T1B

Well Tom, those are nice hollow homilies--but they have nothing whatever to do with the present state--or direction--of the GOP. Whoever those mythical "constructionists" were remains a mystery--Goldwater?...Herbert Hoover?...the Dulles brothers?--but generic platitudes have been standard since Reagan and his catastrophic legacy.

Right now the GOP has been effectively hijacked by the scared and seething religious right--who have been carefully and easily herded into a clumsy but harnessed voting block. And this is a very dangerous and dire direction. There is nothing whatever resembling your idealistic version of republicanism anywhere on the political horizon--and it's in fact moving the opposite direction. The ludicrous hypocrisy of trannie cruising GOP members who look and act squeaky clean is just a bright example of this--a peek under the hood.

The meaning and purpose--and necessity--of unions, both public and private is quite simply this: To provide a model for people actually getting good wages and benefits. The anti-union protesters in Wisconsin, we noticed, were complaining that the public union members are getting more than them. Well that's the point. And yes, this is a a good thing because it encourages these underpaid and benefit-stripped--""Koched"--workers to form and join unions. Not the other way around--not to bring the union members down to their pre-union levels.

The Koch brothers don't want to pay any tax if possible, and they've made sure they pay the absolute minimum. The so-called "libertariansm" upon which they solidly base their rapacious and utterly vile approach to American labor and the planet's ecosystem, is a callous and simplistic load of horseshit that's been shamelessly used by the neo-liberal hacks who have directly ushered in the present worldwide financial calamity. That is, it is a totally bankrupt false theory at best. Who are its reputable proponents? Who? Ayn Rand? Leo Strauss? Larry Summers? Who that hasn't been disgraced?

Well I truly appreciate your substantive soliloquy.

Speaking of generic, just gauge your general opinion on the corruption of unions. We've seen, by your own admission, that people can take a an idealistic framework such as the U.S. Constitution, and corrupt that to their own ends - is it possible that an entity such as a union can do the same ? That it too can get too power hungry, not serve the people it purports to serve and needs to be checked somehow ?

And if there's corrupt cops who are facilitating crime and lining their pockets, yes we want them replaced by honest officers--because we value and honor the function and benefit of honest police service.

And if elected representatives are caught accepting bribes or attempting to blow strangers in a public restroom we want them replaced by honest officials--because we cherish and revere the institution of democracy--"for which it stands"

....And it's exactly the same with the labor unions. Of course there's corruption and inefficiency, and so our diligence is due in repairing and maintaining this vital and essential institution of America's greatness. Labor unions are the ONLY event which has given rise to America's middle class--while it lasted.

The neo-liberal dogma, however, as baldly expressed by the Koch brothers and their extensive team of minions, regards unions as essentially bad. And that's Limpdick and Hannity and all the tedious puppets on FOX. The neo-liberals have been completely disgraced and many of the more prominent among their league should be imprisoned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbG6IWXQhpM

Who cares what you religiously believe, "willie"? Why don't you address the actual important matter of why aren't the fuckstains who have raped our nation--and others--in jail or at least forced to hide their faces?

Wake the fuck up--and don't just post some knee-jerk bullshit just to screen me, asshole.

Tom In VA wrote:I think the GOP should return to the days of it being the conservative party replete with constructionists that struggled to free the slaves,

The Republican party that freed the slaves was far left nor were they particularly strict constructionists. Afterall, slavery was protected under the Constitution. They took a more pragmatic approach.

The conservative doctrinaires all went South to begin their misguided defense of the "States Right" to own human property.

So who are these mythical "constructionists"? No one seems to be able to name one single figure--present or past--that can actually qualify. Who? John Roberts? WHO????

Well I reckon I was wrong.

I knew I'd get squared away here.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Who cares what you religiously believe, "willie"? Why don't you address the actual important matter of why aren't the fuckstains who have raped our nation--and others--in jail or at least forced to hide their faces?

Easy. Because they all donated heavily to Barry's campaign.

WW

Okay...let's get back on topic..

Which is right-wing hypocrites. That is loud talking conservative Christer lunatics who comprise the desperate and reeling phenomenon known loosely as the Tea Baggers, but including standard GOP elected officials, etc.

Today we have a virulent anti-gay Christer preacher...

Rev. Grant Storms, a renowned anti-gay Christian pastor from Louisiana, was arrested last week for masturbating at a public park, in the vicinity of a carousel and playground where children were present.

According to the New Orleans Times-Picayune, one woman saw Storms parked in his van "looking at the playground area that contained children playing, with his zipper down...," the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office report read. After judging that Storms was masturbating, the woman and another mother who witnessed the event both alerted deputies.

After being apprehended by authorities, Storms claimed that he had been urinating into a bottle. He was then booked for obscenity -- charges that he denied -- and then released due to overcrowding in the jail.

The pastor appeared less willing to discuss the matter at a press conference on Tuesday, during which he blamed "pornography" for the incident.

"Pornography is destructive and it can ruin a person's life, and it ruined my life," he said at the conference, admitting that he had his hands in his pants, but maintaining that he wasn't masturbating. "Do I have problems? Yes. Did I do something wrong? Yes."

Despite his apology, which he also extended to the gay community, to which he has been a prominent opponent, Grants also denied claims that he had been "looking at the children" in the area.

Sure, blame it on pornography

Yeah, I figured bringing up Barry's paid silence would be "An inconvenient truth".

Still, the best you can do in response is some misdirection about a sexual deviant...in New Orleans? :?

No one's defending Barry. And Like everyone else, I'm wondering just who or what he really is. Of course having Larry Summers on board is a stunning deceit to the American public.

But...this thread isn't about Barry at all. Why are you trying to digress with some silly cheap shot?

The perv preacher from Louisiana is TYPICAL of the hypocrisy of the "god fearing" anti-gay Family Values agenda of the GOP. Now of course the GOP wasn't always hijacked by scared seething Christers--themselves easily packaged by chortling plutocrat billionaires.

This is a real and pressing issue. The fact that you and others like you would automatically seek to divert attention and blame from the actual root of the entire present financial catastrophe--and that's the neo-liberal agenda of deregulating the financial markets as well as busting unions--is a refelction of the obdurate ignorance of the Christers themselves. Sure, you're probably not whacking off in a public park while watching little kids play--but your mind is on the path. That is, years of fear and FOX blather has you mentally half way to the park with a mounting chubby. And that's disgusting.

Once upon a time the GOP actually had some admirable principles--though no one can seem to actually name an individual who embodied them. Who? Reagan?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I know I stand corrected thanks to your selfless vigilance.

Seems to me that last American president representing the best of the Republican Party was Ike, and the last American president representing the best of the Democratic Party was Kennedy.

But even Ike, with his farewell "warning" about the Military Industrial Complex seems nothing more than analagous to a hooker warning another hooker about a rough playing John.

So, you tell me.

Tom In VA wrote:I can't speak for anyone else, but I know I stand corrected thanks to your selfless vigilance.

Seems to me that last American president representing the best of the Republican Party was Ike, and the last American president representing the best of the Democratic Party was Kennedy.

But even Ike, with his farewell "warning" about the Military Industrial Complex seems nothing more than analagous to a hooker warning another hooker about a rough playing John.

So, you tell me.

kennedy wasn't the best of anything. well, better than little bro ted, i 'spose. wonder how he would be viewed had he the sense to not ride in convertibles.

Ike seemed like a nice guy, but his warning was late--after he'd already gone whole hog on the (fake) Cold War mass expansion of all-out nuclear weaponry flying around 24/7, etc. And Jack Kennedy was brave in threatening Israel with heavy reprisals--a cut-off of the massive welfare handouts--for their illegal development of nuclear weapons. And that's why they had him whacked. He was going to be rung up on corruption charges in the event the assassination didn't go down. In fact a congressional committee was scheduled to convene that very day back in D.C. concerning JFK's mob connections. Did you know that? It was quickly dismissed and forgotten. Jimmy Carter was the last non-criminal president until Barry. His bravery in calling out the blatant apartheid structure of Israel has earned him the dismissive enmity of the mainstream media, of course, but his record was honorable if not particularly strong.

The present fact, however, of the Christer dominated GOP, demands our attention.

The folks who dutifully parrot the vile Koch brothers demented "libertarian" line are not rich or believing they will become so. Rather, they actually have come to believe that the teachers unions are bastions of "liberalism"--that is, secular non-Christian, thus evil--and therefore somehow hobbling them will be in the best interests of the Christer agenda, etc. It's directly connected, not a tangent factor. Got it?

And the Christer agenda, as reflected by the trannie-cruising congressman, the public bathroom dick sucking senator, the meth-smoking butt-fucked hyper-political pastor, the kiddie-watching whack-off anti-gay crusader, the moronic rapacious fame-whore ex-Alaskan governor, the jailed Hammer, the delusional Newt, the crying corporate whore Orange Man....it just goes on and on....is entirely off the rails and tumbling down a long steep embankment.

Has a government or regime not based in any sort of spiritual or religious principle ever succeeded ? Are there modern examples of such ? Replace God with State, I guess.

That should work and be equitable for all - right ?

Tom In VA wrote:I can't speak for anyone else, but I know I stand corrected thanks to your selfless vigilance.

Yeoman effort upon your part, Tom. Every L-Tard post I've ever attempted reads like a cell-phone bill printed in Volapük - Largely long-winded and completely unintelligible.

'Scuse me, Tom, but can you name a single religious-based government that has worked? Which one? The necessary Christian shackling of England by Oliver Cromwell? The lunacy of Iran's mullahs? The Divinely Mandated Emperor of Japan during the 1930's? The Holy Roman Empire?

There's plenty of functional and sane governments that are decidedly secular. Are you kidding? From Canada to Scandinavia, from Bolivia and Brazil to Germany and Turkey. What are you talking about? The separation of church and state in the founding of America's constitution was fundamental, despite the presence and persistence of insane puritans and baptists and catholics, etc, who have always insisted--just like fundamentalist muslims who demand sharia--that all American citizens somehow be subsumed within a Judaic/Christer paradigm. Well, they're wrong now just as they were when they initiated "blue laws" and anti-gay legislation. You're probably aware that several states still have laws on the books against oral sex--even between married heteros!

Of course the usual "either/or" response is "what about those atheistic communist regimes in China and Russia that murdered millions"...blah blah. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the basic fact that ANY modern successful government has necessarily been secular, period, and the very notion of devout Christers in office is a nightmare. I mean...look around at the lunacy of the current GOP. Or what?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:'Scuse me, Tom, but can you name a single religious-based government that has worked? Which one? The necessary Christian shackling of England by Oliver Cromwell? The lunacy of Iran's mullahs? The Divinely Mandated Emperor of Japan during the 1930's? The Holy Roman Empire?

There's plenty of functional and sane governments that are decidedly secular. Are you kidding? From Canada to Scandinavia, from Bolivia and Brazil to Germany and Turkey. What are you talking about? The separation of church and state in the founding of America's constitution was fundamental

Thank you for the answer, I'll have to research the success of Scandinavia, Bolivia, Brazil, Germany and Turkey. As for our Constitution, separation of church and state was fundamental but as you've correct me on here - so was slavery. So I'm a bit mixed about this Constitution.

I do know, it was religious folks primarily behind the abolitionist movement. Is that okay ? Was it okay that they wanted to end slavery and that their interpretation of the Constitution as a "living, breathing, document" enabled them to compel its end ?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:You're probably aware that several states still have laws on the books against oral sex--even between married heteros!

I just found a message on the answering machine -- I'm not sure how the message got overlooked for so long, since it was from 2003.

Anyhoo, the message was for you, LTS, from someone named John Lawrence...

He said to tell you you're a fucking idiot who has no fucking idea what you're talking about.



LTS TARD2 -- Disproving the Blind Squirrel Theory since 2/27/2006 (and likely much longer than that).

Dinsdale wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:You're probably aware that several states still have laws on the books against oral sex--even between married heteros!

Oral sex between married heteros is illegal? My wife must have attended law school without my knowledge.

The abolition of slavery was not a religious issue. The bible, both old and new testament, regards slavery much in the (fallacious) Aristotelian mode of a natural condition of humanity, you'll notice. And the moral imperative to regard all fellow humans as having inalienable rights is every bit as much a product of the anti-religious types such as Rousseau as any bible thumpers like Beecher. It's absurd to suggest that because religious folks have attained some degree of moral awareness that it is a result of the religion. How about in spite of accepting the bible--and thus Deuteronomy, etc.--some folks came to oppose slavery? After all, lots of devout Christers both North and South fiercely defended slavery--and based their arguments squarely upon scripture, etc.

As for Scandinavia and Turkey and all the plainly secular governments, they're fine, thanks, and really don't need you to verify them. Of course the massive criminality of resulting from the deregulation agenda of the neo-liberals has put them--and us--in a clusterfuck, but that too is not a religious issue. Except that a disproportionate amount of the lunatics supporting it so rabidly (i.e, the Hammer) are militant Christers.

Mace wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:You're probably aware that several states still have laws on the books against oral sex--even between married heteros!

Oral sex between married heteros is illegal? My wife must have attended law school without my knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law ... ted_States

Here, and while most of these insane laws were overturned by the secular Supreme Court, notice how the most repressive of these Deuteronomy mandates are from decidedly Christer states. Do you get it? Do you see the connection?
:wink:

What the hell is this...a total surrender?

I mean, I shoot, skin and stuff your pathetic assertion of religious governments...and you can't actually refute anything--nor do you dare even address any of the plain facts I present...so you roll out some idiotic 1950's nonsense?

C'mon, Tom, I know you're no heavyweight, but at least don't go all fetal position on us.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:And Jack Kennedy was brave in threatening Israel with heavy reprisals--a cut-off of the massive welfare handouts--for their illegal development of nuclear weapons.

They weren't getting any "massive welfare handouts" at that point in time, you stupid asshole.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:The abolition of slavery was not a religious issue.

Tell it to John Brown, you stupid asshole.

LTS TRN 2 wrote: How many Demos have been caught cruising craigslist for trannies? Or men's restrooms for a quick suck-off?

Technically, when they're so open about it, you can't really, plausibly, use the word "caught".

mvscal wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:And Jack Kennedy was brave in threatening Israel with heavy reprisals--a cut-off of the massive welfare handouts--for their illegal development of nuclear weapons.

They weren't getting any "massive welfare handouts" at that point in time, you stupid asshole.

Okay, Avi, we'll slap your sad little face...

Here's Jack Kennedy addressing the new prime minister of Israel in July of 1963--the previous one having been run immediately after this issue was raised!

I regret having to add to your burdens so soon after your assumption of office, but I feel the crucial importance of this problem necessitates my taking up with you at this early date certain further considerations, arising out of Mr. Ben-Gurion's May 27 letter, as to the nature and scheduling of such visits.

I am sure you will agree that these visits should be as nearly as possible in accord with international standards, thereby resolving all doubts as to the peaceful intent of the Dimona project. As I wrote Mr. Ben-Gurion, this Government's commitment to and support of Israel could be seriously jeopardized if it should be thought that we were unable to obtain reliable information on a subject as vital to the peace as the question of Israel's effort in the nuclear field.

And of course the handouts were massive--by the standards of 1960 and today. What are you, some kind of auto-goofball? And yes, they whacked him--with the full cooperation of LeMay, etc.

mvscal wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:The abolition of slavery was not a religious issue.

Tell it to John Brown, you stupid asshole.

Of course Brown was a religious loon, and so were countless fierce supporters of slavery...so what? Plenty of abolitionists were not religious. And many supporters of slavery were not religious--at least in their support. So..?

As usual, you don't really make a point--or defend it, or refute anything...

What a joke!

LTS TRN 2 wrote:What the hell is this...a total surrender?

I mean, I shoot, skin and stuff your pathetic assertion of religious governments...and you can't actually refute anything--nor do you dare even address any of the plain facts I present...so you roll out some idiotic 1950's nonsense?

C'mon, Tom, I know you're no heavyweight, but at least don't go all fetal position on us.

There's no ROI for the time dude. Your trolls express opinions, I enjoy reading them although I perceive them as nothing more than anti-religious and anti-conservative propaganda.

Your troll is flat wrong BTW. When you look into history at the societies of Ur, Mesopotamia, and even throughout barbaric tribes - there was governance inspired by - religion.

I mean we can cherry pick and say - "Yes, it's logical to disallow murder", wow what a secular society we have today but we think religion made sense with this, with that, and these are good laws. But the bottom line is the first codifications of such morals came from RELIGION. If you care to dispute the impact Judeo Christianity has had on Western Civilization and its governments there's nothing I can do - that volume upon volume of text that I'm quite sure you've already read or been exposed to - should have already done. I sense, you're a well educated person. You know this. Your troll is a propaganda machine, and very adept at it I might add. At both shedding some light here and there and initiating some excellent dialog between yourself and the heavyweights of this board.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:And of course the handouts were massive--by the standards of 1960 and today.

Shut the fuck up, you stupid asshole.

From 1949 through 1965, U.S. aid to Israel averaged about $63 million per year, over
95% of which was economic development assistance and food aid. A modest military loan
program began in 1959.

Israel’s main early patron was France, which provided Israel with advanced military equipment and technology.28

28 France supplied Israel with military equipment mainly to counter Egypt. In the 1950s and
early 1960s, Egypt antagonized France by providing arms and training for Algeria’s war for
independence against France.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/100102.pdf

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Plenty of abolitionists were not religious.

Name two of them, you stupid asshole.

Cuda wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote: How many Demos have been caught cruising craigslist for trannies? Or men's restrooms for a quick suck-off?

Technically, when they're so open about it, you can't really, plausibly, use the word "caught".

Well, "technically" they weren't open about it, just stupid. Neither senator suck-off, or congressman bare-chest seemed like they wanted to get caught--at least in their conscious mind. Perhaps people make these incredibly dumb moves as a sort of unconscious self-destructive behavior. And given their toxic political records, this makes a bit of sense. Right? Like Pastor Meth taking it in the ass on a crystal rush--after preaching some inane right-wing Chrsto/fascist gibberish to a bunch of scared and impressionable kids in his Colorado Springs compound.

And then Jesus is going to plunge deep into me and work my colon...oh...and praise be He's going to lower those corporate taxes way down...

Tom In VA wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:What the hell is this...a total surrender?

I mean, I shoot, skin and stuff your pathetic assertion of religious governments...and you can't actually refute anything--nor do you dare even address any of the plain facts I present...so you roll out some idiotic 1950's nonsense?

C'mon, Tom, I know you're no heavyweight, but at least don't go all fetal position on us.

There's no ROI for the time dude. Your trolls express opinions, I enjoy reading them although I perceive them as nothing more than anti-religious and anti-conservative propaganda.

Your troll is flat wrong BTW. When you look into history at the societies of Ur, Mesopotamia, and even throughout barbaric tribes - there was governance inspired by - religion.

I mean we can cherry pick and say - "Yes, it's logical to disallow murder", wow what a secular society we have today but we think religion made sense with this, with that, and these are good laws. But the bottom line is the first codifications of such morals came from RELIGION. If you care to dispute the impact Judeo Christianity has had on Western Civilization and its governments there's nothing I can do - that volume upon volume of text that I'm quite sure you've already read or been exposed to - should have already done. I sense, you're a well educated person. You know this. Your troll is a propaganda machine, and very adept at it I might add. At both shedding some light here and there and initiating some excellent dialog between yourself and the heavyweights of this board.

What a weaselly evasion!

First, what "propaganda" have you detected in my statements? You forgot to mention that.

As for the Judeo-Christer contribution to America's design, start with all of the Deuteronomy-based laws they managed to impose upon the American people. Start back in the day with the act of murdering people accused of "witchcraft" and imprisoning people for being homosexual or marrying interracial. This is the actual contribution of the Christer cult to America's design.

The notion that the bible introduced any sort of modern morality is ludicrous--and of course you offer nothing to support such a statement. What, the "golden rule"? That's from Confucious four hundred years earlier. "Turn the other cheek"? That's Socrates, also four hundred years previous--and NO ONE abides by this precept any way.

What else?

In fact the bible has been used to justify massive wars, executions, and of course all manner of social ostracization--firing, etc.--due to "immoral" behavior.

And you're talking about...Mesopotamia? Wow, you are lost!

mvscal wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Plenty of abolitionists were not religious.

Name two of them, you stupid asshole.

Frederick Douglass and William Welles Brown.

Sure, they were ex-slaves, and who knows if they were nominally Christers, it was decidedly secondary to their politics. And the same applies to many more activists then and now. For example, Elizabeth Cady Stanton was not a Christer in any sense like Beecher or Brown. And she led a whole movement.

You're a joke.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:
Well, "technically" they weren't open about it, just stupid. Neither senator suck-off, or congressman bare-chest seemed like they wanted to get caught--

I was talking about the DemocRats, dipshit. You know... the ones you said weren't getting "caught"? And Ted Haggard was taking it up the ass from one of your heros: a DemocRat.

LTS TRN 2 wrote: In fact the bible has been used to justify massive wars, executions, and of course all manner of social ostracization--firing, etc.--due to "immoral" behavior.

Right, like slavery.

I'm lost ? Perhaps, but the insanity of trying to revise millienia of human history and evolution and disassociate it from spiritual inspiration and the ritual - i.e. religion that evolves from that - is funny.

You will never get religion out of the public forum. Unless of course you plan on some sort of genocide. Which, knowing the left - that's precisely what underscores a vast majority of its platform.

Cuda wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:
Well, "technically" they weren't open about it, just stupid. Neither senator suck-off, or congressman bare-chest seemed like they wanted to get caught--

I was talking about the DemocRats, dipshit. You know... the ones you said weren't getting "caught"? And Ted Haggard was taking it up the ass from one of your heros: a DemocRat.

Prick, you're confused. NO Democrats have been caught in any such perv cases. Standard hetero dalliances, yes. But no perv shit. Or what, can you cite an example? As for the masseuse who was porking the pastor being a democrat, are you kidding?

Tom In VA wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote: In fact the bible has been used to justify massive wars, executions, and of course all manner of social ostracization--firing, etc.--due to "immoral" behavior.

Right, like slavery.

I'm lost ? Perhaps, but the insanity of trying to revise millienia of human history and evolution and disassociate it from spiritual inspiration and the ritual - i.e. religion that evolves from that - is funny.

You will never get religion out of the public forum. Unless of course you plan on some sort of genocide. Which, knowing the left - that's precisely what underscores a vast majority of its platform.

And you are really confused.

First, where's an example of that "propaganda" you were complaining about?

Second, the fact that the bible was easily interpreted as justifying slavery is MY point, not yours.

Third, try dealing with the basic trainload of Deuteronomy-based "blue laws" that have in fact defined the Christer legacy in America's social and legal design.

And, as I suggested several posts back, you are automatically remanded to the "left wing atheistic regimes committed genocide" card--as though this in any way whatsoever relates to the inherent qualities and actions of the Christer cult over the fifteen centuries of its being a force in world affairs. It doesn't. Why? Because the Christers and Muslims have waged plenty of their own genocidal actions.

It's never "either/or," Tom. (i.e., the classic "turn or burn" Christer fallacy :wink: )

C'mon, you're falling apart.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Frederick Douglass and William Welles Brown.

Frederick Douglass was an ordained minister, you stupid asshole.