BLOGROLL!
Right Minded
Immagration Gumballs
This is very interesting. It's certainly worth your thought. In fact, it is more "food for thought":
watch video
Copyright © 2007 YouTube, Inc.
watch video
Copyright © 2007 YouTube, Inc.
posted by Clay | 12:02 AM
10 Comments:
voters and more voters and more voters and the president who gets them will have that legacy to be judged in time
Hey buddy,
I'm posting this from sunny Afghanistan. Hope all is well there. I left a comment for Jay on his latest fear-mongering post. We'll see how long it stays up.
James
James,
For a good laugh go look at the comments exchange on my post "Liberal Patriotism" where meatbrain finally exposed himself for what he really is.
He kept accusing me of not being able to provide counter-arguments to his nonsense, and when I did, he just erupted into more name calling and retreated back to his blog.
I think it pissed him off that he couldn't possibly provide any counter argument to mine, hence the name calling.
Liberals...ya gotta' pity them.
Gosh, I read Jay's post & didn't see it as fear-mongering. Facts are facts, aren't they? I mean, either Bush did or did not sign a directive as Jay stated. If he did sign it, it wouldn't be called "fear-mongering", it would be called a fact.
I came here because, well to be honest, I didn't realize you were just picking a fight with Jay. As for Jay "exposing" himself, he's never hidden who he is. You say "liberal" as though that's a bad thing.
Gotta say, I'm disappointed by the attack mode I see here.
Jane said:
"I came here because, well to be honest, I didn't realize you were just picking a fight with Jay. As for Jay "exposing" himself, he's never hidden who he is. You say "liberal" as though that's a bad thing.
Gotta say, I'm disappointed by the attack mode I see here."
There is a history with Jay. When you challenge him, he ignores the points you make and leads you on a long and winding path of snarky comments that he makes. Then, at some point, he deletes your last response, giving the impression that he got the last word.
More recently, he added a new tactic. Once he discovered that I had outed him on my blog, he went back to his created a "comment deleted by author" post, followed my his comment that I must have deleted my last comment myself.
If calling Jay out is an "attack mode" then, so be it.
Actually...I erased all my prior comments because they were linked to my blog, and I was getting spammed by a bunch of nuts who hang around your blog.
but you'll believe whatever whacked out thing that makes you feel whatever it is that passes for christianity for you...so power to ya
"Actually...I erased all my prior comments because they were linked to my blog, and I was getting spammed by a bunch of nuts who hang around your blog."
Oh I see. So now you are hiding without a URL to your blog. My experience with you is that when you are faced with arguments you can't refute, you revert to the standard liberal modus operandi, name calling, and of course, on your blog deleting their comments and posting you "last word on the matter" comment, which usually contains some lies about what was deleted and why you had to do so.
You even delete comments when they aren't even addressed to you, but addressed to someone else.
"but you'll believe whatever whacked out thing that makes you feel whatever it is that passes for christianity for you...so power to ya"
Yeah, the truth pretty much passes for Chrisitanity for me.
What would you know about what passes for Christianity?
Jane,
In case you ever come back here, here is my response to your comment to me, that Jay deleted from his blog:
"Well Clay, I can certainly see you're long winded, after reading your 131 comments between you & 1 other person. What I also learned from reading that is that neither of you paid any attention to the other."
Neither paid attention to the other? Are you sure you actually read all of those comments? It doesn't sound like you did.
I did pay attention to meatbrain's comments. I provided him with arguments in defense of my disagreement with the NY Times article's leak of the US Government's use of SWIFT to track terrorist finances directly from the article itself.
Meatbrain, responded with puerile, childish name calling, and completely brushed my arguments aside, and then produced the 1998 Washington Post article as his refutation of the NY Times article's outing.
After I was finally tired of his uncivil approach to the discourse, I informed him that if he wanted to continue the discussion any further, then, he would need to bring a civil tone to the conversation and lose the name calling.
It took him many, many comments to finally do so. When he did finally approach me in a respectful, civil manner, I provided him with my counter arguments against the 1998 Washington Post article.
Then, what did he do? Did he provide any counter arguments of his own? No. He called me more names and retreated back to his blog.
Jane, if you had actually read the whole exchange you would have known that. Instead, you posted a comment in which you said: "I think this is fear-mongering. Talk about blatant lies."
I ignored your use of "fear mongering" since, I'm not sure you understand what that word means, and your use of it didn't make any sense. Instead, I asked you: "What blatant lies?". You never responded back. So, it's unclear what you meant by that general statement.
"What you both wanted was to be RIGHT."
What is your point? People who hold beliefs and viewpoints naturally believe in the value of their beliefs and viewpoints. It would be absurd to maintain a position in a discussion that you didn't think was correct. A discussion like that might as well just be two actors acting out a scene in a play.
"I do love discussion, but not with someone who thinks they KNOW they are 100% right."
It's one thing for one to be assured that their position is correct and quite another that their position is 100 percent correct. That certainly isn't the view I hold on what I believe on secular matters.
"That said, this will be my last comment, as I don't think you really want dialogue, rather you want to TELL us what is & what isn't."
And you, when you express your viewpoints aren't trying to tell us what is and what isn't? Yeah, right.
This smacks more like a cop-out on your part. It's almost as if you only want to converse with those who are in agreement with you. As soon as you encounter someone who doesn't hold your views you bow out of the discussion.
That's your right, but it certainly isn't any way to ever hear much of anything other than your own viewpoint.
"Democrats supported this war because they were deliberately lied to. Even Colin Powell admitted that. He, also, was lied to."
Lied to by whom? Both American and British intelligence was the source that Sadaam had WMDs. Neither community has backed down or admitted errors.
The evidence that Sadaam had such weapons at his disposal was demonstrated both in the Iraq/Iran War and as evidenced by his slaughter of the Kurdish population in his country via WMDs.
The, "it was all a lie" argument is old and disengenous. Maybe the fact that Saddam was playing a shell game with UN Inspectors during the 90's helps to explain why his arsenal of WMDs hasn't been found in Iraq.
Regarding Colin Powell's alleged charge that he was lied to, one man's accusation doesn't automatically make the intelligence community's estimates false.
"George W. Bush said he was going after Osama, remember the "Wanted dead or alive" thing? If not, Google it."
I've already covered that with you in an earlier comment. Go back and re-read. I won't cover it with you again.
"Islam & Judaism also forbid murder. Yet, people say we're a Christian country, but we invade other countries & murder. Or do the civilians we kill not count?"
Murder and casualties in war are two seperate matters. Of course if we kill civilians in a war it counts. Why wouldn't it? More on that in a minute.
"Islam actually provides more rights & freedoms than Christianity does."
Oh really? Which rights & freedoms does Islam provide and which rights and freedoms does Christianity prohibit?
You do know that in the Islamic religion women have little to no rights and are treated like chattle don't you?
If you really think that highly of Islam why wouldn't you convert to it? Especially if Christianity is lacking.
"I'm glad you're a degree [sic] in Christianity, what's that called exactly?"
It's a Bachelor's of Arts degree in Christianity.
"With your degree, I'm sure you've read where God commanded David to go into war, right?
The bible says God is against a lot of things: being drunk, greed, using the name of God in vain, COVETING thy neighbors wife (ie...even thinking about it)"
I didn't need a degree to know those things. I learned them through my faith in Christianity and reading the Bible. It's not like I spun a wheel and decided, hey, I'll major in Christianity, whatever that is.
"I wonder what God would think about the American attitude that our lives are more precious than others & that when we kill innocent civilians, it just counts as an "oops""
This just demonstrates your ignorance regarding US military rules regarding the Conduct of War.
Collateral damage is a very heavy factor that is weighed into the planning of each and every military strike. There is no "oops factor".
In fact, until recently, the military was not allowed to return fire at a Mosque that was housing enemy combatants firing at our troops. Thank goodness common sense has finally won out.
"Jesus taught to turn the other cheek. He taught that we're our brothers keepers. He taught to give the shirts off our back. He took care of the poor, the ill, the prostitutes & detested the pharisees.
I believe it was Jesus that said even if you possess all of the "gifts" but don't have love, you are like a clanging cymbal.
Jesus taught love. Love. Forgiveness."
Are you being sanctimonious? Are trying to lecture me, as if you are a better Christian than me, or as if you are a true Christian and I am not?
It sure sounds that way to me.
"In case you aren't, sure Jesus preached forgiveness, (not sure why you are bringing it up), and love and of course, and according to the teachings of St. Paul, you can possess many gifts from the Holy Spirit, but without love you are nothing."
I'm with you on all of that. What is your point exactly?
"His teachings were so very simple & even though so many claim to be "Christians" it's difficult to believe when they tout war, murder, revenge & lack of respect for the lives & beliefs of those different than." [sic]
Whose touting murder, revenge and lack of respect for the lives of those who are different than them?
Hint, it's not Christians. It's radical muslims.
Are you suggesting that Christians should never participate in war? What basis do you get that from?
If you are, then you are insulting the many, many christians who have sacrificed their lives so that we Americans could continue to live in freedom.
My grandfather, and many great uncles fought bravely in WWII to rid the world of the threat of the Third Reich. To question the validity of their christianity because they enlisted and fought for our country is an insult to them and me.
The American Revolution sprang out of the Great Awakening revival of the 17th century. In fact, many reverends preached the need for liberty to their congregations and urged them to fight for their independance. Some, even left their pulpits and enlisted, bringing part of their flock with them.
America would never have existed if it weren't for christian people, and others who believed firmly in liberty.
"Oh, also, they don't cast judgment. You know, judge not lest ye be judged."
Whoops. You just backed yourself into a corner with that scriptural quote.
"As you can see, I could go on & on, but hey, I'm going to go finish a really good book I'm reading."
So, you too can be "long-winded". What book are you reading, if you don't mind me asking?
"Clay, I hope you find the love that your Savior speaks of."
Is He not your Savior too?
Don't worry about me. I have indeed found His love. I found it many many years ago when I was a child and it has sustained me every since then.
How about you?
For readers here, you can find her condescending comment to me preserved on Jay's blog in the comments section of his post: "Slouching Towards Bethlehem".
He left hers up. He deleted my response to it because he found it to be "condescending".
In other words, liberals can be arrogant and condescending all day long and that's ok. But, let a conservative respond to defend themselves against their liberal condescention, and it is the conservative who is all of sudden being condescending.
It's just, yet, one more example of liberal hypocrisy.
"What would you know about what passes for Christianity?"
I refuse to believe that you are any type of a representative of Christ.
"I refuse to believe that you are any type of a representative of Christ."
Your free to believe whatever nonsense you wish to believe.
What would you know about what passes for Christianity?
Post a Comment
<< Home