Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- HLP on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
Open thread 9/5
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted Sept. 5, 2007 at 1:05 a.m.
- Filed under Open thread
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
281 Comments
Hillary’s embarrassment is now Kathleen’s embarrassment?
Kathleen Sebelius received a campaign contribution from Hillary Clinton’s controversial donor, Norman Hsu, who was arrested on fraud charges
http://www.kansasmeadowlark.com/2007/09-05/index.htm
I think terrorists are using the Willie Nelson thread to communicate in code.
I am working on breaking it :)
So what meadowlurk, are politicians supposed to do background checks on every donor? Goodness, $500, I guess he bought and paid for Sebelius. Come back when you actually have a scandal to report.
Going to mention Alan B. Fabian’s crimes?
http://washington.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2007/08/06/daily44.html?surround=lfn
A federal grand jury indicted consultant Alan B. Fabian Aug. 9 on allegations of a $32 million fraud and money laundering scheme.
So how is this related to Kansas?
I think the point Meadowlark is trying to make is:
What is the governor going to do with her money recieved by Hsu?
Mc Donald’s for everyone in her office!
Supersize mine!
Jerry Lewis used the term “illiterate faggot” on the telethon.
Let the crucification begin…
I did not hear Jerry Lewis say this . . . is it true? If so, then why is this kind of conduct not an issue? Just because he is a celebrity or a philanthropist doesn’t give him license to promote ugly, oppressive and demeaning language on national TV.
“”"I did not hear Jerry Lewis say this . . . is it true? If so, then why is this kind of conduct not an issue? Just because he is a celebrity or a philanthropist doesn’t give him license to promote ugly, oppressive and demeaning language on national TV.”"”"
Being a long time fan of Jerry, shamefully yes, he did say it on TV. I didn’t see it but it was on the news here. Apparently he jokingly said it to somebody he was “comfortable” with. But that still don’t make it right and it hurts the very kids he is trying to help.
Why is there no thread about John Edwards statements requiring doctor visits?
http://www.wqad.com/Global/story.asp?S=7017540&nav=menu132_2
This is a big part of Socialized Medicine. Once the Great HMO of Washington starts picking up the tab you can kiss many choices goodbye.
Look, I have nothing against homos; as one old Roman said, sex is just the rubbing together of a few square inches of flesh, but when one minces past wearing nothing but a tan, orange hot pants and nipple rings, I reserve the right to be disgusted.
Yes. Let us not intrude on the rights of intolerant to be disgusted. What was America founded for, anyway?
“Look, I have nothing against homos”
?????????????????????????????????
Uh, I guess I have nothing against breeders either?
Anybody see this? Sam Brownback goes to New Hampshire to stump for votes and nobody shows up to hear him speak. LOL! Gotta love it!
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070904/480/5ca0cf5624ad4cb59c18a7e2ebe0f469
While i dont approve of what lewis had to say, america still has freedom of speech. democrats seem to think it only applies to them. comedians routinely pick on some group, whether it is there own ethnicity or someone elses. seems democrats have the same double standards they accuse the republicans of having.
Jerry’s 81 years old . . . AND the French love him. What does that mean? Anybody care?
He made anti female comments back in 2000 or 2001 and no females made an issue of it.
When is Mettal going to offer unleaded toys?
I did not hear what Jerry Lewis allegedly said on the Telethon. I saw a very brief video clip, where whatever he said was “bleeped” out.
The audience seemed to be in stitches over whatever was happening. I suspect it will be all over You Tube shortly, and then the world can see what the “old man” of all fundraising blurted out this year…
I hope you all call in your pledges to MDA…
Chas according to Yahoo he said:
“Oh, your family has come to see you. You remember Bart, your oldest son, Jesse, the illiterate fag …,” Lewis said, as he apparently caught himself and ceased the gag in mid-sentence, turning on his heel away from the camera.
Here is the clip unbleeped
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/showbiz/2007/09/04/sot.jerry.lewis.bad.joke.cnn?iref=mpvideosview
“This is a big part of Socialized Medicine. Once the Great HMO of Washington starts picking up the tab you can kiss many choices goodbye.
Posted by: ProudMan | September 05, 2007 at 06:20 AM ”
Well before Washington does anything, you are going to see your own insurance provider requiring things like this.
As people get more fed up with rising healthcare costs they will realize the cost saving value of preventative medicine. As they realize how much cheaper it is to prevent many illnesses than to fix them, they will opt for more preventative care. As more people do this, they will also get tired of bearing the shared insurance cost burden of those who do not take responsibility for their own preventative maintenance. They will push healthcare providers to require certain routine healthcare to ensure continued coverage. The insurers in turn will require that all plan participants undergo routine testing and healthcare the insurer deems necessary for the plan participant to remain covered under the insurance plan.
For example, the insurer could state in their policy that women who do not get yearly mammograms after the age of 30 will not be covered for breast cancer related treatments. Or, men that do not get anal (er, I mean annual) prostate exams after 50 will not be covered for prostate related cancers.
Another example of the great dream of socialized medicine.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23410977-details/‘NHS+should+not+treat+those+with+unhealthy+lifestyles’+say+Tories/article.do
How long before some government regulator decides that religion is an unhealthy mental lifestyle? Will you have to deny God before the Community Board of Mental Health before you can get ‘free’ medical care?
Brian,
What you describe is a great example of how private industry will deal with the problem. Likely people will get offered lower insurance rates if they prove they don’t smoke or always ride with their helmet on.
However there is a big difference between what a private insurance company will do and what the all-powerful federal HMO would do.
And Awaaaayyyyy we go!!!
Meadowlark,
It appears that the Dems have their own Abrahmoff in the form of Hsu now. Wondering how fast the MSM will bury the story?
Good detective work!
The U.S. as Nanny Government in Iraq?
“The United States turned over sovereignty to an Iraqi government in June 2004 after a 14-month occupation. But for many Iraqis, the United States remains the only source of basic services, protection and infrastructure — functions the new government was supposed to perform. The result is a dilemma for U.S. officials and particularly the reconstruction teams that are the cornerstone of the rebuilding effort. When Americans step in to provide services that the government does not, they foster dependence and undermine the institutions they want to strengthen.”
Where’s the Right Wing outrage on this?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/04/AR2007090402285.html?hpid=topnews
Imagine the 2008 election results are in. In a tight race, our next president is determined by a few hundred votes in a swing state like Pennsylvania—where the electronic voting machines have no paper record whatsoever. Who really won?
This week is our last chance to stop this nightmare scenario. The House is deciding whether to ban paperless voting machines by 2008.
Can you urge your representative, Todd Tiahrt, to ban paperless voting by supporting H.R. 811?
Many election officials are fighting against H.R. 811 because they think it’s unnecessary and too difficult to implement.
If H.R. 811 is defeated in the House, our next president will be decided by paperless electronic voting machines. Please call Rep. Tiahrt today.
Congressman Todd TiahrtPhone: 202-225-6216
A dispatch from Socialism-Central:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/04/AR2007090401621.html
The District asked the Supreme Court yesterday to save the city’s ban on handgun ownership, saying an appeals court’s decision overturning the prohibition “drastically departs from the mainstream of American jurisprudence.”
If the court agrees to take the case, as most legal experts believe is likely, it could lead to a historic decision sometime next year on whether the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects an individual’s right to own a gun or simply imparts a collective, civic right related to maintaining state militias.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/04/AR2007090401977.html?hpid=moreheadlines
Considering the conservative bent of the current court, I think now is an excellent time to settle Second Amendment Rights issues.
This could set the gun banners back decades.
You can also send the Toddster, an email message from here:
http://www.house.gov/tiahrt/e-mail_todd.htm
Uh oh, some one has fired up the ink pens.
from Kansas.com
Abortion opponents petition for grand jury probe of TillerThe Associated Press
WICHITA, Kan. – Abortion opponents have turned over a petition asking for a Sedgwick County grand jury to investigate late-term abortions provided by Dr. George Tiller.
The petition contains nearly 8,000 signatures.
In it, Kansans for Life asks that the Sedgwick County District appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate Tiller.
The anti-abortion group does not want either the Sedgwick County district attorney’s office or the Kansas attorney general’s office associated with the grand jury investigation.
It is the second time abortion foes have used the grand jury petition process to go after Tiller. The last grand jury did not return an indictment.
Where’s the Right Wing outrage on this?
Probably hiding the same place the Left Wing outrage hides when one of its own screws up.
Kansas, your tax money (and mine) is paying for all these petitioned probes. They’ll keep petitioning until Hell freezes over, never being satisfied until they’ve crucified somebody. And I thought Jesus died for everyone’s sins.
“…wearing nothing but a tan, orange hot pants and nipple rings…”
And I bet those are hanging front and center in YOUR closet.
Orange hot pants?
OH THE HUMANITY!!!
*NEW BULLETIN*
“REP. PAUL GILLMOR, R-OHIO, FOUND DEAD IN HIS APARTMENT, AIDE SAYS “Fox News
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Rep. Paul Gillmor of Ohio was found dead in his apartment in the nation’s capital Wednesday, leadership aides for both the Republican and Democratic parties said.art.gillmor.portrait.gov.jpg
Rep. Paul Gillmor was first elected to Congress in 1988.
Gillmor, a Republican, was 68. The leadership aides did not say how Gillmor died.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, told fellow congressmen on the floor of the House that their colleague died “suddenly overnight.”
“He was a good friend to all of us,” said a somber Boehner. “He’s going to be missed by us all.”
A tribute to Gillmor will be held in the House later Wednesday afternoon, Boehner said. Video Watch Boehner tell congressmen of colleague’s death »
Gillmor, the deputy minority whip, was in his 10th term in the House, representing the 5th Congressional District in the northwest part of the Buckeye state.
He was a member of the House Committee on Financial Services, and the ranking Republican on the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.
Gillmor also served on the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored-Enterprises and the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity.
He was elected to Congress in 1988, after serving in the Ohio State Senate for 22 years, where he was elected Republican leader five times.
Gillmor was born Feb. 1, 1939, in Tiffin, Ohio. He received a bachelor of arts degree from Ohio Wesleyan University in Delaware, Ohio, and a law degree from the University of Michigan Law School.
In 2006, Roll Call — a Capitol Hill newspaper — listed him as the 43rd richest member of Congress, with an estimated net worth of $6.16 million. He formerly ran a financial services company.
Gillmor was also a U.S. Air Force veteran — where he attained the rank of captain — and ran unsuccessfully for governor in 1986. He served in the Vietnam War in 1965 and 1966.advertisement
He was married to Karen Gillmor, vice chairman of the State Employment Relations Board in Ohio and a former state senator.
Their family includes two daughters, Linda and Julie, and three sons, Paul and twins Connor and Adam.http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/05/congressman.dead/index.html
“XXX” wrote:
“Considering the conservative bent of the current court, I think now is an excellent time to settle Second Amendment Rights issues.
This could set the gun banners back decades.”
And ya know something, “XXX,” I’m all for it. I really am.
I’m not a “gun-banner,” nor are most of the people who agree with me that there are limitations to the 2nd Amendment, just as their are restraints to the 1st Amendment and every other provision of the Constitution of the United States.
I desperately *want* the provisions of the 2nd Amendment to be decided once and for all by the SCOTUS, rather than deal with all the distortions spewed by the NRA and Handgun Control which serve those organizations well as fundraisers, but don’t get to the point.
Is the 2nd Amendment about state militias? Or is it about assuring anyone and everyone the right to keep and bear every military weapon possible?
I want it decided, even by today’s very conservative SCOTUS.
But’cha know somethin’? There are plenty of gun-rights advocates who absolutely do *not* want a SCOTUS ruling on the 2nd Amendment. It might turn out that carrying a concealed weapon does not meet the militia test. It could turn out that your strange neighbor has the right to have a thermonuclear device in his basement…even if he’s a Muslim.
The Gun Owners of America (kinda like the NRA but, you know, *serious* about the issue) proudly claim that the 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting ducks. So it’s possible that a Friend of the Court brief could subject us to too many web-footed fowl and ruin all our cars’ paint jobs.
But the Supreme Court of the United States is there to make the tough decisions.
I welcome a SCOTUS decision on the 2nd Amendment. I cede that the current conservative bent of the SCOTUS might skew against my personal beliefs regarding firearms in America.
I’ll go so far as to say, “Bring it on!” even knowing how that phrase has worked out lately.
The only problem is, the NRA and other pro-gun lobbies absolutely *don’t* want a SCOTUS review. They’re making too much money and wield too much power by keeping the issue in flux.
All I want regarding the 2nd Amendment is for us to settle on the rules. I’m sick and tired of gun nuts making up the rules as they go along.
XXX,
The Federal District Court had already ruled that the Washington DC gun ban was unconstitutional and struck it down.
Since Wasthing DC is appealing, the law will stay in effect until the appeal is heard or not.
D.C.’s Ban On Handguns In Homes Is Thrown Out (March 10, 2007)
“A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that the District’s longtime ban on keeping handguns in homes is unconstitutional.
The 2 to 1 decision by an appellate panel outraged D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and other city leaders, who said that they will appeal and that gun-related crimes could rise if the ruling takes effect. The outcome elated opponents of strict gun controls because it knocked down one of the toughest laws in the country and vindicated their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution’s language on the right to bear arms.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030902416.html
It is definately a victory for the Second Amendment!
Even with the ban on guns, that place has still been the murder capitol. Those illogical gun banners never learn.
OMGosh! Bush killed Gillmore! Bush killed Gillmore! Bush killed Gillmore!
. . . oh wait . . .
I was thinking of how the Clintons’ “killed” Vince Foster.
Sorry, my bad.
CapnAmerica,
I figured the death of Vince Foster would be a conspiracy theory right up your alley.
Or do you only believe in conspiracy theories when they are against Republicans?
Thank goodness no Broken Arrow!
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/05/loose.nukes/index.html
Yeah,
I read that earlier Vaughn. I am pretty sure someones head will roll for that one.
Okay, Nathan, I’ll bite.
What conspiracy theories?
That we invaded Iraq for the oil?
That’s dead obvious.
Read in the linked piece the crew has been decertified, pending remedial training, etc. Heads will likely roll in addition.
On the issue of guns, I always end up in very unfamiliar territory. I’m not used to agreeing with conservatives EVER, but when it comes to guns, it just doesn’t seem logical to me to limit the availability of guns to honest, hard working citizens, while criminals continue to have a ready supply. Just doesn’t make sense to me.
.
“Second Amendment to the Constitution protects an individual’s right to own a gun or simply imparts a collective, civic right related to maintaining state militias.”
“Is the 2nd Amendment about state militias?”
You gotta believe that somewhere in the minds of the Framers, they had to be thinking about maintaining militias..or else, why would they have added the FIRST clause to the 2nd Amendment??
I’d think at some point, Operation Rescue needs to be banned from calling grand jury investigations.
Yes, Chas., but the first clause makes little sense without a guaranteed right of the individual to “bear arms”, given the times in which the Second Amendment was written. I agree; it is time for SCOTUS to issue a ruling, hopefully definitive, on this issue. BTW, I still don’t see this language as guaranteeing an individual the right to carry concealed.
It also doesn’t convey there isn’t a right to carry a conceal weapon.
I think Meadowlark & his OR goons just like to sling mud to see what will stick.
Kansas…Abramhoff and Hoi, not even CLOSE.
As far as the Jerry Lewis/free speech thing, yes everyone has free speech, but there are consequences to using that speech. I also have the right to say “I found that offensive and I will no longer support this person”…and that’s perfectly within my right to do so.
Kansas, I think we’re just going to need to agree to disagree on that point.
My personal thoughts on the Second Amendment revolve around the right of a private citizen to keep firearms in their homes for their protection and that of the family within. Firearms that would, of necessity, be suitable for use in the service of a “militia” in particular. Firearms that would also, given the times, be suitable for hunting, so that the citizens might have food. As always, just my two cents.
Maybe you’ll see this guy at one of the Legal Association meetings GMC and Vaughn? :D
Side show ‘freak’ wants to be a lawyer
The Associated PressEduardo Arrocha, whose stage name is “Eak the Geek,” poses in New York in this April 7, 2006 file photo. The tatoo-covered Coney Island side show performer who specializes in eating nails says he’s found a new calling, becoming a lawyer. Arrocha starts classes on Tuesday, Sept. 4, 2007, at Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Mich.Shiho Fukada
Eduardo Arrocha, whose stage name is “Eak the Geek,” poses in New York in this April 7, 2006 file photo. The tatoo-covered Coney Island side show performer who specializes in eating nails says he’s found a new calling, becoming a lawyer. Arrocha starts classes on Tuesday, Sept. 4, 2007, at Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Mich.
NEW YORK – A tattoo-covered Coney Island side show performer who specializes in eating nails says he’s found a new calling: becoming a lawyer. “I know it sounds weird, but I want to be a freak lawyer,” the man known for 15 years as “Eak the Geek” told the newspaper am New York in an article published Tuesday.
kansas.com
What did Gilmour know, and why did bush shut him up? Move over Vince!
Chas,
So once again, since you dodged the question before, do you support an indviduals right to own a gun?
This is going to reveal my ignorance about guns, but when the 2nd amendment was written, did they have hand guns that could be concealed? I always picture those long muskets that would be dangerous to conceal on a body.
If the audience cracked up laughing, then I forgive Jerry…
Laughter is good medicine. But he should save the line for a Roast vs the MDA.
=^..^=
TDT,
They did have “handguns” during the revolutionary war.
Whether or not people concealed them I am unfamiliar with.
The principle of concealment is the issue.
Self defense was seen as a fundamental right by the founding fathers and was one of the main reasons the 2nd Amendment was written.
For most of history people have simply been able to carry weapons openly whether they were swords, daggars or rifles of some type.
So the issue of concealment was not really there.
Britain approves human-animal embryo research
LONDON (Reuters) – British regulators decided on Wednesday to permit in principle the creation of hybrid human-animal embryos for research into illnesses such as Parkinson’s, Motor Neurone Disease and Alzheimer’s.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) said it had agreed to allow a specific kind of inter-species hybrid, created by injecting human DNA into a hollowed-out animal egg cell.
The resulting “cytoplasmic hybrid” embryo, or “cybrid” would be 99.9 percent human and 0.1 percent animal.
The HFEA is believed to be the first regulator in the world to explicitly approve such human-animal embryos, a spokeswoman for the authority said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070905/sc_nm/britain_embryo_dc
Nathan, I believe you read what Vaughn said about the gun issue upthread. I would tend to be in strong agreement with his statement. Now, there, are you now hopefully satisfied?? Now will you stop dogging me about gun ownership every time it comes up??? I mean, what would you want for an answer from a pacifist Clergyman??? Huh??? Huh??? Huh???
I bet if I said I was a Mennonite or a Quaker, or something like that, you wouldnt even ask that question!!
In case you cant find Vaughn’s post, Nathan >>>>
“My personal thoughts on the Second Amendment revolve around the right of a private citizen to keep firearms in their homes for their protection and that of the family within. Firearms that would, of necessity, be suitable for use in the service of a “militia” in particular. Firearms that would also, given the times, be suitable for hunting, so that the citizens might have food.”
Nixon was a Quaker.
Fron Hank’s link (above):
“the petition, filed by D.C. Attorney General Linda Singer. It adds: “Whatever right the Second Amendment guarantees, it does not require the District to stand by while its citizens die.”
**Murders and crime have continued since the DC gun ban of 1977.
DC is not only standing by while its citizens die, but DC is not allowing its citizens to defend themselves. And at the same time, the DC police are NOT protecting the citizens.
Sorry I was wrong for the 2nd time this year. The link was from XXX, not Hank.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/04/AR2007090401977.html?hpid=moreheadlines
Yes Max,Once again it looks like we agree on something.STOP IT!!!!
Don’t make me come over there!
Chas,
I wasn’t meaning to pester you. Only that it is hard to engage in a discussion with people when you don’t know what their underlying belief on that issue is.
Thank you.
If the Supreme Court of the US decides that people do NOT have the legal Constitutional right to defend themselves, then how are we able to maintain and defend our other legal Constitutional rights once we are disarmed?
I for one, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, will NOT be giving up my God given natural right of self-defense.
And I suspect the Government will have a little practical problem on its hands if they want to confiscate firearms from the 80 to 100 million gun owners.
Max,
I don’t know what weapons the government is talking about.
I lost all mine in a boating accident last year :)
You know mine were taken by my Ex when she took everything else with her.
It was a very sad day. I really miss those guns.
Dems Dirty Donor Norman Hsu Fails to Show for Bail Reduction Hearing Leading to Speculation He’s On the Run
DEVELOPING STORY: California businessman Norman Hsu, a former New York apparel executive and major contributor to Democratic candidates and causes, failed to appear for a bail reduction hearing Wednesday, leading to speculation that he again is a fugitive from the law, FOX News has learned.
Hsu’s attorneys say they do not know his whereabouts, and that their client did not surrender his passport.
Hsu turned himself in to authorities last week after more than 15 years on the run from a felony conviction of grand theft. He admitted to defrauding investors of $1 million in a bogus investment scam.
He failed to appear in court for sentencing on that 1991 conviction, a revelation that prompted high profile Democrats — including presidential candidate Hillary Clinton — to return thousands of dollars donated by Hsu.http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295828,00.html
Hsu is in cement. Someone didn’t want him to testify.
He will NOT be found.
More sad DC news:
Thousands of Chinese-Made Condoms Distributed in D.C. Returned for Faulty Packaging
Thousands of condoms distributed free in the District of Columbia as part of an HIV-AIDS program are being returned to the district’s health department following complaints that the packaging was easily damaged, rendering the condoms ineffective.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295841,00.html
Can’t wait until the Government controls Health Care for All Americans!
(The article doesn’t say if they were new or used)
Lets see, on the run from the law for 15 years. Bail denied seems the most prudent course of action.
Thats like the police that took a check for bail from a person busted for writing hot checks.
More Hiding by the Clintons:
Is Clinton’s candidacy blocking ‘Path to 9/11′?
It was OK to issue the DVD for “Fahrenheit 9/11″. Why not “Path to 9/11″?
25 million viewers watched “Path to 9/11″ when it was broadcast last year. There is a demand for this DVD then.
Our 1st Amendment right is being stifled. Our 2nd Amendment right may soon be gone too. What’s next?
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/homeentertainment/la-et-path5sep05,0,2302280.story?coll=la-home-entertainment
Oh, and I want to see the “deleted scenes” from “Path to 9/11″.
Remember, Clinton somehow pushed the ABC Network to cut-out certain scenes at the last minute.
Cmon Pmom, what do you have to hide?
“”"Why is there no thread about John Edwards statements requiring doctor visits?”"”
I fully agree with Edwards on this. If you are going to be on the system then you have to do your part to hold down the cost. That includes things like physicals and mamograms to catch little problems before they are big problems. You don’t do the physical, your co pay triples!
“”"Considering the conservative bent of the current court, I think now is an excellent time to settle Second Amendment Rights issues.
This could set the gun banners back decades.”"”
One can only hope so. The right to defend ones life, family and property should never be taken away.
You will also be required to strictly follow your Doctors instruckions.
If I tell you to go on a diet of 1,000 calories per day, no meat, only vegetables, then YOU WILL COMPLY!
If I tell you to walk 5 miles per day, then YOU WILL COMPLY!
If you fail to see the Doctor or follow his/her orders, YOU WILL PAY THE PRICE! YOU WILL GO TO JAIL!
“”"While i dont approve of what lewis had to say, america still has freedom of speech. democrats seem to think it only applies to them. comedians routinely pick on some group, whether it is there own ethnicity or someone elses. seems democrats have the same double standards they accuse the republicans of having.”"”
It is not WHAT he said but WHERE he said it. If he had said it during a stand up routine in a Vegas pinky ring club, nobody would give a hoot. But you don’t say things like that on national TV while you are asking people to donate to a worthy cause.
A great collection of global warming graphs — temperatures, CO2, sea ice loss, glacier ice and earthquakes, solar irradiance, ocean heat content, forcings, etc..
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/09/05/graphic-evidence/
“”"WASHINGTON (CNN) — Rep. Paul Gillmor of Ohio was found dead in his apartment in the nation’s capital Wednesday, leadership aides for both the Republican and Democratic parties said.art.gillmor.portrait.gov.jpg
Rep. Paul Gillmor was first elected to Congress in 1988.
Gillmor, a Republican, was 68. The leadership aides did not say how Gillmor died.”"”
Who cares how the fool died. One less Republican is always a good thing you know.
In light of yet another recall of toys from China. why dont someone post some info on toys made In the USA I know somewhere their our toys made here, not in some Communist sweatshop, or prison camp. The only thing I can think of are Vermont teddy bears I know theirs more.
Gillmor, a Republican, was 68. The leadership aides did not say how Gillmor died.”"”
Who cares how the fool died. One less Republican is always a good thing you know.
Posted by: Kev | September 05, 2007 at 05:39 PM
Leave it to our own Liberal Blog Redneck, Kev, to make such a statement.
“Rep. Paul Gillmor was first elected to Congress in 1988.
Gillmor, a Republican, was 68. The leadership aides did not say how Gillmor died.”"”
Who cares how the fool died. One less Republican is always a good thing you know.”
What a trollish (and just plain dumb) comment.
Goveror Ted Strickland, a Democrat, will appoint Gillmor’s replacement.
Who cares how the fool died. One less Republican is always a good thing you know.
Posted by: Kev | September 05, 2007 at 05:39 PM
Reminds of the only good Indian is a dead Indian.
There is just as much hate in that sentiment as your comment.
American businesses should be very vocal in promoting their products, and especially toys!
“”"Goveror Ted Strickland, a Democrat, will appoint Gillmor’s replacement.”"”
Good. Another win for good and another loss for evil.
“”"There is just as much hate in that sentiment as your comment.”"”
I really cannot get upset when a man who has voted to take away healthcare from poor American children and fund it for Iraqis takes a dirt nap. It really doesn’t bother me when a man that is affiliated with a party that stands for hate, oppression, death and destruction dies. No more than I would have been at the death of Stalin or Hitler. I hope he enjoys his stay in Hell because he is going to be there for a very long time.
Kev it is statements like that last one of yours that gives all of your statements no credibility. You need a serious attitude adjustment.
With the hatred you are carrying around you are rotting from the inside out.
I have always heard that hate only hurts the vessel you carry it in.
“If the Supreme Court of the US decides that people do NOT have the legal Constitutional right to defend themselves, then how are we able to maintain and defend our other legal Constitutional rights once we are disarmed?”
Once yet again, you all are getting your story all twisted where it isnt going… The ONLY issue as I understand it is not whether you are allowed to defend yourself… but the keeping of HAND GUNS in the house… HAND GUNS ONLY…
Now you have it spun so far out of REALITY… like you need something to defend that isnt really there to begin with…
Go back and read the GUTS of the case again…. Otherwise, you can sit around and tear down your straw me all night, and reach absolutely NO conclusion…
DC has no law presently banning you from keeping a rifle in your home… HAND GUNS folks… That is the issue…
FOCUS… for a change… Please!!
Hey Kev. What is inherently good about the Democrat party? You tell me and then I’ll tell you what is bad.
You seem to live in this simplistic Tarzan world where Democrat good. Republican bad.
The real world doesn’t work that way.
Chas,
Most of us understand the case is not directly going to be about self defense, but feel that a voting in our favor for keeping handguns will indeed be a victory for self defense.
Any ruling in our favor would almost certainly have to say that we do indeed have some individual right to own firearms as well…
I hope that the court would give a ruling which really states plain as day we have an individual right to have guns… would be nice.
Wow…
And all of a sudden Kev will fall to the level of the other few fringe wacko posters here.
Good Bye Kev.
Lets hope that not even the left will actually dignify your presence here any longer.
I wrote my last post before Kev posted his last. Unbelievable. You are right Nathan,, Kev is a first rate hater.
Scroll over.
HAND GUNS! MY GOD, LET’S GET RID OF THE HAND GUNS!
now, please Chas, tell me H O W the elimination of HANDGUNS will occur.
Y’all realize that many retired Union workers who have BOTH premium private insurance and Medicare, don’t pay a DIME in out of pocket health expenses.
I have several retired union factory worker relatives who get free:
Hearing AidsBunion SurgeryHip ReplacementsHeart Surgery
They tell me they are concerned about going to National Healthcare.
Hmmmmmm,
So Hillary will have to have a DOUBLE STANDARD if she is to push her plan. There are millions of retired factory workers with premium healthcare and Medicare, and they ALL VOTE!
But a double standard from Hillary will be ok. Those who are over 60 and retired will keep their plans.
The rest of us will be S C R E W E D!
BTW, Hillary hasn’t publically acknowledged this yet, but she will!
Mark My Words!
Max, that is currently the LAW that is being disputed in DC right now… If the BAN continues, it does NOT infringe on your right to bear arms… So, knock off with your straw men, that you can knock down… Thats not what this is all about!! Go R E A D the facts of the case that will go to SCOTUS…. Then you wont sound like a bunch of wackos!!
Nathan, KEV already is a scroll over. HAS BEEN for some time.
Chas,
Banning handguns does infringe upon our right to bear arms.
I am not too sure how you can say it doesn’t?
CHAS, CAN YOU NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION!?!
HOW WILL YOU ELIMINATE HANDGUNS?
And the question at hand is whether the 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms is an Individual Right or a Collective Right.
Handguns, rifles, shotguns, ALL will be affected by such a Supreme Court ruling.
CHAS, take your high blood pressure pills. You are about to blow a gasket!
(Go read Leviticus and calm down!)
Chas,
So what “arms” do you think we have a right to bear if not handguns?
Nathan, please carry the torch for awhile if you can. I need to run an errand. Will be back later.
The 2nd Amendment right to freedom must be defended constantly as you know.
And by the way Nathan, thanks for putting your life on the line and defending all of the Constitution for all of America.
Thank you. I don’t think you servicement hear that enough.
One of my older brothers is a retired 20 year Marine Gunny. I wish I would have followed his path, but I’m too old now. Big regret I have.
I’m all for SCOTUS deciding what the 2nd Amendment means.
It’s what Nathan and countless Americans have fought and died for.
I told you before, I am in agreement with Vaughn on this issue… I firmly believe it is a
collective right, according to the 2nd amendment…
And Max, I wont be answering your question… 1) It has nothing to do with the question at hand, and 2) it is a stupid question…
Chas,
Vaughn did not say it was only a collective right.
You are being evasive again.
go read his post!!
So where does the second Amendment end? I’m I allowed to own Military grade weapons, or carry brass knuckles because city and state codes says I cant. How about explosives, artillery, tanks etc. BTW you cant bear arms without carrying them at least that my intpertation
CF, it would be easy to dismiss what you’re saying as alamist, were it not for the numerous lunacies we’ve already seen from this crowd.
They have to have a plan to sell it–one would think–but then spinmeister Karl is no longer in charge of PR. . . it’s all DICK now.
(Cue the scary music–and I’m NOT laughing. . . )
Now I think you’re getting it Tom Paine… :-)
http://go.sojo.net/campaign/surgeforpeace?rk=6pz8KhM143I0W
Chas,
This is what Vaughn said:
“but the first clause makes little sense without a guaranteed right of the individual to “bear arms”
Now where did he say it was only a collective right?
Looks like he said it was an indvidual right to me.
So, here we are again Chas.
Do you or do you not support the right of an individual to bear arms?
Do you think handguns fall into the category of arms individuals have a right to carry?
stirke “not carry” and insert “bear”
Chas,
I would like to know what you think the essentials are?
The quote means different things to different people.
I don’t remember…
Do you call yourself a Christian?
Yep — to protect house and family, and for hunting food… He also said that… You dont want to post that part, do you??
The MILITARY in those days did NOT supply weapons like they do now days for you guys… The militia had to furnish their own weapons… THUS, they had to have a right to keep, and bear arms… AT HOME…
Washington DC has banned keeping HAND GUNS at home… I know of no ban on keeping a rifle, or a shotgun…
I would think a rifle or shot gun should be sufficient for anybody to keep away those unwanted…
Nathan, whatever my faith is, is not relevant to the right to keep and bear arms — I am getting WAY tired of your FAITH BASHING… Every time you BASH MY FAITH, you walk over my civil rights… I guess you must not be aware of that…
Chas,
Good job of once again being evasive and refusing to answer a simple question.
Chas,
First of all, I am asking you a question.
That is not bashing let alone walking on your civil rights…
Nathan, I have already answered your question… today, as well as the other day when you got on your broken record…
Take that broken record off the turn table, boy, cause it is getting REAL OLD!!
Nathan, just by asking me if I am a Christian is BASHING MY FAITH… and violating my civil rights… YOU have no right to ask… I have no obligation to TELL YOU… but since you already know the answer, it becomes a repeated absurdity for you to keep asking me if I am a Christian…
I think we already know the answer Nathan.
“Whosoever therefore shall confess Me before men, him will I confess also before My Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny Me before men, him will I also deny before My Father which is in heaven.” Matthew 10:32-33″
Nathan, READ UP THREAD I already answered your question…
I am not going to answer it again… You keep insisting that you know how to read, so go read… LOL
Chas,
How is asking you a question bashing your faith?
How is asking you a question violating your civil rights?
You are one overreacting person.
Now comes the Blog Resident self-proclaimed expert on all things, to quote Bible verses… Like that is supposed to mean something??
Nathan, you have asked the question ad infinitum, and it has already been answered… As they say in court: Already asked and answered… Move on!!
Chas,
You said you agree with Vaughn, then you say something Vaughn didn’t say, then you say go read what you said…
Typical Chas.
Refuse to answer a question.
Refuse to clarify what you believe.
Then act like you already ansered the question when you didn’t.
Did you go to a professional school on how to evade telling anyone anything?
I have NEVER stated that a person does not have the right to keep and bear arms… I have also stated earlier, I am in agreement with Vaughn’s statement…
So, your question has been ASKED AND ANSWERED… Now, MOVE ON!!
I’d like to know how the second amendment has anything to do with Christianity too.
Nathan?
The only person evasive here is YOU by refusing to READ what has already been said…. I am not being evasive… I told you my answer today, and I told you a couple days ago… And still you keep it up…
Asked and answered, Nathan, MOVE ON!! I am not going to discuss it any further… I dont think you are that retarded, are you???
It doesnt PMom has nothing to do with religion of any sort…
Chas,
You said you agree with Vaugh.
Then you say Vaughn said it was only a collective right when he said it was an indvidual right.
So which is it Chas?
Do you agree that it is an individual right as Vaugh correctly said or do you believe it is a collective right as you think Vaughn says?
Why can’t you answer even the simplist of questions?
Once again, Nathan, you prove that you dont know how to read what the astute one wrote… Let me see if I can find his EXACT QUOTE
Political Mom,
I have been asking Chas that question for the past couple of nights and have yet to get an answer.
I am curious.
You not only called him a Christian, but the best one you knew on here or something like that.
So, I was curious as to if Chas calls himself a Christian or not.
Specifically why he calls himself a Christian ( if he does ) and then ends his posts about believing in whatever you conceive of God to be.
It is fair game if he wants to interject it into the discussion nightly.
THIS IS WHAT VAUGHN SAID… Now stop chopping it up in pieces to make it say what you WANT it to say…. READ IT SLOWLY, or you might get confused>>>>
“My personal thoughts on the Second Amendment revolve around the right of a private citizen to keep firearms in their homes for their protection and that of the family within.
Firearms that would, of necessity, be suitable for use in the service of a “militia” in particular.
Firearms that would also, given the times, be suitable for hunting, so that the citizens might have food.”
And Max, I wont be answering your question… 1) It has nothing to do with the question at hand, and 2) it is a stupid question…
Posted by: Chas. | September 05, 2007 at 09:01 PM
This is the answer from a NUT who wants to ban handguns.
If Chas ever gets his way, and a law is passed to ban handguns, is it not important to know how such a law is to be ENFORCED?
Of course it is. But Chas is too mentally impaired to understand that.
And what Chas, and others like him who want to ban handguns, have never thought thru (at least not publicly)is HOW to ENFORCE such a handgun ban.
Nothing short of door-to-door violations of Due Process rights and Search and Seizure rights, using the military, can come close to accomplishing this objective.
With Tens of Millions of handgun owners in the USA, a good percentage of these (myself included) will fight to the death to defend our rights of freedom.
We’re not just talking about the 2nd Amendment here.
We’re talking about violations of most of the constitution to 1)make the handgun banners happy, and 2) to put Government into complete power over the people so that no surviving Constitutional amendments can ever be defended by the people.
You want millions killed in America? You want blood from millions flowing thru the streets?
That’s what you handgun banners will achieve, IF you are able to pass your gun ban law.
Nathan, you are ONE SICK PUPPY!!! I am not going to argue the issue with you ANY MORE… I am who I am… You are who YOU are… Thats all there is to it…
Exercise your right to arm bears!
http://cellosoft.com/2draw/view/55350/
Chas has brought up his personal life, ‘profession’, and used his pastoral title to show some sort of Christianity. Thus, his expert power is always on the table and his expert power has frequently come into question.
There’s no evidence or demonstration of such knowledge here.
Chas, you are emotionally immature, mentally deficient, certainly not ordained minister material, all evidenced by your words on this blog.
I really hope you get some help.
And don’t pretend now to be some sort of 2nd Amendment expert, when you have demonstrated ZERO expertise on any subject whatsoever.
Have a nice evening.
Chas,
How am I a sick puppy for asking you if you are a Christian?
Why are you scared of answering a question?
Nathan is absolutely a very sick puppy.
Ya know, I will say this, and then nothing more… I actually think the 2nd Amendment needs to be REPEALED… And THEN — a new one needs to be written to replace it… If ever there was an amendment that was written for a time specific, it is the 2nd Amendment…
The Militia no longer provide their own weapons when called into military service… We no longer go out on hunting trips to feed our families… Apparently, some folks believe they NEED to have a WEAPON at their immediate beck and call…
So, we need an amendment to address THAT ISSUE…. So, how about you guys go work on that one… THEN you might be doing somebody some good, instead of all of your pie in the sky “I’m gonna protect my house till I die” crap that we have to read here every day….
And while you are at it, try defending to the majority of Americans why you need to have such powerful weapons as so many have that can take on an army???
By the way, the 2nd Amendment doesnt say you need to have arms to fight the Government… It says you need a “well-regulated militia” to protect the State…
WELL-REGULATED… That has ORDER built into it… That has the appearance of CONTROL… already in it…
But you guys dont want any Controls on your armaments… Even though the Constitution seems to say that it is NECESSARY….
So, CHANGE the amendment!!
And when it doesnt pass, because normal people dont want to know thaat their neighbors are hosting an arsenal in their homes, then you can take on the entire Nation!!!
Go for it!! Re-Write it!! But MAKE IT AS GOOD AS THE ONE THAT IS THERE ALREADY….
And we can only hope that SCOTUS justices are what they SAY they are… strict constructionists!!
Nathan, for the gazillionth time… THE QUESTION HAS ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED!!!!
NOW WHAT IN GOD’S GREEN EARTH IS EVASIVE ABOUT THAT!!!
It’s not MY fault if you cant READ!!!
Nathan, he has said so many times, so stop it, what you’re doing is NOT Christian-like at all either.
Chas is an ordained minister. He’s said so. He’s even mainstream religion.
This is also what Vaughn said:
“yes, Chas., but the first clause makes little sense without a guaranteed right of the individual to “bear arms”, given the times in which the Second Amendment was written.”
Then you said:
“I firmly believe it is a
collective right”
They are not compatable statements.
So stop acting like you are not being confusing.
PMom… thats the problem… Nathan isnt mainstream… He wouldnt know a creek from a tiny tributary… ROFL!!
It certainly is compatible… But I didnt expect you to understand the subtlety of abstract thought…
Political Mom,
Figuring that you are one of the biggest Christian bashing posters here, I think I will pass on what you judge to be a good or bad Christian.
Nathan — Vaughn never said this:
…given the times in which the Second Amendment was written.”
Nathan, there are just Christians… I dont know any Christians who have the wisdom to determine if they are good or bad.
Oh, but evidently YOU think you have that capability???
Chas,
It is very telling that you and one of the biggest Christian bashers on this forum are in agreement.
I think that says more about you than me…
No, Nathan, I only bash Christians like you.
Yeah he did Chas:
“Yes, Chas., but the first clause makes little sense without a guaranteed right of the individual to “bear arms”, given the times in which the Second Amendment was written. I agree; it is time for SCOTUS to issue a ruling, hopefully definitive, on this issue. BTW, I still don’t see this language as guaranteeing an individual the right to carry concealed.”
Posted by: Vaughn Tolle | September 05, 2007 at 02:34 PM
PMom has merely stated she doesnt necessarily consider herself to be a Christian… I dont believe that qualifies her to be labeled a Christian Basher…
Actually Political Mom,
On many occasions you do not target me at all with your vitriol and go after Christians in general.
I suppose I could simply go dig up the threads.
Well, that wasnt in the quote that I quoted… However, he says what I have said there as well… Did you notice???
“BTW, I still don’t see this language as guaranteeing an individual the right to carry concealed.”
You’re the only one who seems to get offended by what I say about Christians. Know why? because those Christians who DON”T DO THOSE THINGS don’t feel they’re being bashed.
So, you see, Nathan, I AM in agreement with what Vaughn said here today… Now go smoke that in your redneck pipe for a while… Your own post proves what I said earlier… And YOU sir, were just plain wrong this time…
With all due respect to Vaughn, there are many areas you can go to research the history behind the 2nd Amendment and the entire Constitution. And Vaughn would even admist, I suspect, that he is not THE expert on this matter, though I do certainly value Vaughn’s opinion. (Which by the way, clearly supports an individual right to bear arms, if that matters.)
Such Constitutional research is beyond the ability of some here, but for those who are capable and interested in the legal document that forms the basis for our Freedom in America, I encourage you to peruse many sources on the Internet and in your library.
This used to be taught in most public schools, but evidently not in all of them.
arms can mean many things. I don’t think the framers had any idea what arms would be created by this time.
The second amendment needs clarification.
That’s merely my opinion. i also don’t believe any who claim to be experts on this are.
Chas,
The sentence you referenec was about CONCEALED CARRY.
“I still don’t see this language as guaranteeing an individual the right to CARRY CONCEALED.”
And the evasion by Chas continues.
Wouldn’t be simpler to just answer the question?
DO YOU SUPPORT THE RIGHT OF AN INDIVIDUAL TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS?
Max, Nathan, I am going to say this ONE MORE TIME… I have NEVER said that I do not believe in the right of an individual to own guns… I HAVE ALSO stated that I think CC laws are a tragic mistake in the laws of any state that has it…
Now, do you BOTH get it now???
However, Max, do you have any sense that you might be called for military service any time soon??? And do you still go out hunting in the wild for ALL of your family’s food?? (And Walmart doesnt count, even tho it gets wild sometimes)
Looks like we may be in greater danger from nukes we know about, rather than from those that we don’t. Pardon my Rumsfeldian moment.
Chas,
If you spent half as much time simply telling us what you believe instead of acting like you do, this would go so much quicker.
No Nathan, not my evasion… YOUR DENSITY!!!
I cannot believe that a United States Marine Corps member can possibly be THIS DENSE!!!
I have never said that an individual does not have the right to keep and bear arms!!!!
CAN YOU READ THAT NATHAN??? OR DO YOU NEED A MAGNIFYING GLASS??? OR WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM??? IF YOU ARE REALLY THAT DENSE, YOU BETTER TURN IN YOUR UNIFORM BOY…. WE WOULD BE BETTER OFF WITH YOU BEING A CIVILIAN!!!
Chas,
Are you a Christian?
If you are a Christian why are you so relunctant to admit to it?
ASKED AND ANSWERED NATHAN… MOVE ON… YOU BETTER TURN IN THAT UNIFORM NOW… YOU MIGHT BE DANGEROUS TO OUR OWN TROOPS!!!
You’re going to have to ignore him Chas. He’ll play this game with you all night.
I swear, you are getting to be a much worse Troll, than the Troll is a troll!! ROFL
Besides leaving a really bad taste in one’s mouth, gives the Marine Corps a really bad image too. Why should anyone have the right to badger another person about their beliefs?
I have NEVER said that I do not believe in the right of an individual to own guns… I HAVE ALSO stated that I think CC laws are a tragic mistake in the laws of any state that has it…
Posted by: Chas. | September 05, 2007 at 10:35 PM
WHO CARES? Even if you could think Chas, I wouldn’t care. Why, because you never back up any statements you make with any sources. Everything is just your opinion.
And your opinion, worthless.
You blatantly attack a US Marine who defends your right to blatantly attack him. Amazing!
I think we already know the answer Nathan.
“Whosoever therefore shall confess Me before men, him will I confess also before My Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny Me before men, him will I also deny before My Father which is in heaven.” Matthew 10:32-33″
Posted by: Kansas | September 05, 2007 at 09:54 PM
I know PMom… Thats why I am not playing… He is just turning into a Blog Troll…. He will learn some day….
Chas,
I don’t think you have ever said you support the right of an individual to keep and bear arms either.
What you have written is that you don’t like guns, you don’t think handguns are part of the second amendment, you said we have a collective right…
Yes, I understand that you did not say:
“I have never said that an individual does not have the right to keep and bear arms!!!!”
Yet you refuse to answer the simplist of questions and keep posting things which clearly indicate you don’t think we do have a right to keep and bear arms.
I am not dense. You are purposefully evasive.
I go through this with you all the time.
Same thing with the Social Security issue.
Max, I guess YOU cant read either!!
Good Grief, Nathan…. If I have never said anything against individuals keeping and bearing arms, then what does that MEAN, idiot??? I guess you really ARE that dense!!!
Walking on by now… Dead people DO bleed!!!
Oh yes, I give the Marine Corps such a bad image because Chas can’t answer a simple question and chooses to be unclear about what he believes.
I have said I dont believe in Concealed/Carry Nathan… That is not the same as keeping and bearing arms!!! I do hope you understand THAT simple little fact…
Chas,
Nathan may have a reading problem, or something?
I answered two questions he asked by saying, “It is possible…” to both.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/09/open-thread-94.html#comment-81745243
Nathan then posted: “Is that a yes or no to both of those questions?”
Chas,
This is what you said:
You gotta believe that somewhere in the minds of the Framers, they had to be thinking about maintaining militias..or else, why would they have added the FIRST clause to the 2nd Amendment??
Posted by: Chas. | September 05, 2007 at 02:28 PM
If the BAN continues, it does NOT infringe on your right to bear arms…
Posted by: Chas. | September 05, 2007 at 08:33 PM
I firmly believe it is a
collective right, according to the 2nd amendment…
Posted by: Chas. | September 05, 2007 at 08:59 PM
So it is you who are being confusing.
You keep denying the negative and at the same time implying you are against the affirmative.
Which is why I ask you the simple question which you keep refusing to answer.
And you wonder why we badger you?
I know exactly what I believe Nathan… Thats what drives you nuts!! I am not so simplistic that I feel a great need to tell YOU and everybody else what those beliefs are… And you cant STAND it!!! ROFL… Well, asdlong as you keep asking DUMB IDIOTIC STUPID questions about ME, my FAITH, my CHURCH — You wont GET any other answers than what you already have gotten….
I AM CLERGY… I SERVE IN CHURCHES… YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT… THE FACT THAT IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS WHICH CHURCH I BELONG TO, DRIVES YOU NUTS, AND YOU CLAIM THAT I AM NOT WHO OR WHAT I SAY I AM…
THAT IS ABOUT AS STUPID AS IT GETS… AND YOU ARE THE MASTER OF THAT TYPE OF STUPIDITY!!!
It doesnt look good for YOU, or for the Great Marine Corps…
So, STOP ASKING ME IF I AM A CHRISTIAN — You already KNOW the answer!!!
Well then, perhaps we should treat Nathan as if he truly has a disability, and repeat ourselves often and very clearly.
You know, like we do for a 2 year old.
I think we already know the answer Nathan.
“Whosoever therefore shall confess Me before men, him will I confess also before My Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny Me before men, him will I also deny before My Father which is in heaven.” Matthew 10:32-33″
Posted by: Kansas | September 05, 2007 at 09:54 PM
Cosmos,
I then immmediately replied:
Woops, my bad, missed that….
Posted by: Nathan | September 05, 2007 at 05:55 PM
Did you not see that?
It’s not hard Chas.
Look, I’ll do it.
I am a Christian.
It’s your turn Chas.
Nathan, you must not keep up with the news either…
“If the BAN continues” The BAN is the Washington, D.C. ban on keeping handguns in your home!!!
If that BAN continues, it is NOT an infringement on your right to keep and bear arms!!!
Now, I know you can understand that… A USD 259 4th grader could understand that!!!
Chas,
I stopped asking you about what church you went to.
I am asking if you consder yourself to be a Christian.
I honestly don’t think you are. Which is the only reason I was asking so I didn’t go around saying you were not.
Chas,
It is rather simple really.
Denying that you ever said the negative doesn’t mean you accept the affirmative.
Which is why I asked.
Kansas, you crazy old fool… I know what I am… Anybody with a brain on this Blog knows what I am…. You can say it all you want… And so can I… but its been SAID DOZENS of times…. And Nathan either cant or wont read it, or accept it!!!
Thatts why I keep telling him, and you, and anybody else… THE QUESTION HAS BEEN ASKED, AND ANSWERED, AD INFINITUM, AD NAUSEUM!!!
One more time Chas, just answer it. Just for nathan. Then we’ll bookmark the page and post it everytime he asks from here on out.
Political mom,
One of the posters who routinely says bad things about Christians, is the only person I have seen who says you are a Christian.
If that is the “Anybody with a brain on this Blog knows what I am…. ” then it doesn’t speak well…
NATHAN, YOU HAVE ASKED THE QUESTION… I HAVE ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION… NOW THATS THE END OF IT… DONT YOU HAVE SOME OTHER GAMES AT YOUR HOUSE THAT ARE A LOT MORE FUN??? LIKE, ARE YOU MARRIED, OR SOMETHING???
That would be easier than being evasive now wouldn’t it?
“One more time Chas, just answer it. Just for nathan. Then we’ll bookmark the page and post it everytime he asks from here on out.”
Yet, you cannot saying.
You can say, I am secular.
I am Agnostic.
I am Atheistic.
I believe in God, but only believe Jesus was a prophet, not the Messiah.
I believe in nothing, but teach the Bible as general guidance.
Or you can leave doubt in your wake, rippling the pond of non-commitment. :)
NATHAN…. NOW READ REAL CAREFULLY!!!
I
AM
A
CHRISTIAN
!!!!
He gets to be the judge, the decider; his idol set the stage about the decider stuff. So, you must tell him, the judge / decider. whether you are christian.
Chas,
I am having a pretty good time right now.
If you spent one post answering a question instead of 20 trying to be evasive we could move on.
Yes Nathan… (sigh)… I read your “Woops, my bad, missed that….”.
My point WAS that YOU “missed that…”.
Thank you.
“Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, was praying thus, ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people: thieves, rogues, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give a tenth of all my income.’
But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even look up to heaven, but was beating his breast and saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other; for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted.”
NATHAN, YOUR LACK OF A BRAIN IS WHAT IS EVASIVE!!! I HAVE SAID WHAT I AM DOZENS OF TIMES… YOU, SIR, CHOOSE TO IGNORE IT… OR POKE FUN AT IT, BECAUSE IT ISNT WHAT YOU BELIEVE… OR A MYRIAD OF OTHER STUFF…. NOW, IT HAS BEEN SAID… AGAIN…. FOR THE GAZILLIONTH TIME!!!!
NOW, GO STUFF IT IN YOUR BUTT!!
NATHAN, YOU ARE NOT WELCOME!!
The Hemmingway poem for Chas.
Our nada who art in nada, nada be thy name thy kingdom nada thy will be nada in nada as it is in nada. Give us this nada our daily nada and nada us our nada as we nada our nadas and nada us not into nada but deliver us from nada; pues nada. Hail nothing full of nothing, nothing is with thee.
Thank you Linda!!!
Cosmos,
I missed it because it appeared to be my question repasted. So I glossed over it.
Then I realized you had modified it and promptly admitted my mistake.
Then you drag it over here as if it were proof of my inability to read. Very low and deceptive.
alright, I saved the post and the link. So there should be no more questions, right?
He who quotes scripture in one post, now blasphemes the Lord’s Prayer in another… Wow, Kansas… GOOD Christian example YOU are!!! I hope somebody bookmarks THAT one the next time you get on a holier than thou roll!! ROFLMAO!!!
Yep, Nathan, you would know very well about low and deceptive!!
PMom… Thanks!! It might be needed again!!
Chas,
I don’t believe I have made this personal or said anything about you personally other than I think you are/were being evasive.
Yet you routinely see fit to call me names and be rude.
And the irony is that Linda of all people is trying to insinuate that I am a Pharisee…
LOL
It’s Hemmingway Chas. If someone quotes me on quoting Hemmingway, I would be honored. It’s a classic example of existentialism.
Have you ever read “A Well Lighted Place” by Hemmingway?
Hey, if the shoe fits, wear it!!
I wasnt calling you any names…
Just stating the facts!!
You can call it anything you want… it is still a Blasphemous use of the Lord’s Prayer…
And yes, I have read some Hemmingway… dont remember reading that particular section
Linda,
I have been respectful of you for some time now. Why do you insist on trying to make this personal by insulting my being a Marine?
I get to have an opinion; everyone does! I think Nathan is very young, very full of himself, very sure he is better than many. Maybe he will grow in experience and acceptance. Maybe he will realize he is responsible for himself and others for themselves.
Looks more like classic Nihilism to me Kansas… Existentialism is MUCH more positive than that!
Of course, Hemmingway wasnt all that positive, now, was he???
Chas,
As a Christian, why do you end your ngiht by saying that little quote of yours:
“…whatever you conceive of God to be…”
I am truly curious as to why you say that.
Nathan, I really don’t care what you think or believe and wish you felt the same about my thoughts and my beliefs.
Nathan, then ACT like a Marine… instead of a two-bit hick!!
Somehow, I just knew he wasnt going to stop…
I am glad it makes you curious… At least you notice it!!
Chas,
There you go again.
I am doing little more than asking questions and you call me a two bit hack?
See, Nathan, I tell you what I am, and right off the bat, you go back to what I use as a sign off!! To quote an old newscaster… Have you no decency?
http://www.bookrags.com/essay-2006/5/28/192931/957
Here you go Chas, a very brief description of “A Clean, Well Lighted Place.” by Hemingway.
If you ever get a chance to read it, it’s worth the read.
I did no such thing… I called you a two bit hick!! ROFL
Linda,
Oh Please. It is obvious you do care. Otherwise you wouldn’t be posting here tonight.
Why you think you have to try and be insulting towards me is what I am curious about?
Nice to see you got the title right this time, Kansas…
Because you BEG for it Nathan!!
Same difference Chas.
The point was not about the specific name, rather your persistence in making this deragatory.
Would you act like that towards me at your church?
Do you think your congregation would like to hear you talk like that?
Well, still listening to the Republican debate aftermath. :)
Some distraction there.
Nathan, you already challenged why I use the sign off if I am a Christian… Why should I give you anything more??? You have already passed judgment, just like Jesus says NOT to do!!
Chas,
The only thing I have been close to begging for is your actually being clear on what you think instead of being evasive.
Awww poor Nathan, you can give out the derogatory, but you cant take it!!! Dont cry now!!
It’s a beautiful night! There is a feeling of fall, cooler, and maybe some rain. I walked my dog and we both enjoyed the more pleasant temperature. All is well. Good night.
p.s. ignore those who deserve to be ignored; even when you are tempted not to!
What does Bible say about calling someone names Chas? :)
Because he respects other people’s beliefs of God.
That’s why he says that.
ONE MORE TIME, WITH FEELING….
I
AM
NOT
BEING
EVASIVE
!!!!
Linda!
The Bible says You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor… I havent done that… YET…
Well, I have many things on the agenda for tomorrow… So, I guess its about that time….
Good Night! Good Luck! And God bless, whatever you conceive God to be!!
Linda, enjoy the nice Fall evening!
Chas,
I asked WHY you used it.
Jesus actually said:
1 “Do not judge so that you will not be judged.
2 “For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.”
And the word judge means a condemning judge not the way we use judge so freely in our english language today.
If you actually look at the Greek and Hebrew…
I noticed Chas goes to the Old Testament a lot for scripture quotes. I wonder if he uses a handkerchief and portable microphone while preaching. :)
Linda,
I have adked WS Clark this, what will it take to make things right between us?
It is obvious that you are carrying some grudge around against me.
Can we come to terms or would you simply rather pop in here and there with the deragatory comment or two?
You little pip squeek… I used to TEACH New Testament GREEK… I dont need YOU to tell me what the actual verses say… Have you no concept of the idea of synopsis??? Never mind, ignore that, of course you dont!!
By the way, the context of the judgment quote has nothing to do with eternity… it has everything to do with the everyday lives of people… people like YOU and ME… Better go do your NT exegesis a little better…
The Bible says You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor… I havent done that… YET…
Posted by: Chas. | September 05, 2007 at 11:16 PM
(coughs)
Ummmm Kansas… The false witness statement is in both Old and New Testaments!!
I’m not little Chas and I never squeak (deep voice.) Not sure what a pip is though, unless it’s those things on epelets.
OK OK I said pip squeek!! Its been a most aggrivating evening with this youngin…
Ummm Kansas… That was directed at Nathan… Go read it again!!!
That is, of course, unless YOU are Nathan tonite ROFL!!!
“Then you drag it over here as if it were proof of my inability to read. Very low and deceptive.”
Posted by: Nathan
You cannot tell the difference between:
A) Is it possible…? (QUESTION MARK)andB) It is possible… . (NO QUESTION MARK, and added text)???
So you accuse me of being “Very low and deceptive”?
Reading hint: Questions can have the form “Is it… “?”. Statements can have the form “It is… “.” (NO “?”).
And show some personal responsibility, instead of blaming other people.
Okay Chas…
(* *) |/
- |
[ ]===|
peace out
ascii graphics flunked 101 :D
Fred Thompson just appeared on Jay Leno and told us how much he liked the never ending slaughter in Iraq { which he refers to as a “war” }.
Scratch another one for AIPAC.
Now — last time –
Good Night! Good Luck! And God bless, whatever you conceive God to be….
Cosmos,
If you don’t think it was an honest mistake, even after I admitted to it immediately after it was posted…
Sorry. Can’t do much for you.
Chas,
I can go toe to toe with you on scripture any day of the week.
You used that verse out of context to insinuate that I was judging you going against what Jesus said.
You only quoted half of what Jesus said because that is what most amatures do because if they quoted all of it then it becomes much more clear how out of context it it.
NOW you call a 30 year veteran an amateur??? There aint no conceit in your family… You got it all!!
BTW, Nathan, I didnt quote anything Jesus said… I made a reference to a contextual situation… Now, if you dont know that that is… then I dont think you could go toe to toe with me on the Bible… not that any of our people would ever think of doing such a thing… We dont use the Bible as a competitive tool… or game…
Chas,
You call me “little pip squeek?”
Oh no! *GASP*
Next time don’t take something so far out of context in a vain attempt at trying to say I am going against what Jesus said.
Chas,
You don’t use it as a competitvie tool or game?
So you just take things Jesus says out of context for what purpose then?
There you go again… I took nothing out of context!! It could be we understand the context differently… Thats what is wrong with trying to use “proof texts” — For every one you have, somebody else can find a different one!!
I am NOT playing your silly games Nathan…. So just stop now… You wont get anywhere…
Now, go put up some more lies about how I use the Bible… maybe it will make you feel good!!
Nathan, you merely quoted 2 verses from somewhere… What comes BEFORE those verses??? What comes AFTER those verses… THAT is the contextual reference…. THAT is what I made reference to…
“If you don’t think it was an honest mistake, even after I admitted to it immediately after it was posted…
Sorry. Can’t do much for you.”
Posted by: Nathan | September 05, 2007 at 11:31 PM
Nathan, I have NO way of knowing if it was just an “honest mistake”, OR if you have a reading problem. That’s why I used the word “may”.
You do understand “may”, don’t you???
“Nathan may have a reading problem, or something?”
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/09/open-thread-95.html#comment-81774943
Each one of the Gospels has a different Author… Each one has a different WeltAnschaung… Each has a different contextual understanding of the life/ministry of Jesus… If you dont keep those things in mind, you can very easily misquote, and mis-read the text…
I am leaving now… time for Type II meds… time for bed…
Nite all!! And God bless, whatever you conceive God to be!!
Chas,
You said:
“You have already passed judgment, just like Jesus says NOT to do!!”
So please tell me what scriptural reference you are drawing your accusation from if not Matthew 7:1-2?
What before or after Matthew 7:1-2 is it that you made reference to?
Cosmos,
It is not that I don’t understand “may.”
It is that I am in the middle of a discussion where Chas is saying I can’t read and you provide evidence of such…
Without making note of the fact that I had already admitted the mistake.
So why did you post that over here if not to give ammunition to the claim already made that I can’t read?
It doesn’t matter if you said “may” or not.
It was low and deceptive.
You do understand what low and deceptive means, don’t you?
Repost…
Nathan, I have NO way of knowing if it was just an “honest mistake”, OR if you have a reading problem. That’s why I used the word “may”.
Lets see Chas…
Nothing in Matthew 6 is about judgement…
Nothing past Matthew 7:6 is really about judgement either.
So that leaves Matthew 7:1-6
So, you said:
“What comes BEFORE those verses??? What comes AFTER those verses… THAT is the contextual reference…. THAT is what I made reference to…”
So please tell me what it is that comes before or after those verses which leads you to have said:
“You have already passed judgment, just like Jesus says NOT to do!!”
What does the difference in the Gospels have to do with your asserion that:
“You have already passed judgment, just like Jesus says NOT to do!!”
Cosmos,
It has nothing to do with what you may or may not have known about it being an honest mistake on my part.
It was the fact that you went ahead and posted what you did so convienently over here right in the middle of someone claiming I couldn’t read.
CHICAGO (AP) ? A DePaul University professor who has drawn criticism for accusing some Jews of improperly using the legacy of the Holocaust agreed Wednesday to resign immediately “for everybody’s sake.”University officials and political science professor Norman Finkelstein issued a joint statement announcing the resignation, which came as about a hundred protesters gathered outside the dean’s office to support him.Finkelstein was denied tenure in June after spending six years on DePaul’s faculty, and his remaining class was cut by DePaul last month.His most recent book, “Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History,” is largely an attack on Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz’s “The Case for Israel.” In his book, Finkelstein argues that Israel uses the outcry over perceived anti-Semitism as a weapon to stifle criticism.Dershowitz, who threatened to sue Finkelstein’s publisher for libel, urged DePaul officials to reject Finkelstein’s tenure bid.Finkelstein, the son of Holocaust survivors, said in the statement that he believes the tenure decision was “tainted” by external pressures, but praised the university’s “honorable role of providing a scholarly haven for me the past six years.”The school denied that outside parties influenced the decision to deny Finkelstein tenure. The school’s portion of the statement called Finkelstein “a prolific scholar and an outstanding teacher.”Finkelstein called that acknowledgment the most important part of the statement.”I felt finally I had gotten what was my due and that maybe it was time, for everybody’s sake, that I move on,” he said at a news conference that followed a morning rally staged by students and faculty who carried signs and chanted “stop the witch hunt.”Finkelstein said, “DePaul students rose to dazzling spiritual heights in my defense that should be the envy of and an example for every university in the United States.”The professor would not discuss financial terms of the resignation agreement, which he said was confidential, but noted that it does not bar him from speaking out about issues that concern him, including “the unfairness of the tenure process.”He also said he doesn’t know what he’ll do next, but came to realize before Wednesday “that the atmosphere had become so poisoned that it was virtually impossible for me to carry on at DePaul.”Dozens of supporters wearing T-shirts that read: “We Are All Professor Finkelstein” wondered about the long-term affects on the school.”I think there’s just going to be a long standing sentiment of an injustice here,” said Thomas Bellino, a 22-year-old student who has taken classes from Finkelstein. “I used to consider the president of DePaul, Father (Dennis) Holtschneider, sort of like a friend, someone who was aligned with my beliefs on academic freedom. But now I don’t think that anymore and I think much less of the administration.”
The Link….
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/901583.html
Nathan,
I changed “Is it…” to “It is…”, and DELETED the “?” marks.
I ADDED explanations to both of my “It is… .” statements.
But despite ALL of those changes, you claim,
“I missed it because it appeared to be my question repasted. So I glossed over it.”
Posted by: Nathan | September 05, 2007 at 10:59 PM
“It is.” does NOT = “Is it?”Added text does NOT = “repasted”.
Again… it seems that Nathan “MAY” have a reading problem.
Cosmos,
You imply doubt in my reading ability still?
Even after I have admitted the mistake and said it was an honest one?
LOL, you are too much.
Now it is truly obvious what your intent here was and further proof of why I said what you did was low and deceptive.
Nathan,
Repost… (sigh…)Nathan, I have NO way of knowing if it was just an “honest mistake”, OR if you have a reading problem. That’s why I used the word “may”.
But if it makes you happy, I’ll say that “maybe” you just made a “mistake”.
Maybe you did NOT notice that I changed “Is it…” to “It is…”
Maybe you did NOT notice that I deleted your QUESTION marks.
Maybe you did NOT notice that I added explanations to BOTH of my “It is…” statements.
I am leaving now… time for Type II meds… time for bed…
Nite all!! And God bless, whatever you conceive God to be!!
Looks like somebody got out the scissors and glue!! ROFL!!!