 2004 11:55 AMBamBOOzLed er,uh, I mean "Critical.Hypocrite:
By the way is CH (critical.hypocrite) the name you wish to go by from now on?
"I thank and commend you for be Christian enough to take on the tough “Jesus” questions."
Well, thanks, but don't give me too much credit. I don't think I'm neccessarily being "Christian enough"....I think I'm just being insane :-)
"I see many inconsistencies between the policy and actions of those who claim to be acting in a Christian manner when compared to what I understand of the teachings of Jesus."
You too, huh? Dude, they're are ALWAYS going to be "inconsistencies" with how some "Christians" act and how they are "supposed" to act. It's called Human/sinful nature (don't mean to be beating a dead horse with this one but....). No, human/sinful nature does NOT give us an excuse But it is the REASON behind it. Besides, I myself am sometimes *very* much inconsistent with my actions and my claims of the Christian faith. I am not perfect. I can sometimes curse like I *just* walked off the boat....I am not proud of that fact at all...but I *am* truthful AND I'm trying to change that. Does that make *me* a hypocrite? No, because I've *never* claimed to be something I'm not.
"I will not follow anything that is presented as divine instruction from a mortal being."
Neither will I - nor *do* I. Jesus was 100% God and 100% man when He was on earth. Now, He's no longer man but God. But you'd have to actually *believe* that in order to agree, obviously...and I don't expect you to :-)
"Not really, because of the inconsistencies I recognize is that of our highest, self-declared Christian leaders."
Ahhhh! Thar she blows! Now I see the problem (well, what may be *some* of it anyway). You also touched on it a little in a previous paragraph about some Christians in general not being consistent.
First off...Actually, it depends on who your talking about when you say "self-declared Christian leaders". Any way you look at it, you can not count on these "leaders" (whether they be politicians, pastors, rabbi, preist, pope or whoever) to "lead" perfectly without fail. Because at some point in their lives, they obviously will......but you know that because I just stated the obvious. So, are you choosing to dispute God for the stupid things (or what YOU may refer to as "stupid" ) people do in His name?
Secondly: The Christian leaders are just that. Leaders. But it doesn't *mean* they will *properly* lead the people. These 'leaders' may very well (whether some intend to or not) lead the people astray. That's why it is each persons responsibility to make sure (by reading the Bible for themselves) that the "leaders" are not "leading" them away *from* God into (what *I* would call) religion but that the leaders are *helping* to bring the people *Closer* to God.
I mean, Dude! When *anyone* relies more on what the Christian leaders are doing and saying (no matter how "trustworthy" and "legit" they may very well be) and not on what God *Himself* is saying, then yes....you (people in general) have a problem.
"Mrs. Muddy, you should know me better than that. I will never stop asking."
Touche' :-)
"Isn't this the whole idea behind Christianity and a way of living in a more Christian manner. What would Jesus say?"
Well, yes and no. The reason *I* find the whole question annoying and....well....ridiculous (no offense to anyone) is simply because they're are some people in the world who grew up and/or live a life that revolve around the beliefs that tells them that just about everything out there is wrong.
Whether it be drinking (in moderation) , dancing, wearing make-up, cutting your hair, listening to rock music..... it's in these cases where the "What would Jesus do" question that would encourage some to feel more guilty and condemned than anything. And for these people, they can't imagine Jesus really doing ANY thing accept looking at them in constant judgement. So while this question may very well *help* people (and God bless 'em if it does), to other people, the question would be just another reminder of how they just aren't "good enough" to live up to the standards set by their church (which, trying to live life being obedient to the church *first* and not to *God* first IS their first mistake......but we touched on that above).
While we're *on* the subject:
What would Jesus say about going *off* the subject of "John Kerry being a traitor"? :-P
I think we agree yet fail to meet in our agreements. I think this resides in our examples of what is "bad."
As above, you mentioned the following as possibly sinful acts according to some sects of Christianity: swearing, dancing, make-up, hair length, and music.
Where as I wanted to know what Jesus would say about things such as tactical nukes, neutron bombs, imperialism, corporate fraud, $200 million and $80 million campaign budgets, infringment of civil liberties, profiteering from war, etc.
We must agree on the fundamentals before our conversation can reach the next level.
BTW: Where is CWilli?
Posted by: BamB00zLed at March 15, 2004 07:05 PM"I think we agree yet fail to meet in our agreements."
Agreements? I'm sorry, I didn't see that one listed in "The 'What would Jesus Do' answering guide for extreme questions" handbook :-) I didn't realize we *had* an "agreement" :-)
"I think this resides in our examples of what is "bad."
I think the things I mentiond *mostly* were things other people consider "bad". What do you consider bad?
"As above, you mentioned the following as possibly sinful acts according to some sects of Christianity: swearing, dancing, make-up, hair length, and music."
My only point to that thread was that, it was the reason I don't like the WWJD questions. Because some people take them to the extreme. Nothings wrong with asking those questions....but it can very well be spiritually damaging to *some* people. Not because *God* "damages" them but because the people do it to themselves.
"Where as I wanted to know what Jesus would say about things such as tactical nukes, neutron bombs, imperialism, corporate fraud, $200 million and $80 million campaign budgets, infringment of civil liberties, profiteering from war, etc."
Dude, like I stated in my comment under the "sniper" article.... If I knew then *I* would be God. I don't know what He would say - and I'm not afraid to admit that :-) But I do believe He would judge their hearts according to their intentions.
"We must agree on the fundamentals before our conversation can reach the next level."
Describe your definition of "fundamentals". Maybe you already stated above but right now, I'm not going to search for it.
Besides...sweetie....you know that I'm more than willing to answer what I can BUT so far NOTHING (at least nothing much) I have said satisfies what your looking for. So I really don't *know* what to say. I mean, I'm not trying to be difficult here (not that you would think I am) but in order for me to answer some of these questions, I would have to have at least a glimsp into the mind of God Himself. He deals with individuals on a *personal* level. The only way I would know these answers you want is if He revealed it to me. So far, I personnally haven't asked in specifics about most of them.
Dude, I'm not trying to push anything on you nor am I trying to "recruit" you....but if you want to know what Jesus would do then ask the one who knows. Ok...so you've been praying for 27 years. Fine. How well are you *listening*? And aside from all of that, if you don't put your faith in the God/Jesus your asking me about then who *are* you praying too?
You can ask away and I'll give you what I have but I really don't think it's going to be enough....is it?
Posted by: mrs. muddy at March 15, 2004 11:13 PM"BTW: Where is CWilli?"
Oh no. Your not going to suck me into your maze of circular logic... :>)
Besides I am still waiting on Bennyhill to backup his statements with proof on how Bush screwed up and caused 9/11 and how the 10 commandments are tools of Hebrew oppression.
So far: 'cricket... cricket...'
Posted by: cwilli at March 16, 2004 07:07 PMBenedict Arnold betrayed America in 1780. His plan was to hand the British West Point. John Kerry does have a plan for America. His plan is to hand over America to the U.N and the Communist. Please read Unfit For Command. Our liberty is at stake!
Posted by: Mark Curtis at October 16, 2004 08:38 PMBush is worse than a traitor. He's destroying the USA and world security under your very own eyes.
The sooner Americans vote for Bush, the sooner the rest of the world will know there's nothing to be expected from stupid, born again christian america. Please vote for him. The bigger its victory the easier it will be for the rest of the world to dump you. There's not a nation in this world who owes not something to Roosevelt. We loved the generous democratic and seperated from church america.
These last years the USA have turned into a disgrace for the western world. A shame to all democrats. Still because of all the past it has been hard to really break with the past. Just give us four more years of Bush and we'll see the end of this nightmare . The collapse of the "christian" capitalists after the collapse of the atheist communists.
Come on. Helps us get rid of you all. Vote Bush.
Hey DF, thank you for showing your true colors. Now we know you're nothing more than an anti-American, intolerant, bigot, pinko-communist.
We'd be plenty happy to be left alone DF, but it seems whenever we've tried to but out of world affairs, the rest of the world can only fall apart.
Just wait for the day DF, when they come to your city and blow up 3k people. That day will come, or are they paying off your leaders too?
DF, your socialist beliefs blind you. Get over it. If you really want us to fall apart, pray for Kerry to win. This country will collapse if he wins.
Posted by: skywalker at October 18, 2004 08:58 AMDf
You are a psychiatrist's dream.
"Bush is worse than a traitor"
I've got 3 words for you.....Oil for Food. Now, who's the traitor?
Posted by: mrs. muddy at October 18, 2004 08:59 AMSorry but once again. I'm green.
The thing is the USA embody a "way of life". That "way of life" is killing the planet. There's very very urgent need to replace the "world leaders" and the economic rules by which we live.
America has many positive sides. Aclu, a constitution, freedom of the individual.
It is however becoming a biggot fundamentalist country, where people pretend to follow the religion of Love (Jesus) and then advocate bombing others, barricading themselves against the poors at the doors, and destroying earth now with no shame for those to come. The USA is known to be the country of greed, and yet it likes to see itself as the the "new promised land", a religious country.
Let them come and kill my entire family. I won't let myself become like them. I have moral standards. I won't indulge into whatever "psychological technique" that "is not torture" because of whatever technical argument my lawyers have found to justify what can not be justified.
Come on. The only reason Bush gets any support is because he says he has faith.
It seems in the USA, all you have to do is say "I believe in God, i have faith, I m confident", and then you can take tax payers money and put it in the hands of your rich friends, launch a war without clear vision, anger half of the planet against your policies, suppress ecological protections ... And get reelected. People believe in you, they trust you.
It seems in the USA, people are believers. They'd believe anything if it is told by someone that pretends to be on "god's side".
Well. Face your destiny. My God is called Facts. Or reality. And I tell you, he's the strongest of them all. He'll get rid of any belief anyone can have. In fact the good thing is, that God acts, wether or not you believe in It.
Follow your faith in your whatever God. I know where it leads to. And it's a nasty business.
"The only reason Bush gets any support is because he says he has faith."
Kerry says he has faith in God too, DF. So that argument can fall both ways. AND as a matter of fact, Kerry is Catholic. Which, I believe (though I could be mistaken) is the biggest Christian denomination in the USA.
Posted by: mrs. muddy at October 19, 2004 01:56 PMDF, your ignorance astounds me! You seem to not understand a single thing about living in the US!
The statement that you'll let them kill your family shows that you are either a complete idiot, or you have absolutely no soul.
Posted by: skywalker at October 19, 2004 04:35 PMBut PLEASE, dont let the facts get in the way....
Posted by: cwilli at October 19, 2004 04:36 PMI did not say I would let them ...
I said, "let them come". It means, bring them on.
Whatever they would do, I know it would not reverse my moral standards.
Of course Kerry s a catholic, but he's not making it an issue. He's not fighting against gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion, he's not talking about a crusade when he speaks about Iraq. Religion is a private thing for him, as it should be.
The only one making an issue of religion is Bush.
I don't understand how any single american can support Bush who is leading your country to a complete economic failure.
The USA now rely on Asian credit. If China and japan stop to devaluate their currency by buying 200 billions of US dollars government bonds each year ... The dollar plundges. Interest rates go up. So goes debt. Demand falls. Economy goes down.
This is a matter of months now.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43402-2004Oct18.html
ANd I can't believe there's no one else on this site to explain to cwilli that all the reports say that there were no WMD in Iraq, and that the administration presented flawed information in order to win support of the war. Can't any of you see that things have changed since february 2003 ? Why do you keep on trying to justify what can not be ? You seem like those neonazis that say there were never any gas chambers in the Nazi concentration camps, or like these communists that blame the UdSSR fall on capitalist plot. Do you read other things than conservative garbage ?
the title of the all post is offensive. "Kerry is a traitor".
1 the guy fought a war, and well
2 the guy had the courage to oppose that war, because that war was unjust. He denounced atrocities that did happen. He helped shorten the war. He had the courage to oppose his peers and face his fellow citizens at the time completely mistaken. ANd you blame it for that !!
I suppose you would accuse Einstein leaving germany of treason, may be chalabi was a traitor also. Any one that opposes his own country must be a traitor according to you. It does not seem to matter if what the country does is wrong, it does not seem to matter if the opposition is by way of speech and democracy or by way of violence.
Any opposition to the ruling majority is treason and terrorism ! What a great definition of democracy this is.
3 And then and finaly, all this happened 30 years ago and you still call that man a traitor.
If there had been more kerrys around, less people would have died uselessly. The vietnamese had a right to rule their own country, be it under a communist regime if it was their choice. The USA killed millions of them vietnamese with no reason. They used chemicals, tons of bombs ... And it seems there's still people around proud of that war. Shame on you.
Posted by: DF at October 20, 2004 08:47 AM"Of course Kerry s a catholic, but he's not making it an issue."
Ummmm...yeah, he is.
"He's not fighting against gay marriage,"
Ummmm...yes, he is
"stem cell research,"
Actually, no one is really "fighting" against it...I think Bush just looks at it as that he would like to know more about it before he makes a decision.
"Religion is a private thing for him, as it should be."
For Kerry? really? Is that why whenever he steps inside of a church (the last one being this past weekend at a *Baptist* church in my very own town - well *close* enough to my town) it's all over the news? If it were *that* "private" to him, he'd go out of his way (as would any politician) to aviod the media finding out. They ALL use it in one way or another as "leverage".
"ANd I can't believe there's no one else on this site to explain to cwilli that all the reports say that there were no WMD in Iraq,"
Well, don't look at me because I believe Cwilli to be right. The WMD's may not actually BE in Iraq but someone does have them. Besides, even the Delfler (don't know if I spelled that right) report said that Saddam had every intension of starting up his WMD program again.
"... and that the administration presented flawed information in order to win support of the war."
You mean flawed *intellegence* information? That was the same intellegence that Kerry read and even *he* agreed Saddam had to go. AND Kerry was also partly responsible for helping Clinton to shrink funding for our intellegence too...of course, it's always easier to blame someone *else* for your mistakes, though.
"Can't any of you see that things have changed since february 2003 ?"
Can't YOU see that things have changed since Sept 11th 2001 !!!! We live in a different world now. When intellegence comes to your desk and clams that Saddam is holding WMD's and is ready to use them (or give them to terroists who will do the same thing) AND given Saddam's track record - being that he's a liar and has never been truthfull a day in his pathetic life. So being you can't trust him as far as you can spit on him....you'd been a fool not to act on it. I don't blame Bush for what he's done on that level.
"the title of the all post is offensive. "Kerry is a traitor"."
Kerry is a war hero...yes. It's NEVER been Kerry's war record that's been under "attack" (well, not exactly). It was what he *said* about soldiers AFTER he came back that makes him the traitor. He said that they all - including himself commited war crimes. Well, according to the men he served wiht...it Never happend! Someone is lying. If Kerry lied and war crimes never took place, then something is very mentally wrong with him and I don't want someone like that in control of MY country. If the men he served with are lying and Kerry DID commit these crimes....where is the military court to put him away? These were *kerry's* claims from the very begining....not ours, not the repulicans, not the "right-winged" conspirators, not the Bush administration, not the "neocons" but from KERRY himself.
Look, with *any* war, it's hard for me to believe that EVERY SINGLE soldier is "as pure as hte driven snow", I'm sure in every war, their ARE soldier who do things (even horrible things) that they're not suppossed to be doing. But, in this case, their are so many comming out against Kerry's words....you *have* to look at it. That's one of the reason's it's still an issue today. The people he served with want their voices heard...and according to them...their voice speaks the truth. Kerry has also never appologized for his remarkes either - remarks that were also played over loud speakers in POW camp to our American soldiers to try to break them.
Posted by: mrs. muddy at October 20, 2004 11:13 AMCWILLI SAID:"Besides I am still waiting on Bennyhill to backup his statements with proof on how Bush screwed up and caused 9/11 and how the 10 commandments are tools of Hebrew oppression.
So far: 'cricket... cricket...'
Well since my post in March it has become abundantly clear that Richard Clarke, the single greatest authority on counter-terrorism in the US govt for the last 20 years was dismissed by the vacationing Bush on at least 5 occasions between Bush's protest-laden innauguration and 9/11/01. He brought specific details about the planned attack and suggested ways to prevent it. Bush was too busy golfing and riding his segway scooter to listen. Bush has already taken more vacation than any 1 or 2 term president before him. Bush has also given fewer press conferences than any 4-year president. What is our fearless leader hiding from?
John Kerry has served the US government for over 30 years as a soldier and as a Senator. He actually went to Vietnam and on top of that he actually was in the action on more than one occasion- meanwhile Bush was skipping Gurard duty in favor of snorting lines of cocaine and getting DUIs. However you may feel about Kerry's later criticism of the Vietnam police action, he was there, Bush was here, and breaking the US law.
Richard Clark capped off his distinguished military career by serving under 4 administrations as the top counter-terrorism expert. While Bush was causing his businesses to fail and lose millions (Bush always came out with more money- but his employees didnt enjoy a 'golden-parachute'), Clark helped to prevent terrorist actions on many occasions. While Bush was deregulating Enron leading up to Enrons creation of the California energy crisis (and the following recall election, giving Republicans control of Californias electoral votes), Clark was instrumental in the capture of the (1990's) WTC bombers, the Unabomber and McVeigh.
It is telling that the Bush campaign wants you to think Clark and Kerry are 'traitors'. They did the same thing in 2000 by accusing McCain of sympathising with the enemy, they have also tried to disparage many other American heroes like Robert McNamara. This is a strategy to make you forget that Bush and Cheney both dodged vietnam - but they have no problem sending 17 year olds to Iraq today. They want to flip it arround and make the draft dogers into patriots and the war heroes into traitors.
Bush ignored the nations top terrorism expert. He screwed up and we got attacked. Now he is trying to rewrite history and say that he has protected us, that doesnt change the fact that we got attacked on his watch. He wants to flip it arround and have you believe that he has made us safer when in fact we got attacked due to his arrogance in denying even 1 meeting with Clark before 9/11. Clinton met with Clark once a month during his 8 years in office, as did Reagan and GHW Bush. This is just one of the things Bush should have done to protect us against 9/11. He provoked the attacks in other ways as well. Bush has no regrets and cant remember making any mistakes or even learning anything from mistakes.
As for the 10 commandments being a tool of repression as a means to establish order/control over otherwise free souls, i'll try to make it clear, if you really are interested, better writers than I have examined 'jewish' guilt in great detail.
It goes something like this:
Children and converts learn fear God and to believe the commandments are the word of God.
5000 years later we find that people still want to do almost all of these forbidden acts, these things are the dark side of human nature and that is not going to change.
When something is forbidden it often makes people want it even more. (see the current demand for flu shots)
The writers of the torah knew these things. The commandments were not written in the book in hopes that one day these 'bad' behaviours would be erradicated, they were put there to make sure that people feel guilty when they do one of these things.
Why? Because a guilty concience NEEDS religion.
Just as the primary function of any bureaucracy is to strengthen and grow the bureaucracy, the primary function of a successful religion is to make sure more and more people need the church.
This is what fills the offering plate.
We are all sinners, the bible was written to make sure of that. Therefore anyone who puts faith in the bible will feel guilt. Guilt that can only be relieved by the church. This is one of the main ways that the church derives power, the power to forgive, the power to judge and the power to punish. The church can say that they are acting on behalf of God thanks to the percieved sanctity of the divine document of the 10 commandments.
In ancient hebrew times, the fear of guilt was enough for people to obey and pay tribute to the church. And since there was no forgiver, the fear was justified. The church and government worked together to enforce Gods law.
Jesus rebelled against organized religion and this aspect of monotheism and he was betrayed as result of his rebeillion. Since his death, organized religion has taken control and now jesus is more like mikey mouse than a rebelious, counterpoint to strict, guilt based religions.
Today, 'Christian' churches have large and ornate architecture with idols and guilded offering plates. these things add the perception of legitimacy and authority. It doesnt seem to bother people that Jesus himself was expressly against things like idols, religious art, decorative priest robes, and organized confessionals - he wore simple clothes and prefered to be outside in the temple of God rather than in some fancy man made temple.
Today only muslims obey the prophet Jesus' rules regarding this.
The 10 Commandments establish order and concentrate power by taking advantage of faith and using guilt to manipulate otherwise free souls.
Too bad there was no 11th commandment "The church shalt not reign supreme over the parrishoners"
Posted by: bennyhill1978 at October 20, 2004 12:05 PMI'm sorry to come again on the subject but :
1 - the bush administration presented fake intelligence concerning the nuclear program of Saddam. That has been proven. Other stuff like drones, chemical trucks have been proven equally as gross fakes.
Once the president says there needs to be a war, there's no doubt the intelligence community works in that direction and in that direction only. There's never been a plan B for Iraq.
2 - The Duelfer report say most of the WMDs were destroyed during the inspections. Whatever may have passed to other countries is bound to be ridiculous. From the start Iraq has been a small state, it then lost a war, then was disarmed under UN inspections ... What could there be left ?
Saddam did not try to rebuild new ones during the sanctions. Of course his main objective was to build new ones once sanction would be lifted. But who could blame it for that ? That would have been his right, and probably a wise thing to do, given IRan Threat.
The link between 9/11 and Saddam is preposterous. Saddam had no link with al quaida, there was no way he would back a terrorist attack that would have brought sanctions again on his country. He was heading a state, not a terrorist organisation. He has never seemed tempted by any suicidal act, but rather always seemed to do everything to gain power and keep it.
I won't pretend kerry is the perfect candidate. He lives in America, he has to bend before religion. That's a shame. Nader is far better no doubt. But come on, you can't contest the fact that Bush is playing "family values", religion, and calling Kerry a liberal. While Kerry is stressing economic issues. Kerry does some religious posturing, just like Bush pretends to do something for the economy and the average joe. But noone believes it. Bush wants to change the constitution to prevent gay marriage !!
www.factcheck.org provides a good summary of the "swift boats veterans for truth" affair. Kerry said there were atrocities committed in Vietnam and there were. He did not say "all", and if he did, which I doubt, that was a generalisation, easily understandable as such. He said he committed some too, he may have exaggerated his own wrong doings, i don't know. I never read he has been specific on any crime. He has not been sentenced for that, well few soldiers have, the reason is, they were asked to commit these atrocities.
Whatever happened, that was 30 years ago, and all legal action on the subject is impossible, the subject should be dead. Some vietnamese may have used Kerry's discourse to impress the american soldiers held prisonners :
1 these soldiers then knew that these facts were true, they had been soldiers, they had committed atrocities, or known people who had, or people who knew people who had.
2 they ought to have felt proud of their democratic system where opposition is possible, while opposition was not tolerated by the vietcongs.