Discussion:
What would the Devil have driven?
(too old to reply)
donquijote1954
2008-01-09 22:25:36 UTC
Permalink
Since it's pretty much settled that Jesus would have ridden a bike,
let's debate now what the Devil would have driven...
I thought he drove an SUV. ;)
"The Devil" does not exist. But you do remind me of Don Quixote.
His SUV polluted too.
DonQuixote rode a horse, Rocinante, and Sancho rode a donkey, like
Jesus.

The Devil does not exist but Christians are often found doing evil
things. I have no doubt in my mind though that the Devil would have
driven an SUV if he existed.

WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
Amy Blankenship
2008-01-09 22:41:43 UTC
Permalink
I'm not of any religious persuasion that is easy to explain, but I find the
fact that you keep making all sorts of flames based on religion is getting
to be a little offensive.
Post by donquijote1954
Since it's pretty much settled that Jesus would have ridden a bike,
let's debate now what the Devil would have driven...
I thought he drove an SUV. ;)
"The Devil" does not exist. But you do remind me of Don Quixote.
His SUV polluted too.
DonQuixote rode a horse, Rocinante, and Sancho rode a donkey, like
Jesus.
The Devil does not exist but Christians are often found doing evil
things. I have no doubt in my mind though that the Devil would have
driven an SUV if he existed.
WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
donquijote1954
2008-01-10 03:34:56 UTC
Permalink
On Jan 9, 5:41 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
I'm not of any religious persuasion that is easy to explain, but I find the
fact that you keep making all sorts of flames based on religion is getting
to be a little offensive.
Amy, my attack is not against religion, just hypocrisy. But you would
find the same spirit in some of the best known American
personalities...

"The motto stated a lie. If this nation has ever trusted in God, that
time has gone by; for nearly half a century almost its entire trust
has been in the Republican party and the dollar--mainly the dollar. I
recognize that I am only making an assertion and furnishing no proof;
I am sorry, but this is a habit of mine; sorry also that I am not
alone in it; everybody seems to have this disease."
- Mark Twain in Eruption
landotter
2008-01-10 04:52:04 UTC
Permalink
On Jan 9, 4:41 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
I'm not of any religious persuasion that is easy to explain, but I find the
fact that you keep making all sorts of flames based on religion is getting
to be a little offensive.
Religion is a belief in nonsense, as such, it should develop a thicker
skin, and less of an attitude. On my local newspaper's message boards,
nearly half the messages are religious folks condemning others.
Strangely enough, when one responds in kind, one is labeled as
intolerant.

You may be born black or white or taupe, but last I checked, the
doctor doesn't lift a mysterious flesh flap when you're born and
assert, "this one's a Hindu centrist."

While one shouldn't be required to respect religion, tolerance is a
good friendly thing to practice, however, laughs trump tolerance.
Tom Sherman
2008-01-10 05:55:22 UTC
Permalink
...
Religion is a belief in nonsense,...
Utter rubbish. The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Universe with
His Noodly Appendage.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." A. Derleth
Amy Blankenship
2008-01-10 14:03:36 UTC
Permalink
...
Religion is a belief in nonsense,...
Utter rubbish. The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Universe with His
Noodly Appendage.
No, it was the aliens. As you would know if you listened to Bob.
donquijote1954
2008-01-10 16:58:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Sherman
...
Religion is a belief in nonsense,...
Utter rubbish. The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Universe with
His Noodly Appendage.
With all due respect I think you are wrong...

God created a master race to teach the world how to eat McDonald's and
drive SUVs (at the same time)...



Thus he made them to His image.
Amy Blankenship
2008-01-10 14:04:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by landotter
On Jan 9, 4:41 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
I'm not of any religious persuasion that is easy to explain, but I find the
fact that you keep making all sorts of flames based on religion is getting
to be a little offensive.
Religion is a belief in nonsense, as such, it should develop a thicker
skin, and less of an attitude. On my local newspaper's message boards,
nearly half the messages are religious folks condemning others.
Strangely enough, when one responds in kind, one is labeled as
intolerant.
Direct attacks on others' deeply held beliefs isn't funny, whether I share
them or not.
donquijote1954
2008-01-10 17:25:34 UTC
Permalink
On Jan 10, 9:04 am, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by landotter
On Jan 9, 4:41 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
I'm not of any religious persuasion that is easy to explain, but I find the
fact that you keep making all sorts of flames based on religion is getting
to be a little offensive.
Religion is a belief in nonsense, as such, it should develop a thicker
skin, and less of an attitude. On my local newspaper's message boards,
nearly half the messages are religious folks condemning others.
Strangely enough, when one responds in kind, one is labeled as
intolerant.
Direct attacks on others' deeply held beliefs isn't funny, whether I share
them or not.
But when those beliefs are used as cover for evil things then they are
fair game.

Do I have a problem with religious cyclists? No, actually I think they
practice what they preach.
Amy Blankenship
2008-01-10 17:41:03 UTC
Permalink
"donquijote1954" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8d865244-1c36-438b-9b9d-***@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 10, 9:04 am, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by landotter
On Jan 9, 4:41 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
I'm not of any religious persuasion that is easy to explain, but I find the
fact that you keep making all sorts of flames based on religion is getting
to be a little offensive.
Religion is a belief in nonsense, as such, it should develop a thicker
skin, and less of an attitude. On my local newspaper's message boards,
nearly half the messages are religious folks condemning others.
Strangely enough, when one responds in kind, one is labeled as
intolerant.
Direct attacks on others' deeply held beliefs isn't funny, whether I share
them or not.
But when those beliefs are used as cover for evil things then they are
fair game.

------------------

But you haven't attacked them as a cover for evil things. You've
essentially said

"All Christians drive SUV's"
"SUV's are evil"
"Therefore, all Christians are evil."

Only you've managed to pad it out to make it much more offensive than that.
donquijote1954
2008-01-11 21:18:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by donquijote1954
Since it's pretty much settled that Jesus would have ridden a bike,
let's debate now what the Devil would have driven...
I thought he drove an SUV. ;)
"The Devil" does not exist. But you do remind me of Don Quixote.
His SUV polluted too.
DonQuixote rode a horse, Rocinante, and Sancho rode a donkey, like
Jesus.
The Devil does not exist but Christians are often found doing evil
things. I have no doubt in my mind though that the Devil would have
driven an SUV if he existed.
WELCOME TO THE JUNGLEhttp://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION?http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution
Why would you say that Jesus would have ridden a bike. For his
culture he did a lot of traveling, but he used the method most common
to the average man - walking. Since the Bible clearly indicates how
the world will end (and any action we take on global warming wont
change that), I rather think Jesus would not have been a tree
hugger. BUT ... if you think SUVs are evil then dont drive one.
More pollution making potential for the rest of us.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I'm sure he would have embraced the bicycle if it was invented. It
would have been stupid not to do it.

But selfish predators like you are not really smarter because you are
taking advantage of my savings. You are accelarating your own doom --
or those unlucky enough to be in your progeny. Overhunting is stupid.
The selfish gene is self-destructive. Thanks God! ;)

Well, in the face of Armageddon, WWIII and Global Warming, there's
hope...

(This is a funny article: Written by a religious person he dismisses
Atheists as Darwinistic, while the real problem is SOCIAL DARWINISM,
something very much in use by the Religious Right led by Bush, who he/
she rightly condemns as evil. My own view of the world draws on
Epicurus. Otherwise a criticism from within is healthy for the
Christian mind.)

Humanity on probation

Author: One is not living to conquer and subjugate all known parts of
God. Living means learning to relate.

In ethical - humanitarian, friendly, attentive - atmosphere of just
cooperation and attentive regardfulness is where words like justice,
love, wisdom, freedom, democracy and socialism have laid their
foundation.

Out of ethical, nonaggressive, unfrightening atmosphere the initiators
of Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity and many other religions were
acting and speaking.

In ethical inexclusive atmosphere, Socrates' philosophy found the
'measure' of virtue and fearlessness.

Ethics is an everlasting source 'feeding' the heart; today ethics has
become the 'mother' of ever stronger and stronger ecological
awareness.

Q: Human being has been changing thought the history. Evolution is
something one cannot deny.

Observing evolution of human mind, one can notice humanity traveling
from MONOLOG into DIALOGUE. Human beings are traveling from the
tyranny of the command, out of the slavery to the word, out of the
authoritarian, hierarchic order of ancient times, into a democratic,
non-authoritarian, non-violent, horizontal, classless society with
social and ecological awareness.

However, we have not arrived yet, although the end is already shinning
out of the darkness.

The mind of society is changing slowly. Moreover, convulsively. Every
revolution has been bringing our minds closer to regardfulness.
Dialogue. Closer to a free, untamed, non-scarred, non-authoritarian,
modest, considerate society.

All the revolts against tyrant, eating ones 'own' body, were the
revolts of the healthy body - common people - against a cell of a
cancer. Against the greedy-one. Against the cruel winner. All
revolutions are battles for a healthy, harmonic body. Because
evolution demands health. Equality among cells. Modesty. Synergy.

Throughout the entire history, a revolt of healthy body against
illness has been happening. A revolt against an egotist -
exclusivistic tyrant. Against authority. Against ordering.

...

Q: Predators are ruling?

A hunter is using the logic of the predators: 'All I catch is my
possession. Trace, hunt, kill!'.

Death of a prey means life to the hunter, that is why a hunter is
drinking blood of a prey with pleasure and death for him means feast
day. For a hunter Nature seems to be an opponent with whom one is
fighting all the time. Living for a hunter means everlasting battle
with hunger or death.

The hunter's logic, the logic of Darwinism, knows only one-way: 'To
win always!', because loosing means death to a hunter. Dilemma of the
predator is: 'If I do not kill, I am going to be food!', that is why
(! for Bush !) there is no dilemma. And no compromise. He has to go
in war and win. Or die.

Hunter's logic was the logic of all robbers, pirates, conquerors,
imperialists.

http://www.geocities.com/no_copyright/Sl_without_weapon.htm
Tom Sherman
2008-01-11 23:32:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by donquijote1954
...
Observing evolution of human mind, one can notice humanity traveling
from MONOLOG into DIALOGUE. Human beings are traveling from the
tyranny of the command, out of the slavery to the word, out of the
authoritarian, hierarchic order of ancient times, into a democratic,
non-authoritarian, non-violent, horizontal, classless society with
social and ecological awareness.
However, we have not arrived yet, although the end is already shinning
out of the darkness....
Bah. We have arrived at a point where a fascist government can come into
being, while the citizens still believe that they are living in a democracy.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." A. Derleth
donquijote1954
2008-01-11 23:51:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Sherman
...
 Observing evolution of human mind, one can notice humanity traveling
from MONOLOG into DIALOGUE. Human beings are traveling from the
tyranny of the command, out of the slavery to the word, out of the
authoritarian, hierarchic order of ancient times, into a democratic,
non-authoritarian, non-violent, horizontal, classless society with
social and ecological awareness.
However, we have not arrived yet, although the end is already shinning
out of the darkness....
Bah. We have arrived at a point where a fascist government can come into
being, while the citizens still believe that they are living in a democracy.
"AT A TIME OF UNIVERSAL DECEIT, TELLING THE TRUTH IS A REVOLUTIONARY
ACT" - G. Orwell

But I still have hope in the proles. ;)
Stephen Harding
2008-01-12 13:31:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Sherman
Post by donquijote1954
...
Observing evolution of human mind, one can notice humanity traveling
from MONOLOG into DIALOGUE. Human beings are traveling from the
tyranny of the command, out of the slavery to the word, out of the
authoritarian, hierarchic order of ancient times, into a democratic,
non-authoritarian, non-violent, horizontal, classless society with
social and ecological awareness.
However, we have not arrived yet, although the end is already shinning
out of the darkness....
Bah. We have arrived at a point where a fascist government can come into
being, while the citizens still believe that they are living in a democracy.
With the Patriot Act and such, aren't you afraid
of a knock on the door at midnight for speaking so
openly in public?

You're obviously a very brave person.


SMH
Tom Sherman
2008-01-12 14:33:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Harding
Post by Tom Sherman
Post by donquijote1954
...
Observing evolution of human mind, one can notice humanity traveling
from MONOLOG into DIALOGUE. Human beings are traveling from the
tyranny of the command, out of the slavery to the word, out of the
authoritarian, hierarchic order of ancient times, into a democratic,
non-authoritarian, non-violent, horizontal, classless society with
social and ecological awareness.
However, we have not arrived yet, although the end is already shinning
out of the darkness....
Bah. We have arrived at a point where a fascist government can come
into being, while the citizens still believe that they are living in a
democracy.
With the Patriot Act and such, aren't you afraid
of a knock on the door at midnight for speaking so
openly in public?
You're obviously a very brave person.
Yep, advocating a political/economic system such as is used in
Scandinavia could well earn one a trip to the detention camps
Halliburton is building that Blackwater will guard.

Heck, even advocating the system used in countries such as England,
Canada and New Zealand makes one an Anti-American Communist by the
standards of Faux News, the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise
Institute and the shouting heads of talk radio.

It is questionable if the remaining freedom of speech, travel, etc. in
the US could withstand another Reichstag Fire, er 9/11/2001 incident.
Such an incident would be easy to arrange with the "assets" on the
payroll of the CIA, not to mention the covert services of several
countries friendly to the neocon agenda.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." A. Derleth
donquijote1954
2008-01-12 17:19:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Sherman
Post by Stephen Harding
Post by Tom Sherman
...
 Observing evolution of human mind, one can notice humanity traveling
from MONOLOG into DIALOGUE. Human beings are traveling from the
tyranny of the command, out of the slavery to the word, out of the
authoritarian, hierarchic order of ancient times, into a democratic,
non-authoritarian, non-violent, horizontal, classless society with
social and ecological awareness.
However, we have not arrived yet, although the end is already shinning
out of the darkness....
Bah. We have arrived at a point where a fascist government can come
into being, while the citizens still believe that they are living in a
democracy.
With the Patriot Act and such, aren't you afraid
of a knock on the door at midnight for speaking so
openly in public?
You're obviously a very brave person.
Yep, advocating a political/economic system such as is used in
Scandinavia could well earn one a trip to the detention camps
Halliburton is building that Blackwater will guard.
Which is what I advocate too...

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote1
Post by Tom Sherman
Heck, even advocating the system used in countries such as England,
Canada and New Zealand makes one an Anti-American Communist by the
standards of Faux News, the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise
Institute and the shouting heads of talk radio.
You can praise China though. ;)
Post by Tom Sherman
It is questionable if the remaining freedom of speech, travel, etc. in
the US could withstand another Reichstag Fire, er 9/11/2001 incident.
Such an incident would be easy to arrange with the "assets" on the
payroll of the CIA, not to mention the covert services of several
countries friendly to the neocon agenda.
"In a grim city and a terrifying country, where Big Brother is always
Watching You and the Thought Police can practically read your mind,
Winston is a man in grave danger for the simple reason that his memory
still functions. He knows the Party's official image of the world is a
fluid fiction. He knows the Party controls the people by feeding them
lies and narrowing their imaginations through a process of
bewilderment and brutalization that alienates each individual from his
fellows and deprives him of every liberating human pursuit from
reasoned inquiry to sexual passion."

http://www.amazon.com/1984-George-Orwell/dp/0452262933
donquijote1954
2008-01-12 20:25:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by donquijote1954
Since it's pretty much settled that Jesus would have ridden a bike,
let's debate now what the Devil would have driven..
I have no idea what, if anything, the Devil would drive. I'm pretty
sure though that he (or his minions of darkness) would crosspost his
trolls to numerous NGs from a hotmail account.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
Crossposting ranks very low in the Evil Scale. Way behind driving an
SUV while talking on the cell. Or voting Republican.

And you can clear it with riding a bike a couple of times. ;)
Stephen Harding
2008-01-13 18:05:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Sherman
Yep, advocating a political/economic system such as is used in
Scandinavia could well earn one a trip to the detention camps
Halliburton is building that Blackwater will guard.
Heck, even advocating the system used in countries such as England,
Canada and New Zealand makes one an Anti-American Communist by the
standards of Faux News, the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise
Institute and the shouting heads of talk radio.
It is questionable if the remaining freedom of speech, travel, etc. in
the US could withstand another Reichstag Fire, er 9/11/2001 incident.
Such an incident would be easy to arrange with the "assets" on the
payroll of the CIA, not to mention the covert services of several
countries friendly to the neocon agenda.
Looks like you've got it all figured out.

Wish I could be so confident with my political beliefs.


SMH
Ron Wallenfang
2008-01-13 20:20:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Harding
Post by Tom Sherman
Yep, advocating a political/economic system such as is used in
Scandinavia could well earn one a trip to the detention camps
Halliburton is building that Blackwater will guard.
Heck, even advocating the system used in countries such as England,
Canada and New Zealand makes one an Anti-American Communist by the
standards of Faux News, the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise
Institute and the shouting heads of talk radio.
It is questionable if the remaining freedom of speech, travel, etc. in
the US could withstand another Reichstag Fire, er 9/11/2001 incident.
Such an incident would be easy to arrange with the "assets" on the
payroll of the CIA, not to mention the covert services of several
countries friendly to the neocon agenda.
Looks like you've got it all figured out.
Wish I could be so confident with my political beliefs.
SMH
An alternative conspiracy theory holds that the CIA is principally
battling the Bush administration
Bill Sornson
2008-01-13 20:54:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron Wallenfang
Post by Stephen Harding
Post by Tom Sherman
Yep, advocating a political/economic system such as is used in
Scandinavia could well earn one a trip to the detention camps
Halliburton is building that Blackwater will guard.
Heck, even advocating the system used in countries such as England,
Canada and New Zealand makes one an Anti-American Communist by the
standards of Faux News, the Heritage Foundation and American
Enterprise Institute and the shouting heads of talk radio.
It is questionable if the remaining freedom of speech, travel, etc.
in the US could withstand another Reichstag Fire, er 9/11/2001
incident. Such an incident would be easy to arrange with the
"assets" on the payroll of the CIA, not to mention the covert
services of several countries friendly to the neocon agenda.
Looks like you've got it all figured out.
Wish I could be so confident with my political beliefs.
SMH
An alternative conspiracy theory holds that the CIA is principally
battling the Bush administration
Along with some in the State Dept.
Tom Sherman
2008-01-13 21:42:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron Wallenfang
Post by Stephen Harding
Post by Tom Sherman
Yep, advocating a political/economic system such as is used in
Scandinavia could well earn one a trip to the detention camps
Halliburton is building that Blackwater will guard.
Heck, even advocating the system used in countries such as England,
Canada and New Zealand makes one an Anti-American Communist by the
standards of Faux News, the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise
Institute and the shouting heads of talk radio.
It is questionable if the remaining freedom of speech, travel, etc. in
the US could withstand another Reichstag Fire, er 9/11/2001 incident.
Such an incident would be easy to arrange with the "assets" on the
payroll of the CIA, not to mention the covert services of several
countries friendly to the neocon agenda.
Looks like you've got it all figured out.
Wish I could be so confident with my political beliefs.
SMH
An alternative conspiracy theory holds that the CIA is principally
battling the Bush administration
The CIA is really two different agencies - intelligence
gathering/analysis and covert operations. The members of the former tend
to be rational, and therefore do not approve of the faith/ideological
driven decisions of the Cheney/Bush Administration, especially the
cooking over evidence to fit the ideology.

The covert operations branch, to judge by the evidence, is a fascist
organization, as they have supported the overthrow of democratic
governments for fascist or fascist/monarchical replacements: e.g. Iran,
Guatemala, Chile and Indonesia. Covert operations have also supported
dictators such as Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein, until the White
House decided that were too embarrassing to have on the payroll and
turned on them.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth
Bob
2008-01-16 03:35:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Sherman
Post by Stephen Harding
Post by Tom Sherman
...
 Observing evolution of human mind, one can notice humanity traveling
from MONOLOG into DIALOGUE. Human beings are traveling from the
tyranny of the command, out of the slavery to the word, out of the
authoritarian, hierarchic order of ancient times, into a democratic,
non-authoritarian, non-violent, horizontal, classless society with
social and ecological awareness.
However, we have not arrived yet, although the end is already shinning
out of the darkness....
Bah. We have arrived at a point where a fascist government can come
into being, while the citizens still believe that they are living in a
democracy.
With the Patriot Act and such, aren't you afraid
of a knock on the door at midnight for speaking so
openly in public?
You're obviously a very brave person.
Yep, advocating a political/economic system such as is used in
Scandinavia could well earn one a trip to the detention camps
Halliburton is building that Blackwater will guard.
I believe you missed the sarcasm in SH's comment.
Post by Tom Sherman
Heck, even advocating the system used in countries such as England,
Canada and New Zealand makes one an Anti-American Communist by the
standards of Faux News, the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise
Institute and the shouting heads of talk radio.
Are you implying that those you name shouldn't have the same freedom
of speech you exercise to to hurl insults at them to throw names back
at you?
Post by Tom Sherman
It is questionable if the remaining freedom of speech, travel, etc. in
the US could withstand another Reichstag Fire, er 9/11/2001 incident.
Such an incident would be easy to arrange with the "assets" on the
payroll of the CIA, not to mention the covert services of several
countries friendly to the neocon agenda.
Unfortunately for your implication of a government-sponsored
conspiracy responsible for the 9/11 WTC attack, there isn't a shred of
evidence of any such conspiracy. Let me guess- the conspiracy was *so*
good that it left no evidence, right? BTW, why not stop hiding behind
the not-so-subtle hints and mere intimations in your posts ("...a
fascist government *can* come..." and "...*could* well earn one a trip
to the detention camps..." [emphasis added], and say exactly what you
mean?

Regards,
Bob Hunt
Tom Sherman
2008-01-16 03:54:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Post by Tom Sherman
Post by Stephen Harding
Post by Tom Sherman
Post by donquijote1954
...
Observing evolution of human mind, one can notice humanity traveling
from MONOLOG into DIALOGUE. Human beings are traveling from the
tyranny of the command, out of the slavery to the word, out of the
authoritarian, hierarchic order of ancient times, into a democratic,
non-authoritarian, non-violent, horizontal, classless society with
social and ecological awareness.
However, we have not arrived yet, although the end is already shinning
out of the darkness....
Bah. We have arrived at a point where a fascist government can come
into being, while the citizens still believe that they are living in a
democracy.
With the Patriot Act and such, aren't you afraid
of a knock on the door at midnight for speaking so
openly in public?
You're obviously a very brave person.
Yep, advocating a political/economic system such as is used in
Scandinavia could well earn one a trip to the detention camps
Halliburton is building that Blackwater will guard.
I believe you missed the sarcasm in SH's comment.
No, I ignored it.
Post by Bob
Post by Tom Sherman
Heck, even advocating the system used in countries such as England,
Canada and New Zealand makes one an Anti-American Communist by the
standards of Faux News, the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise
Institute and the shouting heads of talk radio.
Are you implying that those you name shouldn't have the same freedom
of speech you exercise to to hurl insults at them to throw names back
at you?
I was, of course, implying nothing of the sort. I was, of course, not
even addressing the issue Mr. Hunt brings up.
Post by Bob
Post by Tom Sherman
It is questionable if the remaining freedom of speech, travel, etc. in
the US could withstand another Reichstag Fire, er 9/11/2001 incident.
Such an incident would be easy to arrange with the "assets" on the
payroll of the CIA, not to mention the covert services of several
countries friendly to the neocon agenda.
Unfortunately for your implication of a government-sponsored
conspiracy responsible for the 9/11 WTC attack, there isn't a shred of
evidence of any such conspiracy.
Note that the Reichstag Fire was likely NOT set by the Nazis, but they
took full advantage of its occurrence politically.

Note how the Cheney/Bush administration took political advantage of
9/11/2001, irregardless of who the perpetrators actually worked for.

I was not making the implication Mr. Hunt claims, and for him to say so
indicates either poor comprehension or the even poorer debating tactic
of introducing a "strawman".
Post by Bob
Let me guess- the conspiracy was *so*
good that it left no evidence, right?
Guess what you want about the strawman.
Post by Bob
BTW, why not stop hiding behind
the not-so-subtle hints and mere intimations in your posts ("...a
fascist government *can* come..." and "...*could* well earn one a trip
to the detention camps..." [emphasis added], and say exactly what you
mean?
Read it again. For all practical purposes a fascist (merging or
corporate power with political power) government has come into power,
with only the candidates pre-selected by the ruling elite to be
overseers of the people having a chance at being "elected". The
"representatives" of the people only represent those who stuff their
campaign coffers with money. Meanwhile, the general population still
thinks they live in a democracy that offers real choices in elections.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth
donquijote1954
2008-01-16 18:06:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by donquijote1954
Make war, not love. Fight or flight. Win or die.<<
http://www.geocities.com/no_copyright/Sl_without_weapon.htm
WELCOME TO THE JUNGLEhttp://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION?http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution
Can you name one time in history where pacifism (as opposed to
strength) brought peace in the face of war? I can name numerous
situations where stregnth brought peace (in the face of war) without
requiring a shot to be fired.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
What better example than the USSR, Velvet, Orange and other peaceful
revolutions. You couldn't possibly beat the Russian bear by force, so
only the contradictions within the system could make it crumble.

The Law of the Jungle may have been good before WWII, but in the
Nuclear Age it's a risky gamble. And sooner or later nuclear weapons
are going to be widespread enough to fall in the hands of rogue states
or terrorists...

Another example is North Korea. Even America is now trying to pacify
it by nonviolent means, where the little country already entered the
nuclear club, making it almost impossible to invade. The lesson from
Iraq is: If you are a bad guy without nuclear weapons you are in
trouble. And if you've got oil, you are lunch...
Bob
2008-01-17 00:40:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Sherman
Post by Bob
Post by Tom Sherman
Post by Stephen Harding
Post by Tom Sherman
...
 Observing evolution of human mind, one can notice humanity traveling
from MONOLOG into DIALOGUE. Human beings are traveling from the
tyranny of the command, out of the slavery to the word, out of the
authoritarian, hierarchic order of ancient times, into a democratic,
non-authoritarian, non-violent, horizontal, classless society with
social and ecological awareness.
However, we have not arrived yet, although the end is already shinning
out of the darkness....
Bah. We have arrived at a point where a fascist government can come
into being, while the citizens still believe that they are living in a
democracy.
With the Patriot Act and such, aren't you afraid
of a knock on the door at midnight for speaking so
openly in public?
You're obviously a very brave person.
Yep, advocating a political/economic system such as is used in
Scandinavia could well earn one a trip to the detention camps
Halliburton is building that Blackwater will guard.
I believe you missed the sarcasm in SH's comment.
No, I ignored it.
 >>> Heck, even advocating the system used in countries such as England,
Post by Bob
Post by Tom Sherman
Canada and New Zealand makes one an Anti-American Communist by the
standards of Faux News, the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise
Institute and the shouting heads of talk radio.
Are you implying that those you name shouldn't have the same freedom
of speech you exercise to to hurl insults at them to throw names back
at you?
I was, of course, implying nothing of the sort. I was, of course, not
even addressing the issue Mr. Hunt brings up.
 >>> It is questionable if the remaining freedom of speech, travel, etc. in
Post by Bob
Post by Tom Sherman
the US could withstand another Reichstag Fire, er 9/11/2001 incident.
Such an incident would be easy to arrange with the "assets" on the
payroll of the CIA, not to mention the covert services of several
countries friendly to the neocon agenda.
Unfortunately for your implication of a government-sponsored
conspiracy responsible for the 9/11 WTC attack, there isn't a shred of
evidence of any such conspiracy.
 >
Note that the Reichstag Fire was likely NOT set by the Nazis, but they
took full advantage of its occurrence politically.
Note how the Cheney/Bush administration took political advantage of
9/11/2001, irregardless of who the perpetrators actually worked for.
I was not making the implication Mr. Hunt claims, and for him to say so
indicates either poor comprehension or the even poorer debating tactic
of introducing a "strawman".
 >> Let me guess- the conspiracy was *so*
Post by Bob
good that it left no evidence, right?
 >
Guess what you want about the strawman.
 >> BTW, why not stop hiding behind
Post by Bob
the not-so-subtle hints and mere intimations in your posts ("...a
fascist government *can* come..." and "...*could* well earn one a trip
to the detention camps..." [emphasis added], and say exactly what you
mean?
Read it again. For all practical purposes a fascist (merging or
corporate power with political power) government has come into power,
with only the candidates pre-selected by the ruling elite to be
overseers of the people having a chance at being "elected". The
"representatives" of the people only represent those who stuff their
campaign coffers with money. Meanwhile, the general population still
thinks they live in a democracy that offers real choices in elections.
Hey, you've finally stated a position positively without weaselling!
Congratulations. It's a shame that your definition of fascism isn't
the widely accepted definition ("any movement, ideology, or attitude
that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private
enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism" or
"a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and
extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition
is not allowed") or you might even have a point. The last I looked
there were no death squads roaming the streets. Based on your
definition, you seem to be alleging that we're living in an oligarchy,
not a fascist state. I disagree but I'll give you credit for at least
stating a position even if you did define your terms (fascism vs
oligarchy, "can" and "could" vs *do*) incorrectly.

Regards,
Bob Hunt
Tom Sherman
2008-01-17 03:36:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Post by Tom Sherman
Post by Bob
Post by Tom Sherman
Post by Stephen Harding
Post by Tom Sherman
Post by donquijote1954
...
Observing evolution of human mind, one can notice humanity traveling
from MONOLOG into DIALOGUE. Human beings are traveling from the
tyranny of the command, out of the slavery to the word, out of the
authoritarian, hierarchic order of ancient times, into a democratic,
non-authoritarian, non-violent, horizontal, classless society with
social and ecological awareness.
However, we have not arrived yet, although the end is already shinning
out of the darkness....
Bah. We have arrived at a point where a fascist government can come
into being, while the citizens still believe that they are living in a
democracy.
With the Patriot Act and such, aren't you afraid
of a knock on the door at midnight for speaking so
openly in public?
You're obviously a very brave person.
Yep, advocating a political/economic system such as is used in
Scandinavia could well earn one a trip to the detention camps
Halliburton is building that Blackwater will guard.
I believe you missed the sarcasm in SH's comment.
No, I ignored it.
Post by Bob
Post by Tom Sherman
Post by Stephen Harding
Heck, even advocating the system used in countries such as England,
Canada and New Zealand makes one an Anti-American Communist by the
standards of Faux News, the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise
Institute and the shouting heads of talk radio.
Are you implying that those you name shouldn't have the same freedom
of speech you exercise to to hurl insults at them to throw names back
at you?
I was, of course, implying nothing of the sort. I was, of course, not
even addressing the issue Mr. Hunt brings up.
Post by Bob
Post by Tom Sherman
Post by Stephen Harding
It is questionable if the remaining freedom of speech, travel, etc. in
the US could withstand another Reichstag Fire, er 9/11/2001 incident.
Such an incident would be easy to arrange with the "assets" on the
payroll of the CIA, not to mention the covert services of several
countries friendly to the neocon agenda.
Unfortunately for your implication of a government-sponsored
conspiracy responsible for the 9/11 WTC attack, there isn't a shred of
evidence of any such conspiracy.
Note that the Reichstag Fire was likely NOT set by the Nazis, but they
took full advantage of its occurrence politically.
Note how the Cheney/Bush administration took political advantage of
9/11/2001, irregardless of who the perpetrators actually worked for.
I was not making the implication Mr. Hunt claims, and for him to say so
indicates either poor comprehension or the even poorer debating tactic
of introducing a "strawman".
Post by Bob
Post by Tom Sherman
Let me guess- the conspiracy was *so*
good that it left no evidence, right?
Guess what you want about the strawman.
Post by Bob
Post by Tom Sherman
BTW, why not stop hiding behind
the not-so-subtle hints and mere intimations in your posts ("...a
fascist government *can* come..." and "...*could* well earn one a trip
to the detention camps..." [emphasis added], and say exactly what you
mean?
Read it again. For all practical purposes a fascist (merging or
corporate power with political power) government has come into power,
with only the candidates pre-selected by the ruling elite to be
overseers of the people having a chance at being "elected". The
"representatives" of the people only represent those who stuff their
campaign coffers with money. Meanwhile, the general population still
thinks they live in a democracy that offers real choices in elections.
Hey, you've finally stated a position positively without weaselling!
Congratulations. It's a shame that your definition of fascism isn't
the widely accepted definition ("any movement, ideology, or attitude
that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private
enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism" or
"a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and
extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition
is not allowed") or you might even have a point. The last I looked
there were no death squads roaming the streets. Based on your
definition, you seem to be alleging that we're living in an oligarchy,
not a fascist state. I disagree but I'll give you credit for at least
stating a position even if you did define your terms (fascism vs
oligarchy, "can" and "could" vs *do*) incorrectly.
That is the cleverness of the current system. Maintain the appearance of
a democracy, which fools enough of the people that the brutal
repression is not necessary. Since violent repression breeds resistance,
they US system is more beneficial to the ruling class, as it means they
are more likely to stay in power.

The token opposition of a few members of Congress helps the illusion of
democracy; but the numbers of such true representatives of the people
are kept too small to have any real influence.

The only real danger to the system would be if enough people figured
things out to vote real representatives from third parties into office;
but the population is kept ignorant and stupefied with entertainment
posing as news, sitcoms and "reality" televisions shows.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth
donquijote1954
2008-01-17 16:06:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Sherman
Post by Bob
Post by Tom Sherman
Post by Bob
Post by Tom Sherman
Post by Stephen Harding
Post by Tom Sherman
...
 Observing evolution of human mind, one can notice humanity traveling
from MONOLOG into DIALOGUE. Human beings are traveling from the
tyranny of the command, out of the slavery to the word, out of the
authoritarian, hierarchic order of ancient times, into a democratic,
non-authoritarian, non-violent, horizontal, classless society with
social and ecological awareness.
However, we have not arrived yet, although the end is already shinning
out of the darkness....
Bah. We have arrived at a point where a fascist government can come
into being, while the citizens still believe that they are living in a
democracy.
With the Patriot Act and such, aren't you afraid
of a knock on the door at midnight for speaking so
openly in public?
You're obviously a very brave person.
Yep, advocating a political/economic system such as is used in
Scandinavia could well earn one a trip to the detention camps
Halliburton is building that Blackwater will guard.
I believe you missed the sarcasm in SH's comment.
No, I ignored it.
 >>> Heck, even advocating the system used in countries such as England,
Post by Bob
Post by Tom Sherman
Canada and New Zealand makes one an Anti-American Communist by the
standards of Faux News, the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise
Institute and the shouting heads of talk radio.
Are you implying that those you name shouldn't have the same freedom
of speech you exercise to to hurl insults at them to throw names back
at you?
I was, of course, implying nothing of the sort. I was, of course, not
even addressing the issue Mr. Hunt brings up.
 >>> It is questionable if the remaining freedom of speech, travel, etc. in
Post by Bob
Post by Tom Sherman
the US could withstand another Reichstag Fire, er 9/11/2001 incident.
Such an incident would be easy to arrange with the "assets" on the
payroll of the CIA, not to mention the covert services of several
countries friendly to the neocon agenda.
Unfortunately for your implication of a government-sponsored
conspiracy responsible for the 9/11 WTC attack, there isn't a shred of
evidence of any such conspiracy.
Note that the Reichstag Fire was likely NOT set by the Nazis, but they
took full advantage of its occurrence politically.
Note how the Cheney/Bush administration took political advantage of
9/11/2001, irregardless of who the perpetrators actually worked for.
I was not making the implication Mr. Hunt claims, and for him to say so
indicates either poor comprehension or the even poorer debating tactic
of introducing a "strawman".
 >> Let me guess- the conspiracy was *so*
Post by Bob
good that it left no evidence, right?
Guess what you want about the strawman.
 >> BTW, why not stop hiding behind
Post by Bob
the not-so-subtle hints and mere intimations in your posts ("...a
fascist government *can* come..." and "...*could* well earn one a trip
to the detention camps..." [emphasis added], and say exactly what you
mean?
Read it again. For all practical purposes a fascist (merging or
corporate power with political power) government has come into power,
with only the candidates pre-selected by the ruling elite to be
overseers of the people having a chance at being "elected". The
"representatives" of the people only represent those who stuff their
campaign coffers with money. Meanwhile, the general population still
thinks they live in a democracy that offers real choices in elections.
Hey, you've finally stated a position positively without weaselling!
Congratulations. It's a shame that your definition of fascism isn't
the widely accepted definition ("any movement, ideology, or attitude
that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private
enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism" or
"a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and
extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition
is not allowed") or you might even have a point. The last I looked
there were no death squads roaming the streets. Based on your
definition, you seem to be alleging that we're living in an oligarchy,
not a fascist state. I disagree but I'll give you credit for at least
stating a position even if you did define your terms (fascism vs
oligarchy, "can" and "could" vs *do*) incorrectly.
That is the cleverness of the current system. Maintain the appearance of
  a democracy, which fools enough of the people that the brutal
repression is not necessary. Since violent repression breeds resistance,
they US system is more beneficial to the ruling class, as it means they
are more likely to stay in power.
The token opposition of a few members of Congress helps the illusion of
democracy; but the numbers of such true representatives of the people
are kept too small to have any real influence.
The only real danger to the system would be if enough people figured
things out to vote real representatives from third parties into office;
but the population is kept ignorant and stupefied with entertainment
posing as news, sitcoms and "reality" televisions shows.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I subscribe to this "make believe" theory. Funny, communism too had a
"democratic system" in which nearly eveybody voted for "the party."
Perhaps they were more "perfect" or more "crude" in the show, but
eventually everything (the lie) came crumbling down.
Bob
2008-01-19 08:11:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Sherman
Post by Bob
Hey, you've finally stated a position positively without weaselling!
Congratulations. It's a shame that your definition of fascism isn't
the widely accepted definition ("any movement, ideology, or attitude
that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private
enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism" or
"a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and
extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition
is not allowed") or you might even have a point. The last I looked
there were no death squads roaming the streets. Based on your
definition, you seem to be alleging that we're living in an oligarchy,
not a fascist state. I disagree but I'll give you credit for at least
stating a position even if you did define your terms (fascism vs
oligarchy, "can" and "could" vs *do*) incorrectly.
That is the cleverness of the current system. Maintain the appearance of
  a democracy, which fools enough of the people that the brutal
repression is not necessary. Since violent repression breeds resistance,
they US system is more beneficial to the ruling class, as it means they
are more likely to stay in power.
The token opposition of a few members of Congress helps the illusion of
democracy; but the numbers of such true representatives of the people
are kept too small to have any real influence.
The only real danger to the system would be if enough people figured
things out to vote real representatives from third parties into office;
but the population is kept ignorant and stupefied with entertainment
posing as news, sitcoms and "reality" televisions shows.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth- Hide quoted text -
Q- What does the "cleverness of the system" have to do with you not
knowing the difference between fascism and an oligarchy?
A- None.
Conclusion- You're just a gasbag that likes to avoid direct answers
while pretending to think deep political thoughts. In reality your
critiques of political affairs are on the same level as the, "Two legs
good. Four legs bad", slogan from "Animal Farm". The pig was one up on
you though because unlike your pretentious posts barbecued pork
doesn't leave a bad aftertaste.

Bye,
Bob Hunt
Bill Sornson
2008-01-19 16:00:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Post by Tom Sherman
Post by Bob
Hey, you've finally stated a position positively without weaselling!
Congratulations. It's a shame that your definition of fascism isn't
the widely accepted definition ("any movement, ideology, or attitude
that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private
enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism"
or "a political system based on a very powerful leader, state
control and extreme pride in country and race, and in which
political opposition is not allowed") or you might even have a
point. The last I looked there were no death squads roaming the
streets. Based on your definition, you seem to be alleging that
we're living in an oligarchy, not a fascist state. I disagree but
I'll give you credit for at least stating a position even if you
did define your terms (fascism vs oligarchy, "can" and "could" vs
*do*) incorrectly.
That is the cleverness of the current system. Maintain the
appearance of a democracy, which fools enough of the people that the
brutal repression is not necessary. Since violent repression breeds
resistance, they US system is more beneficial to the ruling class,
as it means they are more likely to stay in power.
The token opposition of a few members of Congress helps the illusion
of democracy; but the numbers of such true representatives of the
people are kept too small to have any real influence.
The only real danger to the system would be if enough people figured
things out to vote real representatives from third parties into
office; but the population is kept ignorant and stupefied with
entertainment posing as news, sitcoms and "reality" televisions
shows.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth- Hide quoted text -
Q- What does the "cleverness of the system" have to do with you not
knowing the difference between fascism and an oligarchy?
A- None.
Conclusion- You're just a gasbag that likes to avoid direct answers
while pretending to think deep political thoughts. In reality your
critiques of political affairs are on the same level as the, "Two legs
good. Four legs bad", slogan from "Animal Farm". The pig was one up on
you though because unlike your pretentious posts barbecued pork
doesn't leave a bad aftertaste.
LOL There *IS* hope! LOL

Bill "Bob for Prez" S.
Tom Sherman
2008-01-19 17:15:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Post by Tom Sherman
Post by Bob
Hey, you've finally stated a position positively without weaselling!
Congratulations. It's a shame that your definition of fascism isn't
the widely accepted definition ("any movement, ideology, or attitude
that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private
enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism" or
"a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and
extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition
is not allowed") or you might even have a point. The last I looked
there were no death squads roaming the streets. Based on your
definition, you seem to be alleging that we're living in an oligarchy,
not a fascist state. I disagree but I'll give you credit for at least
stating a position even if you did define your terms (fascism vs
oligarchy, "can" and "could" vs *do*) incorrectly.
That is the cleverness of the current system. Maintain the appearance of
a democracy, which fools enough of the people that the brutal
repression is not necessary. Since violent repression breeds resistance,
they US system is more beneficial to the ruling class, as it means they
are more likely to stay in power.
The token opposition of a few members of Congress helps the illusion of
democracy; but the numbers of such true representatives of the people
are kept too small to have any real influence.
The only real danger to the system would be if enough people figured
things out to vote real representatives from third parties into office;
but the population is kept ignorant and stupefied with entertainment
posing as news, sitcoms and "reality" televisions shows.
Q- What does the "cleverness of the system" have to do with you not
knowing the difference between fascism and an oligarchy?
A- None.
Conclusion- You're just a gasbag that likes to avoid direct answers
while pretending to think deep political thoughts. In reality your
critiques of political affairs are on the same level as the, "Two legs
good. Four legs bad", slogan from "Animal Farm". The pig was one up on
you though because unlike your pretentious posts barbecued pork
doesn't leave a bad aftertaste.
Mr. Hunt misses the de facto merger of government and corporations that
is essential to fascism, but not oligarchy.

Mr. Hunt then resorts to insults, since he has nothing better to contribute.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth
Bob
2008-01-21 08:53:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Sherman
Post by Bob
Post by Tom Sherman
Post by Bob
Hey, you've finally stated a position positively without weaselling!
Congratulations. It's a shame that your definition of fascism isn't
the widely accepted definition ("any movement, ideology, or attitude
that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private
enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism" or
"a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and
extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition
is not allowed") or you might even have a point. The last I looked
there were no death squads roaming the streets. Based on your
definition, you seem to be alleging that we're living in an oligarchy,
not a fascist state. I disagree but I'll give you credit for at least
stating a position even if you did define your terms (fascism vs
oligarchy, "can" and "could" vs *do*) incorrectly.
That is the cleverness of the current system. Maintain the appearance of
  a democracy, which fools enough of the people that the brutal
repression is not necessary. Since violent repression breeds resistance,
they US system is more beneficial to the ruling class, as it means they
are more likely to stay in power.
The token opposition of a few members of Congress helps the illusion of
democracy; but the numbers of such true representatives of the people
are kept too small to have any real influence.
The only real danger to the system would be if enough people figured
things out to vote real representatives from third parties into office;
but the population is kept ignorant and stupefied with entertainment
posing as news, sitcoms and "reality" televisions shows.
Q- What does the "cleverness of the system" have to do with you not
knowing the difference between fascism and an oligarchy?
A- None.
Conclusion- You're just a gasbag that likes to avoid direct answers
while pretending to think deep political thoughts. In reality your
critiques of political affairs are on the same level as the, "Two legs
good. Four legs bad", slogan from "Animal Farm". The pig was one up on
you though because unlike your pretentious posts barbecued pork
doesn't leave a bad aftertaste.
Mr. Hunt misses the de facto merger of government and corporations that
is essential to fascism, but not oligarchy.
Mr. Hunt then resorts to insults, since he has nothing better to contribute.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The short definition of oligarchy is rule by the privileged few. The
short definition of fascism is a totalitarian form of government that
suppresses all dissent while fostering an extreme militaristic
national pride. You've argued here many times that real power in the
US is reserved to corporation fatcats and their lackeys. That would
fit the definition of oligarchy perfectly. OTOH, since you are still
posting here I think it is safe to assume that no government agents
have knocked down your door and dragged you off to the camps. The only
conclusions that can reasonably be drawn from that is that either the
totalitarian government you say exists is totally incompetent at
suppressing dissent or you are far too unimportant for them to bother
arresting or the totalitarian state doesn't exist.
As for my "resort(ing) to insults" I guess you don't consider your
implications upthread that I'm either- A) a liar or B) "less than half
attentive" to be insulting. Okay. I don't consider calling you a
pretentious gasbag insulting so I guess we're even because apparently
only the writer gets to define what is or is not an insult. Or is it
only an insult if the writer states their opinion clearly without
relying on implication and innuendo?
You may now have the last word and thus believe you have "won" the
argument. I'm comfortable letting others decide who, if anyone, has
"won".

Bob Hunt
donquijote1954
2008-01-21 16:40:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Post by Tom Sherman
Post by Bob
Post by Tom Sherman
Post by Bob
Hey, you've finally stated a position positively without weaselling!
Congratulations. It's a shame that your definition of fascism isn't
the widely accepted definition ("any movement, ideology, or attitude
that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private
enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism" or
"a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and
extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition
is not allowed") or you might even have a point. The last I looked
there were no death squads roaming the streets. Based on your
definition, you seem to be alleging that we're living in an oligarchy,
not a fascist state. I disagree but I'll give you credit for at least
stating a position even if you did define your terms (fascism vs
oligarchy, "can" and "could" vs *do*) incorrectly.
That is the cleverness of the current system. Maintain the appearance of
  a democracy, which fools enough of the people that the brutal
repression is not necessary. Since violent repression breeds resistance,
they US system is more beneficial to the ruling class, as it means they
are more likely to stay in power.
The token opposition of a few members of Congress helps the illusion of
democracy; but the numbers of such true representatives of the people
are kept too small to have any real influence.
The only real danger to the system would be if enough people figured
things out to vote real representatives from third parties into office;
but the population is kept ignorant and stupefied with entertainment
posing as news, sitcoms and "reality" televisions shows.
Q- What does the "cleverness of the system" have to do with you not
knowing the difference between fascism and an oligarchy?
A- None.
Conclusion- You're just a gasbag that likes to avoid direct answers
while pretending to think deep political thoughts. In reality your
critiques of political affairs are on the same level as the, "Two legs
good. Four legs bad", slogan from "Animal Farm". The pig was one up on
you though because unlike your pretentious posts barbecued pork
doesn't leave a bad aftertaste.
Mr. Hunt misses the de facto merger of government and corporations that
is essential to fascism, but not oligarchy.
Mr. Hunt then resorts to insults, since he has nothing better to contribute.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The short definition of oligarchy is rule by the privileged few. The
short definition of fascism is a totalitarian form of government that
suppresses all dissent while fostering an extreme militaristic
national pride. You've argued here many times that real power in the
US is reserved to corporation fatcats and their lackeys. That would
fit the definition of oligarchy perfectly. OTOH, since you are still
posting here I think it is safe to assume that no government agents
have knocked down your door and dragged you off to the camps. The only
conclusions that can reasonably be drawn from that is that either the
totalitarian government you say exists is totally incompetent at
suppressing dissent or you are far too unimportant for them to bother
arresting or the totalitarian state doesn't exist.
As for my "resort(ing) to insults" I guess you don't consider your
implications upthread that I'm either- A) a liar or B) "less than half
attentive" to be insulting. Okay. I don't consider calling you a
pretentious gasbag insulting so I guess we're even because apparently
only the writer gets to define what is or is not an insult. Or is it
only an insult if the writer states their opinion clearly without
relying on implication and innuendo?
You may now have the last word and thus believe you have "won" the
argument. I'm comfortable letting others decide who, if anyone, has
"won".
Bob Hunt- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Here are 14 points that Bush meets to qualify as a Fascist...

For example: 1.) Powerful and Continuing Nationalism: Fascist regimes
tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols,
songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag
symbols on clothing and in public displays.

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

It's very interesting, and I'd say he's as fascist as he can be while
still having the democratic camouflage.

Yet I prefer to qualify this system as Darwinistic, with no other
ideology than profit and money. It even deals with Communist China! No
sel-respecting Fascist would have done that. The perfect metaphor for
it is THE HUNGRY LION!
Tom Sherman
2008-01-22 02:28:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Post by Tom Sherman
Post by Bob
Post by Tom Sherman
Post by Bob
Hey, you've finally stated a position positively without weaselling!
Congratulations. It's a shame that your definition of fascism isn't
the widely accepted definition ("any movement, ideology, or attitude
that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private
enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism" or
"a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and
extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition
is not allowed") or you might even have a point. The last I looked
there were no death squads roaming the streets. Based on your
definition, you seem to be alleging that we're living in an oligarchy,
not a fascist state. I disagree but I'll give you credit for at least
stating a position even if you did define your terms (fascism vs
oligarchy, "can" and "could" vs *do*) incorrectly.
That is the cleverness of the current system. Maintain the appearance of
a democracy, which fools enough of the people that the brutal
repression is not necessary. Since violent repression breeds resistance,
they US system is more beneficial to the ruling class, as it means they
are more likely to stay in power.
The token opposition of a few members of Congress helps the illusion of
democracy; but the numbers of such true representatives of the people
are kept too small to have any real influence.
The only real danger to the system would be if enough people figured
things out to vote real representatives from third parties into office;
but the population is kept ignorant and stupefied with entertainment
posing as news, sitcoms and "reality" televisions shows.
Q- What does the "cleverness of the system" have to do with you not
knowing the difference between fascism and an oligarchy?
A- None.
Conclusion- You're just a gasbag that likes to avoid direct answers
while pretending to think deep political thoughts. In reality your
critiques of political affairs are on the same level as the, "Two legs
good. Four legs bad", slogan from "Animal Farm". The pig was one up on
you though because unlike your pretentious posts barbecued pork
doesn't leave a bad aftertaste.
Mr. Hunt misses the de facto merger of government and corporations that
is essential to fascism, but not oligarchy.
Mr. Hunt then resorts to insults, since he has nothing better to contribute.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Will someone at Google fix this!!! Ignoring the signature separator and
"Hide quoted text" and "Show quoted text" in the reply. Sheesh!!!
Post by Bob
The short definition of oligarchy is rule by the privileged few. The
short definition of fascism is a totalitarian form of government that
suppresses all dissent while fostering an extreme militaristic
national pride. You've argued here many times that real power in the
US is reserved to corporation fatcats and their lackeys. That would
fit the definition of oligarchy perfectly. OTOH, since you are still
posting here I think it is safe to assume that no government agents
have knocked down your door and dragged you off to the camps. The only
conclusions that can reasonably be drawn from that is that either the
totalitarian government you say exists is totally incompetent at
suppressing dissent or you are far too unimportant for them to bother
arresting or the totalitarian state doesn't exist.
Not everybody will fit in a concentration camp. Only those who mobilize
others to a point that threatens the establishment are disposed of,
whether in prisons (through false charges), mental institutions or
assassination (e.g. Martin Luther King Jr. - highly appropriate example
for today's posting).
Post by Bob
As for my "resort(ing) to insults" I guess you don't consider your
implications upthread that I'm either- A) a liar or B) "less than half
attentive" to be insulting. Okay. I don't consider calling you a
pretentious gasbag insulting so I guess we're even because apparently
only the writer gets to define what is or is not an insult. Or is it
only an insult if the writer states their opinion clearly without
relying on implication and innuendo?
You may now have the last word and thus believe you have "won" the
argument. I'm comfortable letting others decide who, if anyone, has
"won".
----
The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism
by Dr. Lawrence Britt

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany),
Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin
American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism -
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans,
symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are
flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights -
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in
fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain
cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even
approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations
of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause -
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to
eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious
minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military -
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a
disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda
is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism -
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively
male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made
more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homo-sexuality are suppressed and the
state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media -
Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other
cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or
sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war
time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security -
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined -
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the
nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and
terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of
the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or
actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected -
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the
ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually
beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed -
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist
government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely
suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts -
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher
education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and
other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts
and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment -
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to
enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses
and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a
national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption -
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and
associates who appoint each other to government positions and
use governmental power and authority to protect their friends
from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national
resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by
government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections -
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times
elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even
assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control
voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of
the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries
to manipulate or control elections.
----
The US currently meets criteria numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13 and
14 to near full extent, and numbers 10 to 12 to a partial extent.

Number 5 is in the agenda of many of the politicians and judges
currently in power.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth
Chalo
2008-01-10 18:53:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by landotter
Post by Amy Blankenship
I'm not of any religious persuasion that is easy to explain, but I find the
fact that you keep making all sorts of flames based on religion is getting
to be a little offensive.
Religion is a belief in nonsense, as such, it should develop a thicker
skin, and less of an attitude. On my local newspaper's message boards,
nearly half the messages are religious folks condemning others.
Strangely enough, when one responds in kind, one is labeled as
intolerant.
Direct attacks on others' deeply held beliefs isn't funny, whether I share
them or not.
Disabusing others of their ridiculous notions is a righteous act, even
if it's often ineffective.

If you had a friend or coworker who you discovered actually harbored a
belief in Santa Claus that was guiding his decisions and interfering
with his education or career, would you try to straighten him out in
any way? How about someone who refused to travel internationally for
fear of falling off the edge of the earth, and therefore missed out on
seeing other places? Would you consider it an act of _respect_ to
refrain from challenging his foolishness?

Religious tolerance is a concept crafted to keep various primitive
thinkers from murdering each other in the names of their respective
imaginary friends. It is about making violent fools keep peace with
each other, not about compelling the reality-based community to
pretend that delusional people are on an equal footing with sane
ones.

Chalo
Amy Blankenship
2008-01-10 19:37:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chalo
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by landotter
Post by Amy Blankenship
I'm not of any religious persuasion that is easy to explain, but I
find
the
fact that you keep making all sorts of flames based on religion is getting
to be a little offensive.
Religion is a belief in nonsense, as such, it should develop a thicker
skin, and less of an attitude. On my local newspaper's message boards,
nearly half the messages are religious folks condemning others.
Strangely enough, when one responds in kind, one is labeled as
intolerant.
Direct attacks on others' deeply held beliefs isn't funny, whether I share
them or not.
Disabusing others of their ridiculous notions is a righteous act, even
if it's often ineffective.
It's not what, it is how.
Post by Chalo
If you had a friend or coworker who you discovered actually harbored a
belief in Santa Claus that was guiding his decisions and interfering
with his education or career, would you try to straighten him out in
any way?
I certainly wouldn't do it in a way that made fun of his belief and
deliberately offended him. For one thing, it's not a nice thing to do. For
another thing, people tend not to listen to those who are rude to them. So,
if my actual intention was to change his opinion and/or behavior, I wouldn't
rub his face in how stupid I thought he was.
Post by Chalo
How about someone who refused to travel internationally for
fear of falling off the edge of the earth, and therefore missed out on
seeing other places? Would you consider it an act of _respect_ to
refrain from challenging his foolishness?
Oh, absolutely I would leave that one alone. Some people are born to be
homebodies, and these kinds of excuses reflect their wish to stay at home.
Post by Chalo
Religious tolerance is a concept crafted to keep various primitive
thinkers from murdering each other in the names of their respective
imaginary friends. It is about making violent fools keep peace with
each other, not about compelling the reality-based community to
pretend that delusional people are on an equal footing with sane
ones.
That is one way to look at it. However, it is NOT the way it is viewed by
people who hold strong religious views, so approaching them with that
attitude will never sway them. If you insist on doing so, you are doing it
because you want to vent and because you like being mean. Or possibly
because you haven't realized that attacking people isn't a useful way to try
to change their behavior. Certainly you're not doing it out of an honest
and thoughtful desire to change their behavior.

-Amy
Leo Lichtman
2008-01-10 20:48:05 UTC
Permalink
"Amy Blankenship" wrote: (clip) However, it is NOT the way it is viewed by
Post by Amy Blankenship
people who hold strong religious views, so approaching them with that
attitude will never sway them. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
People who hold strong religious views generally have them because they were
brought up that way. The architecture of the brain is formed while they are
young, and they cannot usually free themselves from these beliefs. Trying
to dissuade them is pointless.
Amy Blankenship
2008-01-10 21:24:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leo Lichtman
"Amy Blankenship" wrote: (clip) However, it is NOT the way it is viewed by
Post by Amy Blankenship
people who hold strong religious views, so approaching them with that
attitude will never sway them. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
People who hold strong religious views generally have them because they
were brought up that way. The architecture of the brain is formed while
they are young, and they cannot usually free themselves from these
beliefs. Trying to dissuade them is pointless.
I was brought up VERY Southern Baptist.
Chalo
2008-01-10 21:49:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Leo Lichtman
People who hold strong religious views generally have them because they
were brought up that way. The architecture of the brain is formed while
they are young, and they cannot usually free themselves from these
beliefs. Trying to dissuade them is pointless.
I was brought up VERY Southern Baptist.
I was brought up half-heartedly Southern Baptist. I'm glad to say I
am now fully cured of that ailment.

Maybe Southern Baptists should take up shunning or honor killings as a
way to improve retention.

Chalo
Amy Blankenship
2008-01-10 22:06:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chalo
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Leo Lichtman
People who hold strong religious views generally have them because they
were brought up that way. The architecture of the brain is formed while
they are young, and they cannot usually free themselves from these
beliefs. Trying to dissuade them is pointless.
I was brought up VERY Southern Baptist.
I was brought up half-heartedly Southern Baptist. I'm glad to say I
am now fully cured of that ailment.
Maybe Southern Baptists should take up shunning or honor killings as a
way to improve retention.
Must suck to be so bitter.
Chalo
2008-01-10 22:25:57 UTC
Permalink
Chalo wrote in message,
Post by Chalo
Post by Amy Blankenship
I was brought up VERY Southern Baptist.
I was brought up half-heartedly Southern Baptist. I'm glad to say I
am now fully cured of that ailment.
Maybe Southern Baptists should take up shunning or honor killings as a
way to improve retention.
Must suck to be so bitter.
What would suck would be having to maintain any sort of regular
contact with the church or someone who was still in it. Since the
church over time managed to alienate my entire immediate family, I
don't have to do that. In fact, the Christian religion affects my
life only indirectly, like drug addiction or war. I have to bear the
cost of the generalized social affliction as much as anyone-- I live
in Texas, after all-- but I don't personally have to suffer from it or
watch someone close to me suffer from it.

Chalo
Bill Sornson
2008-01-10 20:13:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chalo
Disabusing others of their ridiculous notions is a righteous act, even
if it's often ineffective.
As long as they're Christians, Jews, Catholics, Mormons, Scientologists,
right? I bet you (and the "cultural you") wouldn't DARE mock or deride a
Muslim.

It's all about intimidation and agendas.

BS (piled up and getting deeper)
Chalo
2008-01-10 21:10:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Sornson
Post by Chalo
Disabusing others of their ridiculous notions is a righteous act, even
if it's often ineffective.
As long as they're Christians, Jews, Catholics, Mormons, Scientologists,
right? I bet you (and the "cultural you") wouldn't DARE mock or deride a
Muslim.
You'd lose that bet. Crackpot religions are crackpot religions. The
Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), if you read about his life and works, comes
off every bit as much of a huckster and a con artist as Joseph Smith,
just slightly less perverted and a lot more bloodthirsty. And Islam
has had centuries longer than Mormonism for highly-placed but
psychologically damaged individuals to reach deep into their rectums
and draw forth pearls of "wisdom" that become enshrined as dogma and/
or laws.

Believing that it's a bad idea to pick a pointlessly destructive fight
with the entire Islamic world is not the same as cutting them slack
for their ludicrous religion.

In the spirit of addressing the problem you actually have, taking the
piss out of Christholes is a lot more appropriate for intelligent
Americans to do than getting all bent out of shape about Muslims. I
mean, which one of those two equally hogwashy belief systems is really
damaging this country politically and culturally?

Chalo
Bill Sornson
2008-01-11 00:12:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chalo
Post by Bill Sornson
Post by Chalo
Disabusing others of their ridiculous notions is a righteous act,
even if it's often ineffective.
As long as they're Christians, Jews, Catholics, Mormons,
Scientologists, right? I bet you (and the "cultural you") wouldn't
DARE mock or deride a Muslim.
You'd lose that bet. Crackpot religions are crackpot religions. The
Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), if you read about his life and works, comes
off every bit as much of a huckster and a con artist as Joseph Smith,
just slightly less perverted and a lot more bloodthirsty. And Islam
has had centuries longer than Mormonism for highly-placed but
psychologically damaged individuals to reach deep into their rectums
and draw forth pearls of "wisdom" that become enshrined as dogma and/
or laws.
Believing that it's a bad idea to pick a pointlessly destructive fight
with the entire Islamic world is not the same as cutting them slack
for their ludicrous religion.
In the spirit of addressing the problem you actually have, taking the
piss out of Christholes is a lot more appropriate for intelligent
Americans to do than getting all bent out of shape about Muslims. I
mean, which one of those two equally hogwashy belief systems is really
damaging this country politically and culturally?
Your answer to Amy betrays your bitterness. I'm no church-goer by any
means, but I have no problem with those who are (as long as they leave me
alone, which they do without exception). This imagined "damage" done by the
so-called Christian Right is mainly a media-driven myth. They're not my cup
of tea, but they're more charitable and perform more selfless service than
pretty much any other group you can name.

My point was that it's OK to /publicly/ bash or mock Christianity or
Catholicism or others, but doing anything even close to that re. Islam will
literally get you killed. (Hell, people can't publish opinionated books in
England nowadays, lest the Muslims sue -- successfully -- for libel.)

And God save anyone who dares draw a cartoon...

BS
Amy Blankenship
2008-01-11 00:18:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Sornson
And God save anyone who dares draw a cartoon...
Which one???
Bill Sornson
2008-01-11 01:36:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Bill Sornson
And God save anyone who dares draw a cartoon...
Which one???
Any one depicting Mohammed, good light or bad.
Tom Sherman
2008-01-11 01:30:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Sornson
Post by Chalo
Post by Bill Sornson
Post by Chalo
Disabusing others of their ridiculous notions is a righteous act,
even if it's often ineffective.
As long as they're Christians, Jews, Catholics, Mormons,
Scientologists, right? I bet you (and the "cultural you") wouldn't
DARE mock or deride a Muslim.
You'd lose that bet. Crackpot religions are crackpot religions. The
Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), if you read about his life and works, comes
off every bit as much of a huckster and a con artist as Joseph Smith,
just slightly less perverted and a lot more bloodthirsty. And Islam
has had centuries longer than Mormonism for highly-placed but
psychologically damaged individuals to reach deep into their rectums
and draw forth pearls of "wisdom" that become enshrined as dogma and/
or laws.
Believing that it's a bad idea to pick a pointlessly destructive fight
with the entire Islamic world is not the same as cutting them slack
for their ludicrous religion.
In the spirit of addressing the problem you actually have, taking the
piss out of Christholes is a lot more appropriate for intelligent
Americans to do than getting all bent out of shape about Muslims. I
mean, which one of those two equally hogwashy belief systems is really
damaging this country politically and culturally?
Your answer to Amy betrays your bitterness. I'm no church-goer by any
means, but I have no problem with those who are (as long as they leave me
alone, which they do without exception). This imagined "damage" done by the
so-called Christian Right is mainly a media-driven myth. They're not my cup
of tea, but they're more charitable and perform more selfless service than
pretty much any other group you can name....
The reason the US is so full of "sexual predators" is due to the
excessive repression of normal childhood behavior, which leads to
fetishisms; some of which involve others and are not harmless.

Historically, US laws regulating behavior that goes beyond interfering
in the rights of others (paternalistic laws) have been promoted and
passed by self-proclaimed "Christians". This behavior is not a thing of
the past.

So no, the "Christian" right does NOT leave others alone.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." A. Derleth
donquijote1954
2008-01-11 14:53:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Sornson
Post by Chalo
Disabusing others of their ridiculous notions is a righteous act,
even if it's often ineffective.
As long as they're Christians, Jews, Catholics, Mormons,
Scientologists, right?  I bet you (and the "cultural you") wouldn't
DARE mock or deride a Muslim.
You'd lose that bet.  Crackpot religions are crackpot religions.  The
Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), if you read about his life and works, comes
off every bit as much of a huckster and a con artist as Joseph Smith,
just slightly less perverted and a lot more bloodthirsty.  And Islam
has had centuries longer than Mormonism for highly-placed but
psychologically damaged individuals to reach deep into their rectums
and draw forth pearls of "wisdom" that become enshrined as dogma and/
or laws.
Believing that it's a bad idea to pick a pointlessly destructive fight
with the entire Islamic world is not the same as cutting them slack
for their ludicrous religion.
In the spirit of addressing the problem you actually have, taking the
piss out of Christholes is a lot more appropriate for intelligent
Americans to do than getting all bent out of shape about Muslims.  I
mean, which one of those two equally hogwashy belief systems is really
damaging this country politically and culturally?
Your answer to Amy betrays your bitterness.  I'm no church-goer by any
means, but I have no problem with those who are (as long as they leave me
alone, which they do without exception).  This imagined "damage" done by the
so-called Christian Right is mainly a media-driven myth.  They're not my cup
of tea, but they're more charitable and perform more selfless service than
pretty much any other group you can name.
My point was that it's OK to /publicly/ bash or mock Christianity or
Catholicism or others, but doing anything even close to that re. Islam will
literally get you killed.  (Hell, people can't publish opinionated books in
England nowadays, lest the Muslims sue -- successfully -- for libel.)
And God save anyone who dares draw a cartoon...
BS- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I'm not waiting for a lady president, not even for a black president,
just for someone who has the balls to say, "I'm a Humanist, and don't
care much about religion." Meanwhile we are gonna have Christian
agendas dominate the landscape...

http://www.bushflash.com/faith.html
Tom Sherman
2008-01-11 01:25:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chalo
...
In the spirit of addressing the problem you actually have, taking the
piss out of Christholes is a lot more appropriate for intelligent
Americans to do than getting all bent out of shape about Muslims. I
mean, which one of those two equally hogwashy belief systems is really
damaging this country politically and culturally?
It is truly disturbing how many of the laws in the US have their origin
in fundamentalist/evangelical belief, and not the rational basis of
trading certain privileges for the betterment of society as a whole.
Separation of church and state my ass!
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." A. Derleth
Ron Wallenfang
2008-01-12 05:40:18 UTC
Permalink
On Jan 10, 7:25 pm, Tom Sherman wrote defending "the rational basis
[for law-making] of
trading certain privileges for the betterment of society as a whole," as opposed to religious ideas.
It's great to see one of our less overtly religious brethren putting
out a positive principle for our consideration. It reminds me of
Chesterton, who remarked that he worked long and hard to found a just,
comprehensive and coherent view of human actions, and about the time
he was putting the finishing touches on it, he discovered that it was
Orthodoxy. He did strain to found a heresy that was uniquely his own,
and suddenly found himself backed by all the traditions of western
civilization.

Read Rerum Novarem (1891), Quadragissimo Anno (1931), Mater et
Magistra (1962), and the rest of Catholic social teaching from that
day to this, and tell you don't find there the principle you just
enunciated!
donquijote1954
2008-01-11 14:41:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Sornson
Post by Chalo
Disabusing others of their ridiculous notions is a righteous act, even
if it's often ineffective.
As long as they're Christians, Jews, Catholics, Mormons, Scientologists,
right? I bet you (and the "cultural you") wouldn't DARE mock or deride a
Muslim.
Some Christians already did while sitting smilingly on top of naked
Muslims.

And much of the rest didn't make a fuss about it either.
Post by Bill Sornson
It's all about intimidation and agendas.
BS (piled up and getting deeper)
No, it's not about agendas, it's about SUVs and hypocrisy. And about
the lack of bike facilities, which doesn't seem to be in the Christian
agenda. God's agenda is abortion and gay marriage. Oh, and winning the
war in Iraq.
Amy Blankenship
2008-01-11 14:47:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by donquijote1954
Post by Bill Sornson
Post by Chalo
Disabusing others of their ridiculous notions is a righteous act, even
if it's often ineffective.
As long as they're Christians, Jews, Catholics, Mormons, Scientologists,
right? I bet you (and the "cultural you") wouldn't DARE mock or deride a
Muslim.
Some Christians already did while sitting smilingly on top of naked
Muslims.
Just out of curiosity, what basis do you have for saying that they were
Christians? I've never seen any news reports that suggested what they said
their faith was.
donquijote1954
2008-01-11 16:10:22 UTC
Permalink
On Jan 11, 9:47 am, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by donquijote1954
Post by Bill Sornson
Post by Chalo
Disabusing others of their ridiculous notions is a righteous act, even
if it's often ineffective.
As long as they're Christians, Jews, Catholics, Mormons, Scientologists,
right?  I bet you (and the "cultural you") wouldn't DARE mock or deride a
Muslim.
Some Christians already did while sitting smilingly on top of naked
Muslims.
Just out of curiosity, what basis do you have for saying that they were
Christians?  I've never seen any news reports that suggested what they said
their faith was.
They certainly were no humanists. Not even atheist. Their willingness
to "follow orders" has Christianity written all over it. And their
sadism spells "The Passion of the Christ."

"many of them surely devout Christians"

'It may seem ironic that a war fought in the name of principles and
imbued with religious ardor should degenerate to such sordid lows.
While in America people flock to see Christ tortured, in Iraq we
torture our own prisoners -- for information, for deterrence, but
also -- as the pictures document -- for the sheer fun of it. And
yet, perhaps "irony" is not quite the right concept. Perhaps the
relationship between a U.S.-made blockbuster about Christ's pain
and the pain inflicted by our soldiers abroad is closer and more
inevitable that the notion of "irony" would suggest, because many
of the torturers are no doubt heartland Americans, many of them
surely devout Christians -- the core audience of "The Passion of
Christ." They are the people Bush directly addressed when he
characterized the war as a crusade, a fight against evil in the
name of the God. The aptitude of Christians for delivering pain
draws on a rich, millennial tradition -- a tradition built on
certainty and a Manichean worldview. The ability to torture
somebody both requires and confirms this certainty; the torturer's
exhilarating privilege is to feel right by God while doing what is
normally forbidden.'

http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0406&L=justwatch-l&O=D&P=26082
Just A User
2008-01-09 22:55:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by donquijote1954
Since it's pretty much settled that Jesus would have ridden a bike,
let's debate now what the Devil would have driven...
Since when was it decided that the son of god would have ridden a bike.
Personally I don't believe in any of the whole supreme being deal or the
devil for that matter. But if I did I would say the devil would have
driven something with an evil sounding name like "Viper"
George Conklin
2008-01-09 23:04:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just A User
Post by donquijote1954
Since it's pretty much settled that Jesus would have ridden a bike,
let's debate now what the Devil would have driven...
Since when was it decided that the son of god would have ridden a bike.
Personally I don't believe in any of the whole supreme being deal or the
devil for that matter. But if I did I would say the devil would have
driven something with an evil sounding name like "Viper"
Actually God drove a Plymouth, because it says in the bible, "And in his
Fury he drove them out."
Gary
2008-01-10 01:37:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by Just A User
Post by donquijote1954
Since it's pretty much settled that Jesus would have ridden a bike,
let's debate now what the Devil would have driven...
Since when was it decided that the son of god would have ridden a bike.
Personally I don't believe in any of the whole supreme being deal or the
devil for that matter. But if I did I would say the devil would have
driven something with an evil sounding name like "Viper"
Actually God drove a Plymouth, because it says in the bible, "And in his
Fury he drove them out."
I thought he drove a Honda, because "He gathered His disciples in an
Accord".
Amy Blankenship
2008-01-10 01:38:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by Just A User
Post by donquijote1954
Since it's pretty much settled that Jesus would have ridden a bike,
let's debate now what the Devil would have driven...
Since when was it decided that the son of god would have ridden a bike.
Personally I don't believe in any of the whole supreme being deal or the
devil for that matter. But if I did I would say the devil would have
driven something with an evil sounding name like "Viper"
Actually God drove a Plymouth, because it says in the bible, "And in his
Fury he drove them out."
Is that with the police interceptor transmission or the regular production
transmission?
Pob
2008-01-10 22:15:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by Just A User
Since when was it decided that the son of god would have ridden a bike.
Personally I don't believe in any of the whole supreme being deal or the
devil for that matter. But if I did I would say the devil would have
driven something with an evil sounding name like "Viper"
Actually God drove a Plymouth, because it says in the bible, "And in his
Fury he drove them out."
Motorbike - "And the roar of His Triumph was heard over the land"

pob
D***@ndersnat.ch
2008-01-09 23:09:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by donquijote1954
Since it's pretty much settled that Jesus would have ridden a bike,
let's debate now what the Devil would have driven...
Hoo sez the Devil doesn't exist! I saw him just the other day, driving
a six-wheeled Ford F-350, all alone, tailgating and talking on a cell
phone.

Bill

__o | A tyrant must put on the appearance
_`\(,_ | of uncommon devotion to religion.
(_)/ (_) | - Aristotle
donquijote1954
2008-01-10 03:36:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by donquijote1954
Since it's pretty much settled that Jesus would have ridden a bike,
let's debate now what the Devil would have driven...
   Hoo sez the Devil doesn't exist!  I saw him just the other day, driving
a six-wheeled Ford F-350, all alone, tailgating and talking on a cell
phone.
Did he have the bumper sticker "God is my co-pilot"?
j***@stanfordalumni.org
2008-01-09 23:11:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just A User
Post by donquijote1954
Since it's pretty much settled that Jesus would have ridden a bike,
let's debate now what the Devil would have driven...
Since when was it decided that the son of god would have ridden a
bike. Personally I don't believe in any of the whole supreme being
deal or the devil for that matter. But if I did I would say the
devil would have driven something with an evil sounding name like
"Viper"
Oh, you mean like most athletic teams: Raiders, Cougars, Cheetahs,
Outlaws, Wranglers, Pirates, Bears, Orcas... It's all too macho for me.

Even my Jordan Jr. High, named after David Starr Jordan, an
ichthyologist, were naturally the Dolphins, but were recently
rechristened to the Cheetahs, the former name being to soft.

Team sports are America's unifying religion. Just watch what men read
first after buying a newspaper before boarding the train/bus/trolly.
The fiercer the better, but we weren't always that way. Some older
teams kept their civilized names like Orioles, man what a namby pamby
name. How can you follow the exploits of such a team.

Gino Bartali vs. Lance Armstrong, the all American boy! Oops that was
Jack Armstrong.

Jobst Brandt
John Smith
2008-01-10 01:25:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just A User
Post by donquijote1954
Since it's pretty much settled that Jesus would have ridden a bike,
let's debate now what the Devil would have driven...
Since when was it decided that the son of god would have ridden a bike.
Personally I don't believe in any of the whole supreme being deal or the
devil for that matter. But if I did I would say the devil would have
driven something with an evil sounding name like "Viper"
The devil was recently seen in NY at the UN, one could still smell the
sulfur for quite some time after he left.

JS
donquijote1954
2008-01-10 03:39:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by Just A User
Post by donquijote1954
Since it's pretty much settled that Jesus would have ridden a bike,
let's debate now what the Devil would have driven...
Since when was it decided that the son of god would have ridden a bike.
Personally I don't believe in any of the whole supreme being deal or the
devil for that matter. But if I did I would say the devil would have
driven something with an evil sounding name like "Viper"
The devil was recently seen in NY at the UN, one could still smell the
sulfur for quite some time after he left.
JS
You too are "Chavista"?
Chalo
2008-01-09 23:09:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by donquijote1954
Since it's pretty much settled that Jesus would have ridden a bike,
let's debate now what the Devil would have driven...
"In New York, there are towers of glass. It is the most beautiful and
terrible city on earth. All good, all evil exist there-- and if you
know where to look, you can find the Devil. He drives down 42nd
street in a Cadillac with black windows. He lives down on Park Avenue
surrounded by his servants."

-- from _Bliss_ by Peter Carey
William
2008-01-10 00:15:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by donquijote1954
Since it's pretty much settled that Jesus would have ridden a bike,
let's debate now what the Devil would have driven...
I thought he drove an SUV. ;)
"The Devil" does not exist. But you do remind me of Don Quixote.
His SUV polluted too.
DonQuixote rode a horse, Rocinante, and Sancho rode a donkey, like
Jesus.
The Devil does not exist but Christians are often found doing evil
things. I have no doubt in my mind though that the Devil would have
driven an SUV if he existed.
WELCOME TO THE JUNGLEhttp://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
Your just one of many who have been tricked by the devil.
donquijote1954
2008-01-10 03:37:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by donquijote1954
Since it's pretty much settled that Jesus would have ridden a bike,
let's debate now what the Devil would have driven...
I thought he drove an SUV. ;)
"The Devil" does not exist.  But you do remind me of Don Quixote.
His SUV polluted too.
DonQuixote rode a horse, Rocinante, and Sancho rode a donkey, like
Jesus.
The Devil does not exist but Christians are often found doing evil
things. I have no doubt in my mind though that the Devil would have
driven an SUV if he existed.
WELCOME TO THE JUNGLEhttp://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
Your just one of many who have been tricked by the devil.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The Devil is always disguised. That's why people don't run when they
see him coming. And often he uses tinted windows. ;)
Ron Wallenfang
2008-01-10 02:23:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by donquijote1954
Since it's pretty much settled that Jesus would have ridden a bike,
let's debate now what the Devil would have driven...
I thought he drove an SUV. ;)
"The Devil" does not exist. But you do remind me of Don Quixote.
His SUV polluted too.
DonQuixote rode a horse, Rocinante, and Sancho rode a donkey, like
Jesus.
The Devil does not exist but Christians are often found doing evil
things. I have no doubt in my mind though that the Devil would have
driven an SUV if he existed.
WELCOME TO THE JUNGLEhttp://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
Are you the Bill Maher of rec.bicycles???? There are higher callings.
donquijote1954
2008-01-10 03:40:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by donquijote1954
Since it's pretty much settled that Jesus would have ridden a bike,
let's debate now what the Devil would have driven...
I thought he drove an SUV. ;)
"The Devil" does not exist.  But you do remind me of Don Quixote.
His SUV polluted too.
DonQuixote rode a horse, Rocinante, and Sancho rode a donkey, like
Jesus.
The Devil does not exist but Christians are often found doing evil
things. I have no doubt in my mind though that the Devil would have
driven an SUV if he existed.
WELCOME TO THE JUNGLEhttp://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
Are you the Bill Maher of rec.bicycles????   There are higher callings.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Just voices. Must be that Jesus is coming soon on a bike.
Tom Sherman
2008-01-10 06:06:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron Wallenfang
Post by donquijote1954
Since it's pretty much settled that Jesus would have ridden a bike,
let's debate now what the Devil would have driven...
I thought he drove an SUV. ;)
"The Devil" does not exist. But you do remind me of Don Quixote.
His SUV polluted too.
DonQuixote rode a horse, Rocinante, and Sancho rode a donkey, like
Jesus.
The Devil does not exist but Christians are often found doing evil
things. I have no doubt in my mind though that the Devil would have
driven an SUV if he existed.
WELCOME TO THE JUNGLEhttp://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
Are you the Bill Maher of rec.bicycles???? There are higher callings.
Would not working for the legalization of cannabis be a "higher" calling? ;)
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." A. Derleth
landotter
2008-01-10 02:43:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by donquijote1954
Since it's pretty much settled that Jesus would have ridden a bike,
let's debate now what the Devil would have driven...
Cigarette boat on a lake of diarrhea. The doomed are immersed up to
their chins!
Ozark Bicycle
2008-01-10 03:21:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by landotter
Post by donquijote1954
Since it's pretty much settled that Jesus would have ridden a bike,
let's debate now what the Devil would have driven...
Cigarette boat on a lake of diarrhea. The doomed are immersed up to
their chins!
Chins? Ears!!
landotter
2008-01-10 04:55:00 UTC
Permalink
On Jan 9, 9:21 pm, Ozark Bicycle
Post by Ozark Bicycle
Post by landotter
Post by donquijote1954
Since it's pretty much settled that Jesus would have ridden a bike,
let's debate now what the Devil would have driven...
Cigarette boat on a lake of diarrhea. The doomed are immersed up to
their chins!
Chins? Ears!!
Jeez, talk about the neck strain!
Scott M. Kozel
2008-01-10 03:10:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by donquijote1954
Since it's pretty much settled that Jesus would have ridden a bike,
let's debate now what the Devil would have driven...
Either a red horse, or a pale horse ...
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
donquijote1954
2008-01-10 03:43:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by donquijote1954
Since it's pretty much settled that Jesus would have ridden a bike,
let's debate now what the Devil would have driven...
Either a red horse, or a pale horse ...
I thought Jesus would come on a white horse and the Devil in a Hummer.
Scott M. Kozel
2008-01-10 04:40:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by donquijote1954
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by donquijote1954
Since it's pretty much settled that Jesus would have ridden a bike,
let's debate now what the Devil would have driven...
Either a red horse, or a pale horse ...
I thought Jesus would come on a white horse and the Devil in a Hummer.
No, Satan would come on a train.
George Conklin
2008-01-11 00:30:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by donquijote1954
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by donquijote1954
Since it's pretty much settled that Jesus would have ridden a bike,
let's debate now what the Devil would have driven...
Either a red horse, or a pale horse ...
I thought Jesus would come on a white horse and the Devil in a Hummer.
No, Satan would come on a train.
Did you know that Honda has a problem with the bible too? It turns out the
New Testament says,
"And the disciples were all of one Accord."
donquijote1954
2008-01-11 16:59:25 UTC
Permalink
Here's a good lesson for Christians. Yes, right from the Bible...

Taming the Lions
By Rev. Jennifer Brooks

The story of Daniel in the lion's den is the perfect Sunday School
thriller. There is the good guy, the hero, Daniel; the bad guy, the
Evil King of Babylonia, Darius, who orders Daniel thrown among the
lions simply for practicing his faith; and the lions, scary and
dangerous, who mysteriously do no harm to Daniel.

Children come away from this story, no doubt, impressed with the idea
that if they, too, faithfully honor their religious teachings, they
will be protected from danger.

That lesson is actually not the real story, the truth of the story.

The real story of Daniel is far more nuanced than the Sunday School
moral lesson, and as a result it tells us much more about good and
evil, and how we figure out which is which. The truth of Daniel's
story involves the Lucifer Effect.

...

We cannot, perhaps, always know what is right. But we can look more
carefully, listen more intently, observe more completely what it is
about our society that shapes us, because those assumptions can make
us complicit in actions that we do not approve. This is what it means
to exercise free will. To be a hero.

The lions that endanger us are not in a den somewhere, isolated and
confined. They are among us daily, often invisible. It is up to each
of us to measure what our lives are about, what we stand for, to
reflect on our cultural assumptions and where they can lead.

It is up to each of us, every day, to find and tame the lions.

http://www.lucifereffect.org/theologyblog.htm?articleID=26
donquijote1954
2008-01-10 03:29:07 UTC
Permalink
(Sorry to recycle this article but I must clear any suspicions that I
hate the Devil)
Post by donquijote1954
The Devil does not exist but Christians are often found doing
evil things. I have no doubt in my mind though that the Devil
would have driven an SUV if he existed.
Sounds like a personal problem to me.
You still have not given me a rational reason for your strange
hatred of SUVs.
Well, my hatred of SUVs is the same Christians have for the Devil.
Only more comprehensible since I go for the evil in it, not the person
(even if he's the Devil himself).

Now, in my dictionary killing people (even if casually) is evil, and
so is polluting the environment...

'If we want to repeat the mistakes of history or waste money on new
frivolities that will soon become "necessities" and "rights," that's
our business and we have one of the few economies capable of
repeatediy recovering from such folly. There are more serious matters
though, matters of right and wrong - ethics to be considered. I
contend that casually participating in the SUV fad is wrong.

The two reasons I hear for buying an SUV seem to be that: 1) being
high, they provide a better view; and 2) they are safe.

They are surely high. Until recently they provided a better view. That
is, until the roads became littered with them. Once the road is truly
full of SUVs, will any of the drivers have a better view? Of course
not. We're right back where we started. There is an ethical principle
that one should not make something harder for the next person who
comes along. Simply elevating your seat level makes it harder for the
next guy to see as well as you say you need to. This makes you part of
the problem. By the time everyone can see as well as you, no one can
see well any more because all the vehicles are tall. What's next?
Still higher vehicles? Periscopes?

The safety issue with SUVs is very troublesome. It's well known that
SUVs roll over more easily, but owners and potential owners are thick
to this, so there's no point in working it too hard. Let's also only
touch on the fact that these big, heavy vehicles will be hitting each
other more often as their numbers increase, resulting in high-energy
collisions where everybody loses. The real problem, though, is much
more serious than this.

The whole idea of "safe" SUVs requires dedicating oneself to
viciousness or deception. SUVs may be the first product ever
engineered to kill more people which has been successfully marketed
chiefly because e' its safety. In my use of the English Iangu age,
safer things do not in sum cause less safety. You can't have the
safety of an SUv without the danger it manifests to ethers. It's a
package.'

http://www.robreid.com/info/suv.html
Ron Wallenfang
2008-01-10 04:26:32 UTC
Permalink
On Jan 9, 9:29 pm, donquijote1954 <***@hotmail.com> wrote:



"I contend that casually participating in the SUV fad is wrong."
You've made a lot of assumptions, both morally and factually, that
need to be established. Your exposition in the post barely scratches
the surface. Like Vandemann in his anti-off road biking stuff, you've
got some valid points, but you've exaggerated them beyond all reason.
donquijote1954
2008-01-10 16:35:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron Wallenfang
"I contend that casually participating in the SUV fad is wrong."
You've made a lot of assumptions, both morally and factually, that
need to be established.  Your exposition in the post barely scratches
the surface.  Like Vandemann in his anti-off road biking stuff, you've
got some valid points, but you've exaggerated them beyond all reason.
Just enough to make you think. SUV drivers must understand they are
crucifying Jesus all over again, only that he's that fellow with the
bike.
POHB
2008-01-10 10:50:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by donquijote1954
Now, in my dictionary killing people (even if casually) is evil, and
so is polluting the environment...
Environmentalism is the new religion, it has both dabblers and
fundamentalists. This is apparant by the fervour with which the
subject is discussed in the pub.

Recycling is the new prayer. It doesn't do any good but it salves
your conscience over your "sins" against the planet.

We already have environmental terrorism, when do you think we'll have
the first war over pollution?

(Yes I am trolling)
donquijote1954
2008-01-10 17:23:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by POHB
Post by donquijote1954
Now, in my dictionary killing people (even if casually) is evil, and
so is polluting the environment...
Environmentalism is the new religion, it has both dabblers and
fundamentalists.  This is apparant by the fervour with which the
subject is discussed in the pub.
Only that their members ride bikes not SUVs. Much less dangerous.

When you deny something to an oppressed people, they start getting
militant, don't they?
Post by POHB
Recycling is the new prayer.  It doesn't do any good but it salves
your conscience over your "sins" against the planet.
I thought that was how the dirty system that we got cleaned its act.
Post by POHB
We already have environmental terrorism, when do you think we'll have
the first war over pollution?
(Yes I am trolling)
Another form of Orwell's "Newspeak." There can be no other terrorism
that that against the environment, and against people peacefully
riding bikes.

'A comparison to Newspeak may arguably be seen in polarised and
simplified political and journalistic rhetoric, where the arguments of
either side ultimately reduce to "four legs good, two legs bad", in
Orwellian terminology (see Animal Farm). A correlated phenomenon is
the dumbing down of political discourse, seen in the employment of
soundbites for the benefit of, or by, the media.'
Pat
2008-01-10 14:48:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by donquijote1954
(Sorry to recycle this article but I must clear any suspicions that I
hate the Devil)
Post by donquijote1954
The Devil does not exist but Christians are often found doing
evil things. I have no doubt in my mind though that the Devil
would have driven an SUV if he existed.
Sounds like a personal problem to me.
You still have not given me a rational reason for your strange
hatred of SUVs.
Well, my hatred of SUVs is the same Christians have for the Devil.
Only more comprehensible since I go for the evil in it, not the person
(even if he's the Devil himself).
Now, in my dictionary killing people (even if casually) is evil, and
so is polluting the environment...
'If we want to repeat the mistakes of history or waste money on new
frivolities that will soon become "necessities" and "rights," that's
our business and we have one of the few economies capable of
repeatediy recovering from such folly. There are more serious matters
though, matters of right and wrong - ethics to be considered. I
contend that casually participating in the SUV fad is wrong.
The two reasons I hear for buying an SUV seem to be that: 1) being
high, they provide a better view; and 2) they are safe.
They are surely high. Until recently they provided a better view. That
is, until the roads became littered with them. Once the road is truly
full of SUVs, will any of the drivers have a better view? Of course
not. We're right back where we started. There is an ethical principle
that one should not make something harder for the next person who
comes along. Simply elevating your seat level makes it harder for the
next guy to see as well as you say you need to. This makes you part of
the problem. By the time everyone can see as well as you, no one can
see well any more because all the vehicles are tall. What's next?
Still higher vehicles? Periscopes?
The safety issue with SUVs is very troublesome. It's well known that
SUVs roll over more easily, but owners and potential owners are thick
to this, so there's no point in working it too hard. Let's also only
touch on the fact that these big, heavy vehicles will be hitting each
other more often as their numbers increase, resulting in high-energy
collisions where everybody loses. The real problem, though, is much
more serious than this.
The whole idea of "safe" SUVs requires dedicating oneself to
viciousness or deception. SUVs may be the first product ever
engineered to kill more people which has been successfully marketed
chiefly because e' its safety. In my use of the English Iangu age,
safer things do not in sum cause less safety. You can't have the
safety of an SUv without the danger it manifests to ethers. It's a
package.'
http://www.robreid.com/info/suv.html
This is an interesting point. But SUV drivers don't hate bikers.
They may pretty much ignore them but they don't hate them. But bikers
hate SUVers. So if hatred is a sign of evil or miscontent, then the
devil would surely ride a bike so that he could inspire more people
into hatred of other people.

Be that as it may, in actually the devil might be quite the
environmentalist. I mean, he is everywhere all of the time so he has
no real transportation costs and does all of his works in a carbon-
free way. Then it is reputed that he produces a huge amount of heat
and it doesn't appear that he used oil or coal or any other non-
renewable resource to do so. It is this slyness that makes the devil
so cunning and dangerous.

Of course there was that whole contaminated-apple thing, but that's
another story. But you'd have to imagine that even that was an
organic apple.
donquijote1954
2008-01-10 17:37:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by donquijote1954
(Sorry to recycle this article but I must clear any suspicions that I
hate the Devil)
Post by donquijote1954
The Devil does not exist but Christians are often found doing
evil things. I have no doubt in my mind though that the Devil
would have driven an SUV if he existed.
Sounds like a personal problem to me.
You still have not given me a rational reason for your strange
hatred of SUVs.
Well, my hatred of SUVs is the same Christians have for the Devil.
Only more comprehensible since I go for the evil in it, not the person
(even if he's the Devil himself).
Now, in my dictionary killing people (even if casually) is evil, and
so is polluting the environment...
'If we want to repeat the mistakes of history or waste money on new
frivolities that will soon become "necessities" and "rights," that's
our business and we have one of the few economies capable of
repeatediy recovering from such folly. There are more serious matters
though, matters of right and wrong - ethics to be considered. I
contend that casually participating in the SUV fad is wrong.
The two reasons I hear for buying an SUV seem to be that: 1) being
high, they provide a better view; and 2) they are safe.
They are surely high. Until recently they provided a better view. That
is, until the roads became littered with them. Once the road is truly
full of SUVs, will any of the drivers have a better view? Of course
not. We're right back where we started. There is an ethical principle
that one should not make something harder for the next person who
comes along. Simply elevating your seat level makes it harder for the
next guy to see as well as you say you need to. This makes you part of
the problem. By the time everyone can see as well as you, no one can
see well any more because all the vehicles are tall. What's next?
Still higher vehicles? Periscopes?
The safety issue with SUVs is very troublesome. It's well known that
SUVs roll over more easily, but owners and potential owners are thick
to this, so there's no point in working it too hard. Let's also only
touch on the fact that these big, heavy vehicles will be hitting each
other more often as their numbers increase, resulting in high-energy
collisions where everybody loses. The real problem, though, is much
more serious than this.
The whole idea of "safe" SUVs requires dedicating oneself to
viciousness or deception. SUVs may be the first product ever
engineered to kill more people which has been successfully marketed
chiefly because e' its safety. In my use of the English Iangu age,
safer things do not in sum cause less safety. You can't have the
safety of an SUv without the danger it manifests to ethers. It's a
package.'
http://www.robreid.com/info/suv.html
This is an interesting point.  But SUV drivers don't hate bikers.
They may pretty much ignore them but they don't hate them.  But bikers
hate SUVers.  So if hatred is a sign of evil or miscontent, then the
devil would surely ride a bike so that he could inspire more people
into hatred of other people.
Be that as it may, in actually the devil might be quite the
environmentalist.  I mean, he is everywhere all of the time so he has
no real transportation costs and does all of his works in a carbon-
free way.  Then it is reputed that he produces a huge amount of heat
and it doesn't appear that he used oil or coal or any other non-
renewable resource to do so.  It is this slyness that makes the devil
so cunning and dangerous.
Of course there was that whole contaminated-apple thing, but that's
another story.  But you'd have to imagine that even that was an
organic apple.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I haven't heard of an oppressed that doesn't hate the oppressors.
Early Christians hated Rome for this reason. Later they joined Rome,
and became the oppressors, but that's another story.

No, I don't think SUV drivers hate bicycles. They simply ignore
cyclists (as you say) as well as any other concern of good and evil,
like the environment. They simply love themselves and think of anyone
else as lowly and not worth it of much respect.

As you say also, evil shows up in many ways and disguises, and
displaying bumper stickers that say "God is my co-pilot" while
carelessly talking on the cell may be one such way...

"God is my co-pilot, but the Devil makes me a lousy driver"
Tom Sherman
2008-01-10 06:08:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by donquijote1954
Since it's pretty much settled that Jesus would have ridden a bike,
let's debate now what the Devil would have driven...
The Devil rides a back-to-back upright tandem:
<Loading Image...>.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." A. Derleth
donquijote1954
2008-01-10 17:12:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Sherman
Post by donquijote1954
Since it's pretty much settled that Jesus would have ridden a bike,
let's debate now what the Devil would have driven...
<http://www.velonews.com/images/prn/8366.11940.f.jpg>.
I can see he's pedalling against the poor fellow. The Devil is always
playing tricks on people. Sort of annoying, no?



If only he drove a little red car like that. ;)

Loading Image...
ilaboo
2008-01-13 01:09:11 UTC
Permalink
don

can you please come up with something original--ideas and insight you have,
have been around for 2000 years.

if you really want to know what he has driven--visit your proctologist

take care

peter
ilaboo
2008-01-13 01:20:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by donquijote1954
let's debate now what the Devil would have driven...
.com/users/donquijote
like we say in da bronx

yo mama

hth
peter
ilaboo
2008-01-13 01:22:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by donquijote1954
let's debate now what the Devil would have driven...
ops forgot to say

yo mama if not her then your grandma

hth
peter
Loading...