fayfreethinkers.com

MAY 15, 2010

***
[Government agencies not aggressive enough on oil spill]

DAR
I very much agree. This is a fair criticism of Obama. He should have been much more aggressive about getting rid of Bush installed cronies and incompetents. I guess his only excuse could be that this takes time and he has been busy with even bigger Bush legacy problems.

D.
-------------
"Interior Department Still Filled With Anti-Science Bush-Era Managers

Jeff Ruch, the head of the public-employee whistleblowing group, said that as in many other regulatory agencies, Obama political appointees in the Interior Department's notoriously troubled Minerals Management Service (MMS) have not taken enough steps to reverse the anti-environmental and anti-science policies of the Bush years.

"For the most part, the Obama team is still the Bush team," Ruch told HuffPost, noting that beyond a thin layer of political appointees, offices like MMS are run by managers who were "promoted during the Bush years -- In many instances, promoted for basically violating the law. And from what we can tell, their conduct hasn't changed."

<a href="viewtopic.php?p=21421#p21421">Link</a>.

***

FRAN: "“progressives” — a word they chose as a label only after “liberal” became radioactive —">>

DAR
Those in Francis' camp have a long and cherished tradition of trying to smear any notion of liberalism. Used to be it was the facists and goosesteppers who were most challenged by the terrible threat liberalism presented. With the neo-con lurch to the right they find themselves similarly terrified of what it represents. This makes sense, after all, it is a rather radical notion:

liberal: "Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded” --American Heritage

Nothing strikes more fear into the heart of the modern day Tea Party neo-con than something like that!

D.
----------------
"Long ago, there was a noble word, LIBERAL, which derives from the word FREE. Now a strange thing happened to that word. A man named Hitler made it a term of abuse, a matter of suspicion, because those who were not with him were against him, and liberals had no use for Hitler. And then a man named McCarthy cast the same opprobrium on the word. Indeed, there was a time --a short but dismaying time-- when many Americans began to distrust the word which derived from FREE. One thing we must all do. We must cherish and honor the word FREE or it will cease to apply to us.”
--Eleanor Roosevelt

***
[Wall Builders]

DAR
Yes Victoria, I am very familiar with the Wall Builders and especially their devotion to bogus quotes and the most blatant misinformation. Try using their info and see how it holds up. No scholars take those clowns seriously, and with good reason.

Their founder admitted they had been peddling bogus quotes for years. I have an excellent article about this but you probably wouldn't read it, so I won't waste our time.

D.

***

Bigd: If you are using the word orthodox in the generic then you have a point.>>

DAR
That was the point of the Britannica quote.

Bigd: However, all of the religions (including Unitarian) are Christian religions>>

DAR
I was a Unitarian. They have roots in Christianity but they aren't Christians. They have no creed. As I said, 3/4 of our local fellowship was atheist/agnostic. They are also the highest educated religious group in the US (last I checked).

Bigd: Jefferson who attended church regularly and professed he was a Christian.">>

DAR
You are being as deceptive with his quote as those who didn't give all of McCain's context. Jefferson SPECIFICALLY said, in the quote you gave:

"...to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other.”

Let me explain. Jefferson did not believe Jesus to be divine, or that he claimed to be divine, he didn't believe any of the miracles or miracle claims (he cut all of that "dung" our of his Jefferson Bible), but he thought Jesus had most excellent moral precepts and is saying here that he is Christian ONLY IN THE SENSE he thinks Jesus meant anyone to be a Christian, and that is, by following his moral precepts.

It's complicated, I know. You might not get it unless you have read a lot of Jefferson. He was purposely sneaky in regard to his religious beliefs (as was Washington and Adams). For rather obvious reasons.

Bigd: where you cut and paste an encyclopedia.">>

DAR
What a hypocrite. Your cut and paste above, from an encyclopedia, is far larger than anything I have posted! (and it was a good quote). I quoted ONE sentence from an encyclopedia.

Bigd: these people came from a place where folks were executed for not following the state religion.">>

DAR
Exactly! And some states were well on their way to doing that. Cutting peoples ears off etc.

D.

***

DAR
If you are going to accuse me of an "untruth" you should have the decency of stating what it is. You don't.

Bigd: "Why would so called deists have to “hide” in a Christian church?">>

DAR
Because it was politically damaging to not be considered a Christian. Look what they did to Paine who didn't play the game. This still goes on today.

Bigd: "There is no religious test for office in this country...">>

DAR
Wrong.

"Arkansas is one of half a dozen states that still exclude non-believers from public office. Article 19 Section 1 of the 1874 Arkansas Constitution states that "No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court."

<a href="http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/erb ... iously">US News</a>.

***

I haven't targeted Christianity in this thread. Not once. There is nothing wrong with telling the truth and being accurate with regard to the beliefs of the founders.

This is in contrast to Victoria's little group of myth makers.

D.
----------------
Wallbuilders Shoddy Workmanship

David Barton's
"Christian Nation" Myth Factory
Admits Its Products Have Been Defective

<a href="http://www.members.tripod.com/candst/boston2.htm">Read here</a>.

***

Bigd: "claim about the first 6 presidents as if they were the only Founders.">>

DAR
Nonsense. The one sentence quote specified the first six presidents to inform that it only refers, to the first six presidents. Couldn't be clearer. Pretty curious for a "Christian nation" eh?

Bigd: lot of people who founded this country... were Christians.">>

DAR
Of course they were. Easily the majority of them. And no one said otherwise.

Bigd: We were founded as a Judeo-Christian nation...>>

DAR
It's just that no one remembered to mention that in any of the founding documents.

Amazing!

D.
-----------
“The obvious first step in seeking out our nation’s origins is to read its founding doc**ents. In doing so, one is struck immediately by the total absence of any mention of Jesus, Christ or Christianity.” –Judith Hayes

***

Bigd: "You called miracles by Jesus DUNG in this thread">>

DAR
No, you are confused. I mentioned that Jefferson referred to the Bible as a dunghill with a few diamonds in it. Also, he didn't believe in the miracle claims in the Bible.

*I* didn't call the Bible, or miracles, or anything "dung" in this thread.

D.
---------------
"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills."
--Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

***

Bigd: "...how is the onus on the presenter rather than the denier?">>

DAR
It is not possible to disprove such a negative. If someone says Washington said X, THEY have the burden of giving evidence for their claim and showing legitimate provenance of any such documents.

It is not possible for someone to prove that someone DID NOT say something 200+ years ago. But this is not anyone's problem but the one making the assertion. The burden is upon the person claiming someone said X, centuries ago.

Think of it this way. If someone were to assert that Washington said: "I am not a Christian" would you have the burden of proving that claim wrong? Of course not.

Rightwing Christians have been lying, and caught lying, about Washington, for centuries. For instance with the <a href="http://americancreation.blogspot.com/20 ... tml">bogus Washington prayer journals</a> someone concocted.

D.

***

Bigd: Care to provide a copy of that letter where Jefferson used dunghills.">>

DAR
Of course. I don't make claims I can't back up. Thanks for asking.

See here: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_ ... efferson's Bible</a>.

Better than a letter, it was in the introduction of a book he made known as the Jefferson Bible. This is where he took a Bible and cut all of the stuff he didn't believe in (miracles etc.). He distributed this book to all members of Congress.

Bigd: "You did indeed call it dung which is a misquote...">>

DAR
I'm sorry, you misunderstand. My only reference to dung in this thread was in reference to Jefferson's use of it. I was referring to Jefferson's Bible, as I stated, which is where he compared the Bible to dunghill with some diamonds in it.

Bigd: "...you referred to Christianity as the reason they did not allow a specific religion.">>

DAR
Is this not really really obvious? What religion, pray, would they have been concerned about becoming entrenched with state power and leading to the abuses the founders of America were trying to escape in Europe?!

Let me know if you would to be buried in specific referenced examples of the founders specifically referring to this.

D.
---------------
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
-- James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785

***

Bigd: "Jefferson said that finding something would be like finding diamonds in a dunghill, not that the Bible was a dunghill.">>

DAR
Wrong. In letter I first referred to Jefferson said:

"In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.”
–Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

In his analogy Jefferson is clearly using "dunghills" in the above to represent the Bible, and using "diamonds" to represent the parts of the Bible that he thinks "have proceeded from an extraordinary man."

He took his scissors and cut out the dung, what was left is known as "The Jefferson Bible." How much poo did he cut out of the New Testament? About 90%. That left 10% diamond.

Bigd: "you did not dig up the letter to Adams.">>

DAR
Yes I did. You were too lazy to even look at the link I gave you.

Bigd: "Jefferson’s Bible, an interesting concept but that is no the letter.">>

DAR
You can read the entire letter I quoted from (Jan. 24, 1814), <a href="http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/j ... l">here</a>.

Here is the quote again, worded slightly different, from another letter to Adam's, (two months earlier) from the top of the wiki link I <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible">already gave you</a>:

***
He described it in a letter to John Adams dated 13 October 1813:

“[Big SNIP] I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines."

D.

***

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God." --John Adams

DAR
And what are those "general principles" he is talking about? Ask a different Christian, get a different answer. Ask a deist, get a very different answer.

Based on his writings, I think the "general principles" he is referring to are the basic moral questions most of humanity agree on regardless of religion. Don't murder, steal, "do unto to others" etc. How did nearly all societies figure this out and why did they all make rules against these things? Because people don't like to be murdered or have their stuff stolen. The golden rule as stated by Jesus is very nice, but it wasn't remotely original. Most Christians don't know that it was said by nine other people centuries before Jesus borrowed and repeated it (or his anonymous biographer attributed it to him).

That Adams, like his buddy Jefferson, would like to pick out what he thinks are the "general principles" of Christianity (however defined) and then think they are good, is no surprise. I would probably agree with them too. But we don't know what they are. He didn't give them in your quote.

We know John Adam's did not consider the United States **in any sense** founded on the Christian religion because he personally signed a treaty that said so (and treaties have the same force as law).

The Treaty of Tripoli:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen
[Muslims]; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an
interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
--Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11, ratified by the U.S. Senate June 7, 1797 and signed by President John Adams on June 10, 1797.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli">LINK</a>

D.
-------------
"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"
--John Adams in a letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

Jefferson cut 90% out of his Bible. Looks like Adams would have cut most of it out too.

***

DAR
OOPS, I should have checked more thoroughly. Turns out Bigd's quote from John Adama's is a very sneaky patchwork concoction. Bogus. What a wonderful example of what I have been talking about, the importance of accuracy, and how common these corrupted things get passed around (this one is all over).

See the very thorough explanation of this here:

<a href="http://fakehistory.wordpress.com/2010/0 ... ty/">Adams and the General Principles of Christianity</a>

Excerpts:

"This is a patchwork of three phrases taken from a letter (28 June 1813) to Thomas Jefferson juxtaposed to give a misleading impression of Adams’ meaning:

...The omissions here are easily significant enough to give this extract the red designation.

[snip]
...What did he mean by “the general principles of Christianity”? He doesn’t spell them out in the letter, but they are principles held in common by a diverse range of beliefs, including “Roman Catholics, … Presbyterians, Methodists, … Universalists, … Deists and Atheists ….” In other words, Adams had in mind the common system of morals held by all humankind throughout history. And far from giving it the unique status implied by the patchwork quotation, he couples “the general principles of Christianity” throughout with “the general principles of English and American liberty”.

DAR
Wow. Exactly as I said earlier, without knowing the full quote from Adams and how this quote was a complete distortion.

Thanks for helping me learn something new today Bigd.

D.

***

Bigd: "I have to admit that when I put this quote up I did not put in the ellipses (it was unintentional)...">>

DAR
You took the ellipses out of someone elses hacked up version, or you didn't know you were being fooled? I'm guessing the latter.

Bigd: "...and the ellipses are in the appropriate places where there is a break in the words.">>

DAR
Your quote *has no* ellipses! You took them out or copied a crook who patched this together. And it's not like you were reading this whole thing in context. Give me a break. You were passing along someone elses hackwork.

Bigd: "However, I have read the entire paragraph and the meaning is not changed.">>

DAR
You've read it now because you've been busted passing along a doctored quote with no indication of the vast swathes of context removed.

I didn't think you would read the extensive examination of this quote and the expose' of how Christians are dishonestly and disgracefully distorting what Adams said here. And quite honestly I didn't think you would understand it if you did read it. But I am rather surprised at how blatant you are about defending this doctored quote.

So you think it is honest to provide a two sentence quote from Adams, ripped from context, punctuation played with, phrases ripped out of sentences, without any indication whatsoever that 81 words have been removed? Unbelievable!

Your quote with deletions noted:

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were [40 words removed] the general principles of Christianity. [41 words removed] I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."

As <a href='http://fakehistory.wordpress.com/2010/0 ... nity/">the expose' pointed out:</a>

"If the passage as given above can really be considered a fair summary of the entire passage, then so can this version, emphasizing the other elements Adams gave as the “general principles on which the fathers achieved independence”:

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence, were … the general principles of English and American liberty … I will avow, that I then believed and now believe that … those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature and our terrestrial, mundane system."

"Obviously neither version is a fair representation of the original. Each leaves out one essential element in the original mix so that even though these extracts are made up of Adams’ own words, the overall quotation (particularly sans ellipses) is as dishonest as the Patrick Henry “religionists” misattribution or the Washington “impossible to govern without the Bible” concoction." --ibid

This is what you get when you dishonestly cherry-pick, remove material and then patch together what's left. A disgraceful misrepresentation of what the person said.

Bigd: "As anyone with a brain can see, the omitted words do not change the meaning.">>

DAR
Well this excludes you then because this very changes the meaning. If it didn't Christians wouldn't be playing such games.

Bigd: "Jefferson took the miracles out in his bible because he did not believe that they happened.">>

DAR
Jefferson removed 90% of the New Testament from his Bible (I would have probably left a little more in). He referred to this process as removing diamonds from dunghills.

Bigd: "So was Jefferson a deist?">>

DAR
Pretty much. He didn't like, and knew the limits, of labels. He hated the clergy and thought the idea of the trinity, and most other creeds and doctrines, absurd. It's hard to have any semblance of Christianity when you don't think Jesus is God.

Here is what he hoped for the US. Notice "Freedom of thought."

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated Reformer of human errors."

--Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, 1787. This is almost identical to a letter to John Adams, 11, April 1823, as quoted by E.S. Gaustad, "Religion," in Merrill D. Peterson, ed., Thomas Jefferson: A Reference Biography, New Yourk: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1986, p. 287)

D.
--------------
I think Jefferson may have been referring to your condition here:

"He proves also that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder is the sport of every wind. With such persons gullability which they call faith takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck."
--Jefferson to James Smith, Monticello, 8 December 1822.

<a href="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?co ... ">Original handwritten copy</a>.

***
[Accuses Dar of name calling]

DAR
Careful readers may notice that the only name I called Mr. Radigan above, is "Radigan." I hope that's not inappropriate or getting too rough for him.

Especially careful readers will also notice the irony in the fact that while there has been naming calling in this little thread, it has been done exclusively by (as usual) Mr. Radigan.

D.
-------------
<a href="viewtopic.php?p=21530#p21530">Acting</a>.

***

Bigd: "I understand your frustration Adam, you backed a loser.">>

DAR
One just marvels at the audacity of a McCain/Palin supporter, saying this to an Obama supporter.

D.
-------------
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/0 ... .html">Two Top McCain Campaign Staffers Quit</a>.

Looks like someone may have more time to hang out in however many homes they happen to own?

***
[More government involvement in oil spill]

DAR
I don't know why Bigd suddenly wants big government interfering in the free market and the right of this private company to do as it wishes with the ocean. The market knows what is right and will figure it out, right? Where does it say in the constitution that people have a right to ocean water without oil in it? Doesn't.

<a href="viewtopic.php?p=21534#p21534">Cartoon</a>.

D.

***

BLK: "There are “progressive” Republicans also- McCain and Graham come to mind.">>

DAR
Graham "has a lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 89.79. Graham is an ACU “Senate Standout,” among the 20 most conservative U.S. Senators in 2008!" <a href="http://www.acuratings.org/">Link</a>.

Blake is so far to the unglued right he would like to purge the party of anything less than the top 10% most extreme nose bleed conservative. I truly wish him and his the very best in this effort. Once they are successful perhaps they can then hold the republican party convention at a Holiday Inn in Oklahoma.

The Tea Partiers are the GOP's Naderites. Chances are this won't dawn upon them until they get three more election spankings. A little good luck in the next one will only serve to encourage them to be even more silly in the following two.

D.
------------------
More Americans Want Democrats To Control Congress (POLL) (May 7-11)

"People want Democrats to control Congress after this fall's elections, a shift from April, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll released Saturday...

The tenuous 45 percent to 40 percent preference for a Democratic Congress reverses the finding a month ago on the same question: 44 percent for Republicans and 41 percent for Democrats."

Congressional Democratic approval: 37%

Congressional Republican approval: 31%

***

MAY 23, 2010

Just a few Big Dog bits, starts early JUNE or so...

***
Bigd: "the article discusses Canada being at 40% GDP">>

DAR
How ridiculous. GDP is not referenced in the article. Rather, "40 percent of provincial budgets" is what the article refers to.

BUNNY: "weren’t U.S. healthcare costs increasing at a rate higher than 6% per year BEFORE The overhaul was voted into law?">>

DAR
Yes.

"At 16 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), U.S. health spending is double the median of industrialized countries and since 2000 has been growing more rapidly than before." <a href="http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/co ... -Source</a>

The US spends a larger percent of it's GDP, gets inferior results to Canada's system (which is so-so by world standards) and still doesn't even cover everyone.

I am still amazed and so pleasantly surprised that Obama got it through. It won't be repealed but it will be added to and improved over the years.

D.
-------------
US outcomes are mediocre by world standards:

• Of 19 countries, worst for “avoidable mortality.” --Healing of America, pg. 31

• 19th in “Death from curable diseases.” Almost twice as high as France, Japan and Spain. --ibid pg. 32

• “Deaths Due to Surgical or Medical Mishaps” highest by far in the US. --ibid pg. 32

Life Expectancy… below most European countries --ibid pg. 33

Of 23 peer countries, in the “healthy life expectancy at age sixty,” the United States tied for last. --ibid pg. 33

<a href="http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/co ... /w457">See also</a>.

***

Bigd: "Based on what was released from the White House there was no story with Plame.">>

DAR
Oh I think you should investigate and continue to make a big deal out of this Sestak thing. Drag it out and put your effort into it for years. It'll give you something to pleasure yourself with and during the procedure it will appear very much as if you are participating in self pleasure. And with similar results.

As to trusting White Houses and dishonesty, Bush was a bit of a special case in that regard wasn't he? Ask Bush's spokesperson and Press Secretary Scott McClellan. He knows *first hand* which party packs it's White House with liars doesn't he. That's why he voted for Obama.

Bigd: "She [Pelosi] will be fired this year.">>

DAR
Let's see:

NANCY PELOSI

Favorable: 39
Unfavorable: 51

Well that doesn't look good. Let's see how your girls are doing.

MITCH MCCONNELL
FAV: 24
UNFAV: 61

JOHN BOEHNER
FAV: 22
UNFAV: 60

Oops. All together now...

CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS
FAV: 37
UNFAV: 58

CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS
FAV: 23
UNFAV: 67

DEMOCRATIC PARTY
FAV: 39
UNFAV: 54

REPUBLICAN PARTY
FAV: 30
UNFAV: 64

How's that "No hope No change" thingy working out for ya?

***

FRAN: [Arizona law] "For purposes of legal efficacy, it hardly matters [whether those leaving are legal or illegal]... It’s working." [they're leaving]>>

DAR
Porretto makes a good point. From his perspective it hardly matters whether it is the legal brown people or the illegal brown people that are being chased away. What matters most is that brown people are targeted, searched, harassed and being chased away.

For an old, bald, white rightwing nut up north, this means "it's working."

I hope they go to his state.

And another note of irony.

Francis is a devote(sic) Catholic. His church has been in free fall, mostly do to bills for three billion (yes billion) dollars worth of child buggery in the last half century. That's a lot of child buggery even by <a href="http://www.republicansexoffenders.com/">republican standards.</a> If it wasn't for the influx of those brown people there would be even more cold empty catholic churches being turned in to museums and grocery stores.

So while Porretto, on his earthly sojourn, has to put up with people not nearly as white (and bald) as he, even when he moves on to his Catholic heaven (or hell if God hates cowards, <a href="viewtopic.php?p=21597#p21597">and I think he does</a>) he will also have to put up with the company of a great number of those brown people even in his glorious afterlife.

D.
-----------
"The decline of Catholicism in the Northeast is nothing short of stunning," chief researcher Barry Kosmin told Catholic News Agency. The ARIS report added: "New England has a net loss of one million Catholics."

Pew findings about Catholicism were a jolt. The report said more than twenty million American Catholics have quit the church. That means that one-tenth of American adults are now ex-Catholics. The denomination would have lost *one-third* of it membership, Pew concluded, except for a flood of Hispanic immigrants who offset the outflow."
--Free Inquiry, Feb/Mar 2010, pg. 24

***

DAR
I thought Francis doesn't read dissenting posts? Good to see he's changed his policy. He might learn something new. I could teach him lots.

Oh, and he has a question:

Fran: "Who’s being “harassed” or “chased away,” little Darrel?">>

DAR
Brown people.

Fran: "...what does my Catholicism have to do with the subject of BD’s post or my reply?">>

DAR
Easy. You are glad the brown people are going away, and your church needs brown people to keep the doors open and pay the bills for three billion bucks worth of ("exaggerated") child buggery.

I'm surprised a person with a Ph.D. (you forgot to remind us) needed a person with a high school degree to figure this out for them.

Fran: "Few diseases of the mind are quite as crippling as envy.">>

DAR
I'll take your word on that.

D.
------------
ps. Thanks for catching that "devote" mistake.

***

Darrel says:
Friday Jun 11th, 2010 at 00:40

So Adam, like me, only makes it exactly half way through Bigd’s first sentence before he notices something smells.

Then he roasts it. Nice.

Bigd plays the old “those companies contribute to Republicans” while confusing employees with “companies.” A most juvenile mistake.

Then he floats the genetic fallacy (a favorite) but drops the ball again:

Bigd: “fivethrityeight is another blog guy.”>>

DAR
No Bigd, you’re “another blog guy,” and one who can’t make it though sentence number one without mucking it up. Nate Silver’s writing at 538 has been top notch for a very long time and now it has gone big time:

FiveThirtyEight to Partner with New York Times.

Let us know when the local county register picks up your hack work would ya?

D.

***
June 21, 2010

Bigd: "Obama, through actions by his regime, has admitted that he was lying but exactly when he lied is a matter of how things are interpreted.">>

DAR
Again with the same pattern. Bigd likes to tell a glaring whopper in his very first sentence, but most especially in his title.

His title screams "Obama admits he was lying."

That's pretty straightforward English.

Everyone knows what it looks like, what it means, when a person admits they have lied. If this were the case Bigd would be able to provide the citation, the quote, word for word, and support his assertion. But of course, he can't do that, because his title is (ironically) a bold faced lie. And he knows it. Every honest person knows it.

Then we see his first sentence, where he tries to mitigate the bold faced lie in the title with some weasel words. He radically modifies his claim of Obama admitting to lying to something about:

"through actions by his regime"

A child can understand that this is something completely different. Can "actions by his regime" be the same as a personal admission of lying? Of course not. The actions of other people, or an administration do not in any sense equal a personal admission of lying. That's just silly.

So we see that Bigd, as usual has been extraordinarily dishonest in his title and first sentence. When someone shows this much dishonesty out of the gate, with regard to very plain and simple information it's not likely they can be trusted to get the rest of their details right. And of course, he doesn't. He recycles the same tired old crap about who would and wouldn't receive tax increases. All straightforward misinformation carefully knocked down over a year ago and it is just as silly, wrong and distorted as it was then.

But this is beside the main point which is that when a person proves themselves to be a liar about a simple claim in the title of their post, best to not trust them on the finer detailed material that follows. Not if you are a person interested in having your beliefs be in line with truth and reality.

D.
-----------
"Errors, like straws, upon the surface flow; He who would search for pearls must dive below." --John Dryden (1631-1700)

***

I didn't expect Bigd to understand the boiling down process here. Too bad he can't meet this widow in person and explain to her personally why she is a second class citizen and shouldn't be allowed to practice her faith as freely as the other religions even though her husband died to protect that freedom.

The conservatives used to do this to the Jews, or the catholics, or the blacks or gays or any other minority they used to hate because they are different. This is just the group this week. They'll get over it someday as they are dragged kicking and screaming into the future where their white, ignorant behinds will be a minority.

Either you think Americans who are of the same religion as this widow mourning her husband should be allowed to practice their religion freely in America, or you don't.

Bigd asks: "Let’s see how multifaith it is when the Jews want in.">>

DAR
Apparently Bigd wasn't aware that they are doing this with assistance from the Jewish multicultural center. It is open to all.

What a wonderful message this could have been to the world. America, one place in the world where Muslims and Jews can work together to put up a multicultural center together. Instead, because of our own noisy constituency of <a href="viewtopic.php?p=22377#p22377">American Taliban</a> we come off looking like a bunch of bigots. Pitiful.

D.

Let's check in with Big Dog and see how they are doing over there.

Turns out, the government is COMING FOR YER GOLD!

***
Bigd: “In the 1930s the president signed an Executive Order making it illegal to posses gold after a certain date.”>>

DAR
You wouldn’t happen to have a reference on that one thar would ya?

LOL
***

The twit Porretto, who should know better, chimes in:

The government can try to confiscate it. Back in 1933, Americans had a naive faith in the benevolence and efficacy of Washington. Basically, it hadn’t yet raped anyone’s sister or daughter. So we gave it too much leeway…which is one of the reasons we’re where we are today.

No longer, BD. A confiscation order would be massively ignored — and resisted, in those cases where Washington actually dispatched agents to enforce it, with guns. And then our political class would see, in glorious Technicolor, exactly how much citizen respect remains to it.

DAR
Watch out for that "confiscation order" from Obama. As in the 1930's, he doesn't want you to have any gold.

You cannot make this stuff up!

Thread is here: The Golden Rule

No wonder Beck is popular.

D.

Darrel wrote:The government can try to confiscate it. Back in 1933, Americans had a naive faith in the benevolence and efficacy of Washington. Basically, it hadn’t yet raped anyone’s sister or daughter. So we gave it too much leeway…which is one of the reasons we’re where we are today.

DOUG
Remember when Obama was coming for your GUNS?

Except he didn't, and in fact he expanded gun ownership rights. But guns and ammo flew off the shelves and even became scarce. We sell MORE THAN ENOUGH bullets in the U.S. every year to kill every human being on the planet, and have billions left over. And still there was a shortage because of the Obama gun scare.

Anyone else think the gold scare is a ruse to drive up the price of gold?

Doug wrote: Anyone else think the gold scare is a ruse to drive up the price of gold?

If so it will prove an effective ruse. The great irony behind this article is that they ARE out to rob you of your gold. However, "THEY" are not the government, "THEY" are companies like Glen Beck's Goldline who would just LUV to buy your gold from you for pennies on the dollar. And as for our malevolent senator from New York? Anthony Pecker is actually TRYING TO STOP these people from robbing you blind! These government conspiracy theories are every bit as transparently ridiculous as creationist astronomy. I just don't see how people are taken in by it...

kwlyon wrote:

Doug wrote: Anyone else think the gold scare is a ruse to drive up the price of gold?

If so it will prove an effective ruse...

DOUG
Hey, Obama is out to take away your copies of What is Atheism? A Short Introduction. People had better start buying multiple copies and hoarding them...

Those damn secularist liberals! They want to take away God, Guns and Gold!

I noticed Big Dog didn't respond to my request for a reference. It's because he can't.

We went off of the gold standard yes, and you can't use gold as currency yes, but the notion that a president signed a law "making it illegal to posses gold after a certain date?" That's just breathtakingly stupid.

That's Bigd.

***Update, getting some nibbles...

Big Dog says:

Executive Order 6102

DAR
Thanks for the reference Bigd.

D.
—————
Wiki: “Order 6102 specifically exempted “customary use in industry, profession or art”–a provision that covered artists, jewelers, dentists, and sign makers among others. The order further permitted any person to own up to $100 in gold coins ($1677 if adjusted for inflation as of 2010; a face value equivalent to 5 troy ounces (160 g) of Gold valued at about $6200 as of 2010)…

The regulations prescribed within Executive Order 6102 were modified by Executive Order 6111 of April 20, 1933, both of which were ultimately revoked and superseded…

There was only one prosecution under the order, and in that case the order was ruled invalid by federal judge…”

LINK

Bigd’s claim: “In the 1930s the president signed an Executive Order making it illegal to posses gold after a certain date.”

Is therefore refuted.

***

Bigd: It is not refuted. The government allowed small quantities and it was all eventually overturned but people turned in a lot of gold before it was. The lawsuit was dismissed on a technicality that involved who signed the order, not the validity of the order. If you are not allowed to own all you want and the government can set the price you will be paid when you are forced to turn it in then you are not free.

A huge fine for not turning in all but a small portion is still a fine and it infringes upon the rights of people. People could not own what they wanted or keep what they had therefore it was illegal to own it.

DAR
Again Bigd pretends he can't understand plain grade school English. Or is he pretending?

Bigd: "The government allowed small quantities...">>

DAR
Then it's not true that:

“In the 1930s the president signed an Executive Order making it illegal to posses gold after a certain date.”

Bigd: "it was all eventually overturned">>

DAR
Eventually? There was only one attempted prosecution and it flopped.

Bigd: "if you are not allowed to own all you want">>

DAR
You didn't say anything about "owning all you want." You said:

"...illegal to posses gold after a certain date.”

That's false. Try being honest. Ogre says it's important to be honest. I think he's right about that.

Bigd: "People could not own what they wanted or keep what they had therefore it was illegal to own it.">>

DAR
No, that doesn't follow. Let's count the ways your latest variation is false:

1) It didn't effect those having "gold" because they were artists, jewelers, dentists, and sign makers etc.

2) It wasn't illegal to own gold, *as you said* even up to $6,200 in today's dollars. Only in excess of that, and it was not on even a single occasion effectively enforced. And they only tried once.

Apparently this was an attempt to keep people from hoarding gold and using it as currency, probably for the purposes of avoiding taxes. This is still illegal btw and probably what most bothers you: paying your fair share. It always comes back to the greed doesn't it?

What is this fetish the right has with guns and shiny metals? Childish.

D.
---------------
You do realize there isn't enough gold in the world to back up the wealth of even the US? Right? You do realize that?

posted

Bigd still claiming it was illegal to posses gold (inferring that they will be coming for yours soon).

***
BD; "What would you know about honesty?">>

DAR
This thread, as with hundreds of other examples shown on this site over the years is just another testament to your inability, or lack of desire, to be honest with language.

If you had claimed:

"In the 1930s the president signed an Executive Order making it illegal to posses marijuana after a certain date.”

And when checking your very own source we found that no,

a) a person could own 5 ounces of MJ,

b) HUGE swathes of categories were allowed in "customary use in industry, profession or art"

c) and there was only a single attempt at enforcement when someone went over that limit and it failed...

An honest person would admit their claim was false. You don't do this because you are not an honest person. You are a mindless ideologue interested in fear mongering and peddling falsehoods based upon patently false information.

D.

***

Bigd would rather write pages of ludicrous spin rather than admit reality.

Is the following statement true?

“In the 1930s the president signed an Executive Order making it illegal to posses gold after a certain date.”

No, it's not true. It's not remotely true. If Bigd was honest and not interested in defending blatant untruths he would admit this. At that point, a reasonable adult conversation could begin with regard to why some restrictions on hoarding gold (your numbers are wrong) were attempted for tax evasion reasons (clue: our society functions by taxing currency when it is exchanged for goods). As usual, we do not get to participate in that adult level of conversation because you are still stuck at the stamping your feet, denying reality and defending claims that are blatantly untrue.

D.
-------------
"If you took it to a bank you lost it even if you had a deal for them to hold it for you." --another untrue <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102">Bigd whopper</a>

***

ORG: "[it's splitting hairs] just like the statement Big Dog made about possession of gold being illegal.">>

DAR
BD's statement that the possession of gold was illegal, is plainly false on it's face, and it is not splitting hairs to point this out.

Saying the sun rises in the East is a euphemism because it appears to rise from our perspective. It's not the case that it appeared to be illegal to posses gold because it never was illegal to posses gold. Thus no comparison and your analogy fails.

BD: "This statement is true:
“In the 1930s the president signed an Executive Order making it illegal to posses gold after a certain date.”>>

DAR
And thus we see the insanity in it's purest form. Bigd's statement is false, according to his own referenced source.

If everyone were allowed to posses five ounces of MJ, and everyone else using it in industry, profession or art were also allowed to own it as they wish, it would not be the case that it is "illegal" to posses MJ.

It has never been illegal to own gold in the US and no one has ever signed an executive order "making it illegal to posses gold" as Bigd falsely claimed.

If there is a limit to the number of fish you can catch in a given lake, it would not be accurate to say it is "illegal to catch fish" in that lake.

If there is a limit to the speed you can drive on a road it would not be accurate to say it is "illegal to drive on the road."

A person is limited two presidential terms. Because there is a limit would it make sense to say it is illegal to be president (with the caveat that you CAN president for eight years)? No, that would be absurd. Just as Bigd's claim is absurd.

It does not follow that because something is limited (most things are), that it is illegal.

D.
--------------
ps. Buy.com has a good deal on 2 TB external hard drives today. $100 with rebate. One problem, it's illegal to own them (with the caveat that you are limited to owning 10).

***

New dumb dumb on the Big Dog site. Ogre. Here he hates Obama's government so much he tries to defend that terrorist that just got busted.

***

OG: "I read carefully into the story,">>

You read it carefully?

OG: "and I’m not sure I could find any crimes.">>

The first sentence of your article says he:

"...plotted "a spectacular show" of terrorism for months, saying he didn't mind that children would die if he bombed a crowded Christmas tree-lighting ceremony">>

You don't see a crime there Ogre?

OG: "other than those committed by government,"

What crimes did the government commit Ogre?

OG: "The FBI provided everything."

Yes, but the fellow in question provided the terrorist.

OG: "...planning that was undertaken “without any instruction from a foreign terrorist organization.”>>

Yes, but the terrorist wannabe didn't know that. This is called effective law enforcement.

OG: "...this 15-year old just showed up when he was asked to.">>

Your article says he is 19. Good thing you "read it carefully."

OG: "when the FBI gave him ideas,">>

Did you miss where your article mentioned these ideas he had?

"The FBI monitored Mohamud's e-mail and found that he was in contact with people overseas, asking how he could travel to Pakistan and join the fight for jihad,..."

"Mohamud was warned several times about the seriousness of his plan, that women and children could be killed, and that he could back out. But he told agents: "Since I was 15 I thought about all this" and "It's gonna be a fireworks show ... a spectacular show."

OG: "Then the kid goes to jail for life.">>

Perhaps you should state what you think should be done with terrorists who plan and plot to set off bombs in public places for the purpose of killing American civilians.

Bigd, where on earth did you find this fellow?

D.

http://www.onebigdog.net/fbi-finds-terrorist/

Some fresh Doggy doo:

JAN 1, 2011

***
OG: "He was saying that to a class at a government school in the year 2000.">>

In a movie.

OG: "the vast majority of people today would find that statement repulsive, inaccurate, or just plain silly.">>

About 1/3 of Americans are biblical inerrantists. This fellow was rather popular:

"The Bible is the inerrant...word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible, without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc."
--Jerry Falwell, Finding Inner Peace and Strength, (pg. 26.)

Many more examples here:

http://fayfreethinkers.com/ourbooks/mirrorsample.shtml

OG: "pick the religion on which you will base your eternal soul.">>

Upon what basis would someone assume there is an "eternal soul?"
***
BD: "important to note that the Ten Commandments never said Thou Shall not kill. It was, Thou Shall not Murder.">>

Actually, that's not right. An acquaintance of mine wrote a detailed and scholarly response to this interesting question. I've posted it here for you:

viewtopic.php?p=23084#p23084

Post for Bigd on the question of...

***
"Do the Ten Commandments really say, "Thou shalt not murder?" The Hebrew word for "kill" in Exodus 32:13 is ratsach. (The word for "slay" in the contradictory command in Exodus 32:27 is haraq.) Depending on which version you use, there are about ten Hebrew words which are translated "kill." The five most common, in Hebrew order (with translation in order of King James frequency) are:

muth: (825) die, slay, put to death, kill
nakah: (502) smite, kill, slay, beat, wound, murder
haraq: (172) slay, kill, murder, destroy
zabach: (140) sacrifice, kill
ratsach: (47) slay [23], murder[17], kill[6], be put to death [1]

Modern preachers must be smarter than Hebrew translators if they claim that ratsach means "murder" exclusively. Muth, nakah, haraq, zabach, and ratsach appear to be spilled all over the bible in an imprecise and overlapping jumble of contexts, in much the same way modern writers will swap synonyms.
Referring to the cities of refuge" set up by Moses to shelter killers, Deuteronomy 4:42 says, "that the slayer [ratsach] might flee thither, which should kill [ratsach] his neighbor unawares, and hated him not in times past." This is hardly murder--it is neither premeditated nor malicious. It is an accidental killing, classed at most as manslaughter in our society.
Again showing that ratsach can be accidental: "But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or have cast upon him any thing without laying of wait, or with any stone...seeing him not...and was not his enemy, neither sought his harm: Then the congregation shall judge between the slayer [ratsach] and the revenger of blood according to these judgments." (35:22-24)

Verse 27 shows that ratsach can be considered a justified killing: "[if] the revenger of blood kill [ratsach] the slayer [ratsach]; he shall not be guilty of blood." Verses 30 and 31 show how the words are interchanged, and also indicate that ratsach was used for capital punishment: "Whoso killeth [nakah] any person, the murderer [ratsach] shall be put to death [ratsach] by the mouth of witnesses... Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer [ratsach], which is guilty of death: but he shall surely be put to death [muth]."

If this doesn't remove all doubt then consider Provers 22:13: "The slothful man saith There is a lion without, I shall be slain [ratsach] in the streets." Can animals be guilty of murder?
[snip...]

But all of this is irrelevant when we find verses repeating "Thou shalt not kill" in other Hebrew words. Leviticus 24:17 says, "And he that killeth [nakah] any man shall surely be put to death [muth]." Exodus 21:12, just twenty-one verses after the Ten Commandments, says, "He that smiteth [nakah] a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death." According to Scripture it doesn't matter what word you use: killing is against the law.

Joshua nakah'ed the people of Ai (Joshua 8:21), and David nakah'ed Goliath (I Samuel 19:5). This was considered justifiable killing in spite of the fact that nakah was expressly forbidden. What does this do to the "ratsach = murder" defense? If Joshua and David are not criminal, then the bible is again proved contradictory.
[snip...]

When the Israelite warriors marched through a village, slaughtering and plundering in the name of the Lord, ripping up animals, children men, and women, saving the virgins alive for themselves (Numbers 31:15-18), did they say to the pregnant woman with a sword in her belly, "By the way, I want you to know that I am not murdering you. I am lawfully killing you in God's name"? Would such a fine semantic distinction make much difference to the victims of righteousness?"

--Freethought Today, April, 1989. Reprinted in "Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist" by Dan Barker, pg. 207-209

***
Two years before the Tucson massacre, the Department of Homeland Security warned in a report that right wing extremism was on the rise and could prompt "lone wolves" to launch attacks. But the agency backed away from the report amid intense criticism from Republicans, including future House Speaker John Boehner.
The report, which warned that the crippled economy and the election of the first black president were “unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment,” described the rise of “lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology [as] the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States.”

http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/2815/
**

DAR
So you [BigD] have gone from:

“all the violence has been from the left,”

to:

"your side has just as much of it."

Want to attempt to show that the left has <a href="http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaign ... line">just as much as this</a>?
***
He notes that many gun rights advocates are pointing to Joe Zamudio, who was in a nearby pharmacy -- armed -- when the shooting began. He rushed over and helped subdue the killer:
But before we embrace Zamudio's brave intervention as proof of the value of being armed, let's hear the whole story. "I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!' "
But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.
Zamudio agreed:
I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky.

http://www.slate.com/id/2280794/

***
BLK: "on WHAT basis would you conclude that there is NOT an eternal soul?">>

DAR
I'm all for immortality and think it is a great idea. But freethinkers, rational folks, those interested in getting to the actual truth of the matter try to look at the question carefully and guard against succumbing to the temptation of wishful thinking or believing such an extraordinary claim without good reason. When one looks at the question objectively and tries to measure the evidence impartially, we see there is good reason to not believe in immortality, and really nothing in it's favor.

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... .html">The Case Against Immortality</a>

BLK: faith- something... you have little to none of.">>

Correct. I don't believe in developing beliefs without good reasons. Faith is believing things without good reasons. If you have good reasons, you don't appeal to faith.

BLK: "why is it so important to atheists to try their best to abuse our beliefs?">>

Ogre provided a false dichotomy:

“pick the religion on which you will base your eternal soul.”

Which left out the most likely possibility. No soul. I simply pointed this out.

BLK: "I believe God created you to test our faith..."

You may be on to something. The letters in my full name can be rearranged to read:

"Lords Horned Challenger"

I'm rather proud of that.
***
"disbelief is ALL you can believe in,">>

Pat Condell gives a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell# ... M64w">very good response</a> to this common complaint.
***
VIC: "All those answers are in the Bible.">>

Yes they are. It's just a matter of picking the ones you like. This seem quite clear:

"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun...
Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest."
Ecclesiastes 9:5, 6, 10.

"For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again."
Ecclesiastes 3:19-20

No one dies and goes to heaven in the Hebrew Scriptures. Later the Xtians borrowed the idea of a soul from the Zoroastrians and added it to their system.
***
BD: "the Ten Commandments never said Thou Shall not kill. It was, Thou Shall not Murder.">>

The most scholarly modern translation, the NRSV has: "Thou shalt not kill."

Catholic scholarship is quite good, their Douay-Rheims Bible has: "Thou shalt not kill."

God's own favorite version, the King James Bible has: "Thou shalt not kill."

The American King James Version
"You shall not kill."

American Standard Version
"Thou shalt not kill."

Darby Bible Translation
"Thou shalt not kill."

Webster's Bible Translation
"Thou shalt not kill."

Glad you know more than all of the hundreds of translators involved in making those translations!

Perhaps you meant the verse is commonly understood to mean "not murder" since killing people and telling people to kill other people is perhaps the most favorite Bible pastime. But saying thou shalt not murder is rather redundant since murder is by definition wrong (tautology).
***
So let's review Bigd's retreat. BigD goes from:

“all the violence has been from the left,”

to:

“your side has just as much of it.”

That's a 50% reduction and going in the right direction but obviously way way off.

When I give him dozens of specific and well known examples of his rightwingers shooting people in church, committing slaughter and just generally slaying people left and right, can Bigd even find a *single* example of such behavior on the left? Anything? No, instead we get this made up smear:

"Plenty of liberals have broken windows and slashed tires."

Wow. This is some good stuff.
***
BLK: "as BD says, they could be surveyor’s marks">>

How embarrassing.

1) Palin referred to them as "bullseyes." She should know, it's <a href="http://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status ... 4457#">her map</a>.

2) This inappropriate targeting with gunsights was drawn to her attention months before, *by* Mrs. Giffords (and others):

"I mean, people don't -- they really need to realize that the rhetoric and firing people up and, you know, even things, for example, we're on Sarah Palin's targeted list. But the thing is that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gunsight over our district.
When people do that, they've gotta realize there's consequences to that action."
<a href="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011 ... p">LINK</a>.

3) Palin scrubbed her site immediately. She knew she had been busted.

And instead of any acknowledgement what do we get? Unbelievable lines of BS about "surveyors symbols."
***
BD: "And you said scholarly…">>

You be sure and send a note off to the Catholics (1/3 of Xtianity), the fundies (KJV another 1/3) and the scholars with the NRSV. Professional translators just don't know how to translate Hebrew like you.

Note, you said: "the Ten Commandments never said Thou Shall not kill. It was, Thou Shall not Murder."

Maybe check next time before you pretend to know what the Bible says.
***
Nice try. Months earlier Mrs Gifford specifically complained about Sarah Palin targeting her, with gun sights, in that map.

"I mean, people don't -- they really need to realize that the rhetoric and firing people up and, you know, even things, for example, we're on Sarah Palin's targeted list. But the thing is that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gunsight over our district.
When people do that, they've gotta realize there's consequences to that action."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011 ... -video.php
***
Elizabeth Hasselbeck of The View took the unusual step of criticizing Sarah Palin for her crosshairs ad. Segment originally aired March 26, 2010.
via Huffington Post
Sarah Palin's gun sight-riddled campaign map is so militant that it's even lost her the support of "The View" co-host Elizabeth Hasselbeck, who called Palin's behavior "despicable."
After "View" co-host Joy Behar said the map, which features white and red gun sights drawn over districts whose Democratic representatives voted for health care, "looks like an al Qaeda Christmas card" Thursday, Hasselbeck -- who campaigned with Palin in 2008 -- spoke up in uncharacteristic agreement.
"This hasn't been a great week in terms of, I think, the Constitution and where it says that you're supposed to, you know, everybody is, has a mandate to have insurance. But I think the way some Republicans are handling this is nothing more than purely despicable," Hasselbeck said. "The names that are next to and being highlighted by those crosshairs -- I think it's an abuse of the Second Amendment. I also feel as though every single person on here is a mother, a father, a friend, a brother, a sister, and to take it to this level is -- it's disappointing to see this come from the Party, and I would hope that leaders like Sarah Palin would end this."
Joy Behar thanked her for it, shaking her hand. "Republicans are not speaking out against this and you may be the first one to do it, and I salute you, my girl." Whoopi Goldberg would say "Republicans, whatever comes from this it's on your heads."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/2 ... 14561.html
***

Darrel says:

Tuesday Jan 11th, 2011 at 00:51
Still don’t have a *single* example eh? Can’t you find a liberal that threw a brick somewhere or something? So, let’s throw away 90% of them your right wing rogues and tighten it up to just 18 of the really bad ones.

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert ... r-isolated

What’ve you got?

BD: “Beck is non violent and constantly asks for non violence.”

DAR
The record shows otherwise. “Glenn Beck frequently spews violent rhetoric on Fox News.”
Beck’s long history of violent rhetoric.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201010110015

And a bonus:
Beck’s photo fail.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/1 ... 07011.html

***
BIGD: "This is a tragedy of epic proportions and Bernie Sanders is blaming conservatives"

DAR
He's not the only one. And with good reason.

Found that list of lefties committing mass murder like <a href="http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert ... ated">your side does all the time</a> BD?

Didn't think so. Did somebody let the air out of someones tires? That's terrible.

Palin's actions were so obviously stupid and irresponsible, she was not only chastised for using gunsights to target elected officials by the lady who ended up getting shot in the head but also by a lady who campaigned for Palin:

***
Elizabeth Hasselbeck of The View took the unusual step of criticizing Sarah Palin for her crosshairs ad. Segment originally aired March 26, 2010.

"Sarah Palin's gun sight-riddled campaign map is so militant that it's even lost her the support of "The View" co-host Elizabeth Hasselbeck, who called Palin's behavior "despicable."

After "View" co-host Joy Behar said the map, which features white and red gun sights drawn over districts whose Democratic representatives voted for health care, "looks like an al Qaeda Christmas card" Thursday, Hasselbeck -- who campaigned with Palin in 2008 -- spoke up in uncharacteristic agreement.

"This hasn't been a great week in terms of, I think, the Constitution and where it says that you're supposed to, you know, everybody is, has a mandate to have insurance. But I think the way some Republicans are handling this is nothing more than purely despicable," Hasselbeck said. "The names that are next to and being highlighted by those crosshairs -- I think it's an abuse of the Second Amendment. I also feel as though every single person on here is a mother, a father, a friend, a brother, a sister, and to take it to this level is -- it's disappointing to see this come from the Party, and I would hope that leaders like Sarah Palin would end this."
Joy Behar thanked her for it, shaking her hand. "Republicans are not speaking out against this and you may be the first one to do it, and I salute you, my girl." Whoopi Goldberg would say "Republicans, whatever comes from this it's on your heads."

<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/2 ... l">LINK</a>.

Goldberg's comment was rather prescient to say the least.
***
VIC: "name that I haven’t heard is George Bush."

DAR
Well let's fix that right now. The Federal Assault Weapons ban expired under Bush and it limited a clip to 10 rounds. This guy had 33.

Thanks for the assist Bush.

The Tea Party has a <a href="viewtopic.php?p=23081#p23081">new face</a>.
***
It's not the same. The only equivalent to using gun sights to target individual members of congress, is using gun sights to target individual members of congress. Bullseyes over states is entirely appropriate. Palin was warned, directly, by several from both sides of the aisle, including by the woman eventually shot in the head, that this was inappropriate.

In politics you take your chances and live with the results. Palin got busted. If she was a decent person she wouldn't have done this in the first place. If she was a half way decent person she would come forward and admit it was a mistake rather than sending surrogates forward to tell astonishing lies about "surveyor symbols."

You guys should be happy. Palin was nothing but a huge albatross for your side. Look at the trajectory of <a href="viewtopic.php?p=22961#p22961">favorability ratings</a>. She excites the wankers on the fringe but was in no way electable to high office. And with good reason.
***
BD: "Darrell, you gave examples of what exactly?

Stop being obtuse. I gave 18 specific and recent examples of your side going on rampages and committing and trying to commit mass murder.

<a href="http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert ... ated">LINK again</a>.

If you are referring to examples regarding Beck, I gave dozens of specific and referenced examples of:

<a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/201010110015">Glenn Beck's long history of violent rhetoric</a>.

BD: Were they right wing like the guy in Arizona?">>

The details of their unquestionable rightwing credentials are given at the link provided.

BD: I have pointed out plenty of times the left has done this.">>

You said "all the violence has been from the left." I gave you 18 fresh and stunning instances of mass violence from your side (with another 100 examples set aside). You've got bupkis!

BD: It was a lefty that killed Kennedy."

LOL! I was wondering if you might have to go back to before I was born. What revealing desperation! All of my examples are from the last 2.5 years.

BD: It was a lefty that bit off a man’s finger."

Unreferenced assertion (and lame).That sounds bad. I hope he got it looked at.

BD: It was a lefty that shot Lennon."

Mere assertion (lame and outdated too). I don't see a drop of evidence <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_David_Chapman">Mark David Chapman</a> had any political motivations.

BD: It was a lefty that shot Reagan."

Let's check:

"Hinckley's supposed motivation behind the attack stemmed from an obsession with actress Jodie Foster due to erotomania." --wiki

Nope. Nice try. Pathetic actually.

BD: cut and paste and quote Soros websites.">>

Genetic fallacy. If you ever find I quote something from Media Matters that you can refute, please do so. Their research is impeccable and devastating to your positions. That's why you hate them so.
**
VIC: "Michellemalkin stuff"

No comparison whatsoever.

People protesting write outrageousness things on their signs. This happens on both sides but mostly *yours* (including most of the spelling mistakes). This is the rank and file playing with their free speech rights and is to be expected. This is *completely* different than elected officials and spokespersons for political parties and TV/radio pundits with millions of listeners inappropriately targeting elected officials with violent rhetoric.

No, comparison whatsoever.
***

Big news. Bigdog's testicles have retracted and he has made me the "first person ever banned from his site." Consider the irony and the reason he sites. This is good stuff.

First some final posts, a few of which Bigdog felt it necessary to censor.

(Note: Bigd has gone from saying "all of the violence comes from the left" to "just as much of it is on the left" to trying to give a few examples going back to JFK)

***
VIC: "the only other person’s name that I haven’t heard [regarding the Tucson slaying] is George Bush.">>

DAR
Well let’s fix that right now. The Federal Assault Weapons ban expired under Bush and it limited a clip to 10 rounds. This guy had [31].

Thanks for the assist Bush.

The Tea Party has a new face.

***
VIC: Big Lizards blog: “Any Democrat or liberal with any sense of humanity at all (and a conscience) should be asking himself whether he really wants to remain associated with political jackals who repeatedly demonstrate a depraved indifference to human life.">>

DAR
Good to see you using quotes when you pinch comments from the blogs that tickle your ears with comforting propaganda.

You make unsupported assertions based upon air while I can point directly to the actions of your political jackals:

"When right-wing extremist -- and enthusiastic Fox News consumer -- Jim David Adkisson walked into a Knoxville church in 2008 and gunned down two people, he was explicit <a href="http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert ... s-book">in his manifesto</a> about his sources of inspiration:

"This was a symbolic killing. Who I wanted to kill was every Democrat in the Senate & House, the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg's book. I'd like to kill everyone in the mainstream media. But I know those people were inaccessible to me. I couldn't get to the generals & high ranking officers of the Marxist movement so I went after the foot soldiers, the chickensh*t liberals that vote in these traitorous people. Someone had to get the ball rolling. I volunteered. I hope others do the same. It's the only way we can rid America of this cancerous pestilence."

Your people in action doing what the ankle biters around here openly fantasize about. Let me know if you want a dozen other recent examples.

***
VIC: "[Michelle malkin link showing liberals with angry signs at protests]">>

DAR
No comparison whatsoever.

People protesting write outrageousness things on their signs. This happens on both sides but mostly *yours* (including most of the spelling mistakes). This is the rank and file playing with their free speech rights and is to be expected. This is *completely* different than elected officials and spokespersons for political parties and TV/radio pundits with millions of listeners inappropriately targeting elected officials with violent rhetoric.

No comparison, whatsoever.

***
DAR
In eight years of Bush we had not a single incident of a left wing motivated person going on a rampage. In the last two years we have 18 examples of your side, with explicit rightwing motivations, going on rampages and committing and trying to commit mass murder:

LINK

***

BigDog:
Wednesday Jan 12th, 2011

"How about Adolf Hitler Darrel. Is that a leftist mass murderer that meets your needs. Maybe Obama friend Bill Ayers is good for you. Maybe we should throw Sharpton in since his words have incited violence. I will not produce a list of people arrested for plotting something because I know the difference between a plot and an act of violence. Best to consult a dictionary if you are unsure.
You cite people who have been arrested for plotting something as if plotting is committing. Best to avoid these kinds of misuses of the language.
I do not care what anyone else has to say about the cross hairs. They were perfectly OK as were the TARGETS that the left used on the same map for the same purpose. Like I wrote, we have battleground states and war chests in campaigns (which is a military word itself). But please, mr brilliance, tell us how this map that Palin put out, what a year ago, influenced this nut in any way. Tell me where it influenced anyone to commit violence. Please, tell me.
You are defending a moron who is claiming that a leftist moron nut was influenced by conservatives when there is no evidence to support this.
For a freethinker you sure don’t think very freely.">>

***
Big Dog says:

Wednesday Jan 12th, 2011

Darrel, I just read how you do not trust me and how you tried to make your penis larger by smearing me at your circle jerk site.
You have now been banned.
I have not censored you and I have never changed your comments nor deleted them but after you admit that you claim not to trust me to continue to do so so you had to archive them.
So, you can go where you trust people and you do not have to worry about coming back.

Big Dog says [seven minutes later]

Wednesday Jan 12th, 2011 at 19:42

You have made yourself irrelevant. Roast to a crisp. More like cut and paste and take things out of context as a partisan hack while pretending to be a free thinker. More like a free stinker.
But now you are gone.
My motto, piss me off and I eliminate you and nothing pisses me off more than having my integrity questioned particularly by those who have little themselves. You have the distinction of being the first person ever banned from here.
***
[My following post was censored by Bigdog and has not been posted]

BD: "I have not censored you and I have never changed your comments nor deleted them but after you admit that you claim not to trust me to continue to do so so you had to archive them.">>

DAR
You are patently distorting what I said. I have shared that link to my Doggy Dump archive from the very beginning (several times). It is a very handy resource (in fact I finally got around to backing it up to WORD today, about 360,000 words).

What I actually said:

"As some of you know I have been doing a little teaching over at The Big's House. When Betsy posted an article from Jarhead Bob, I hung out at his site for a while but he censored at least half of my comments, and then all of them. Coward. To Bigdog's credit, he has censored nothing. But I got in the habit of keeping copies, partly for reference and partly because I don't trust these guys to not censor/delete comments."

As I have said repeatedly, and again above, you have censored nothing (except that variation of the Tea word). The "guys" I refer to are "conservatives" in past experience. The comment above was made almost two years ago. It was pretty obvious after a month or two that you weren't an unreasonable censor. You, your site, is the very first one I have *not* experienced excessive and restrictive censorship practiced for the sole purpose of conservative cowards unable to stand on an equal playing field and defend their beliefs (i.e. Jarhead as referenced, Porretto etc). (Incidentally, with almost 18,000 posts we have never censored either).

I have complimented you, several times on having the actual fortitude to stand and defend your convictions rather than hide behind censorship like every single other conservative site I have posted on.

So, are you going to join them now? Can't take a little hardball?

***

DAR [This response was censored by Bigdog and not posted]
Oh do grow up beyond the most basic grade school and transparent spinning of history. No adult could be fooled by such silliness. Hitler was a rightwing, Christian, liberal hating, intellectual hating, marxist hating, anti-communist, extremely intolerant, extremely conservative, totalitarian, fascist. He was your side with the volume turned up and bells on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

BD: "friend Bill Ayers">>

DAR
Never heard of him except for some mutterings from you and FOX.

BD: "I will not produce a list">>

DAR
Of course you won't. Because you cannot. Turns out, apparently, all of the violence, terrorism and slaughter these days comes from your side. And there's quite a bit of it as I have already shown.

BD: "TARGETS that the left used on the same map">>

DAR
Wrong. No one on the left used gunsights to target elected officials. Palin did and was chastised in advance by the Congresswoman shot in the head and many others including people who campaigned for her. She made her bed, she's done.

BD: "where it influenced anyone to commit violence.">>

DAR
Not my job. It was irresponsible behavior and you know it. Now Palin knows it too. That's why she immediately scrubbed it off of her website hoping no one would notice. So busted.

****************************************
The end of the saga

From May, 2009 to about May 2010 I posted quite a bit on the Bigdoggy site, well over 2,000 posts and some 360,000 words. He seemed to be the first conservative that had a little fight in him and would attempt to defend his profound misconceptions about the world rather than run and hide behind censorship (he did warn me from the very beginning, as did Blake, that he was entirely devoted to dogmatism and was not open to changing his beliefs). Realize, this is a fellow who is so confused he believes Hitler was a liberal and that it was liberals that were responsible for lynching minorities and holding back civil rights. Anyway, I have been quite happy posting over at the Huffington Post lately. In the last few months I've posted 1,800 posts, 360 pages of text, and acquired 220 "fans." And the nice thing is that on that site there are actual readers. Bigdog has fooled himself into believing that the 700 or so "hits" his site gets per day are actually people, apparently oblivious to the fact that probably 90-95% of them are google bots and web crawlers, not actual eyeballs. His number of daily readers could probably be easily counted on one hand. It's a waste of time.

But I digress.

I did like to pop by once in a while and see a recent college graduate, Adam, absolutely wiping the floor with the couple know nothing neo-cons floating around. But alas, Bigdog called him an asshole the other day and he seems to have left. And the final irony and lie that no adult could possibly believe? Bigdog claims to ban me for supposedly saying this, on this freethinker forum, a year and a half ago. And what was that horrible thing I posted? I said that I made back up copies of my posts to conservative sites because I didn't trust them not to censor me but I specifically singled out Bigdog as an exception when I said in the same paragraph: "To Bigdog's credit, he has censored nothing." [Incidentally, I keep copies of all posts to all forums]

Let the record show that that is no longer the case. Bigdog censored me because he can't defend his conservative beliefs on intellectual grounds on a level playing field. Apparently utterly oblivious to the irony, Bigdog banned me, censored me, for giving him the compliment of saying he was the only conservative not to censor my comments.

He didn't ban me for some year and a half old comment on a different forum. Bigdog banned me because he can't take the heat and had to run like all the rest. He likes to bark a lot but he knows his ideas have no bite because they cannot stand up to informed opposition.



Bye bye bigdog, it was a hoot.

The End

Addendumb:

I sent my above to BigDog via email and we had a little grumpy exchange which isn't of good enough quality to be posted here (it's not because he threatened to sue!). Anyway, I popped by his site today and see that he is working through his emotions by writing a post all about me. I'm honored. He's banned me from posting so I'll respond to it here and send it around. Pretty light stuff really but deserving of a quick roast.

***
WHY DON’T THEY JUST STAY HOME?

BY BIG DOG ON JAN 20, 2011 AT 21:43

BD: Did you ever notice how many people come to the United States from other countries and then set about trying to change our way of life?>>

DAR
That's what the Indians said.

BD: How many Muslims come here for a better life and then try to impose Sharia Law?>>

DAR
Exactly four. They will bump up against the constitution.

BD: If you want Sharia then go back where you came from, they already have it there. What about Canadians who come here for a better life?>>

DAR
And vice versa? Note: "According to Canada's Immigration Program (October 2004) Canada has the highest per capita immigration rate in the world." And the fourth largest group immigrating to Canada? Americans.

BD: They come here because they can make better money and have better opportunities but then set about trying to change things to be more like their home country.">>

DAR
Some come for the weather, or to be nearer to family members. As to making the US more like Canada, I've already shared long lists of standard quality of life indicators by which we judge successful societies, and in the Canada v. USA competition, it's hard to find a category or an overall objective analysis in which Canada doesn't come out better. Here is an interactive one Newsweek did. Canada comes in 7th, the US 11th. And note:

"For almost a decade (up to the year 2001), Canada was ranked number one among 175 countries in the United Nation's Quality of Life survey." LINK

So it's rather hard to make the case that people are leaving Canada because of societal problems. There is also the Human Development Index. Notice that in the list of "the list of the "Very High Development" countries:"

In 2008 Canada was 3rd, the US 15th.
In 2009 Canada was 4th, the US 11th.
In 2010 Canada was 8th, the US 4th. (Hurray! The USA won one! Maybe it's Obama and us hard working Canadians down here working to make it better?)

Oops, in this slightly different "Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index," which factors in inequalities in the three basic dimensions of human development (income, life expectancy, and education).

In 2010 Canada was 8th, the US 12th.

BD: They want universal health care so that those who pay taxes can foot the bill for those who do not.">>

DAR
Actually, that's what we have now silly bunny. Thirty million+ Americans getting last minute health care in emergency rooms and it's all being cost shifted to everyone else. How's that "paying a higher % of GDP than any peer county" working out for ya? Not very well. Do we really need to pay 18 times as much for an appendectomy as France? Really? Poor Bigd never could defend American healthcare. It's great in some respects but it's failings are profound as I've carefully documented.

BD: They bring a smug attitude about how superior they are and how much they know and think that their job is to better educate the dumb Americans.>>

DAR
Class is over Bigd, you ran.

BD: Why don’t they just stay in Canada?>>

DAR
Because you need our help.

BD: Perhaps they did not like waiting eight months for a colonoscopy, or a year for an MRI.">>

DAR
As you've been informed before (but who cares about those pesky facts eh?)

"The median wait time for diagnostic services such as MRI and CAT scans is two weeks with 86.4% waiting less than 3 months.” --LINK pdf

And this: "The David Thompson Health Region, which covers Stettler, confirmed the wait for colonoscopies is one to two months." Canada does have some wait time issues. Here's my excuse: It's big. A lot of people live out in the bushes. If they want to get in quicker, they may have to travel and go to a more populated area (the US has similar issues in rural areas). Most colonoscopies are not urgent. My doc just booked one for me, it'll be in six months. (oh no! That's going to look like a long wait time!)

BD: Perhaps the government taxed their goat farms and they could not write off their goats as prom dates.>>

DAR
If Bigd and Blake are so against sex with goats, as they claim, one wonders why they talk about it so much.

BD: Perhaps they did not like the wages they earned and the high taxes they paid. Who knows?>>

DAR
No, I don't think that's it. As explained to you many times:

“The average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent.” --LINK

The top income tax bracket in Canada is 29%. In the US it is 35%. However, they do pay more for their booze and cigarettes.

BD: But why do they come here and try to change things to what they left when they could just stay there and leave us alone?>>

DAR
That's what the Indians said. One can almost see Bigd's crocodile tears as he watches his country being taken over by Canadians.

BD: Not all people who come here are this way and many assimilate and make great contributions.>>

DAR
That's me, I've made many great contributions. In an hour I'll be preparing a piano for Randy Newman! That calls for a careful Canadians touch. And look how much assistance I've provided at your site!

BD: Unfortunately, a few bad apples arrive and give everyone a bad name. Time was immigrants arrived here, learned the language and assimilated. Now they arrive and think they own the place.>>

DAR
That's what the Indians said.

BD: I guess they are jealous that they were not chosen by God to be born in the greatest country in the world.>>

DAR
Hey Bigd, find me an objective analysis measuring quality of life that finds America achieving "greatest country in the world" status. Oh, you mean it like "greatest healthcare in the world." So, not really.

BD: At least most of them are not sneaking across the border like people from a certain country to our south. Those folks think they own the place so much so that they don’t even bother to get permission before entering.>>

DAR
I know Canadians that sneaked (lot's of Americans living in Canada too). Don't get too concerned about these temporary political lines and all of this nationalist, tribalistic bullshit. Someday they will be replaced with something else. And all of these political issues you get so jazzed about and waste your life worrying and lying and screaming about? In the long run, you are going to lose on nearly all of them. The narrow, conservative, regressive, racist, regional redneck party and it's ideals that you are so invested in, IS DOOMED. Watch and see.

D.

It's really difficult to fathom the bigotry and ignorance. Glad you had some fun with it.
Albert Einstein? Send him back.
Von Braun? Send him back.
Thomas Paine, clearly an immigrant well after the founding..send him back..oops they did.