I have two bones to pick with you guys. One for the left and one on the right.

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Many seem content just to hear themselves bitch. And I bet you most of them haven't even written their congressman to voice an opinion that may actually have an impact.

No doubt people don't write their reps. The easiest way to tell that they don't is that these reps KEEP FUCKING US. If the pressure was actually on from the electorate, the people would be getting what they want instead of the opposite.

Well I write, telegraph, e-mail, and telephone my reps on a pretty regular basis. I feel that is my responsibility as a patriotic American. And whether Republican or Democrat they get an earful of what I think about what they are doing about this or that. Sometimes I hear back from them. Most times I don't.

I also write Letters to the Editor and express my very strong opinions about this and that. Some are published. Most aren't. I sometimes call radio talk shows. Sometimes I get on. Usually I don't (mostly because I can't get through.)

I have no qualms or reservations in expressing my opinions about what I think our elected leaders should be doing when the issue is something I feel I have a good grasp of.

I do NOT have any knowledge of what our government is doing in hostage negotiations or troop movements or war initiatives, etc. So I keep my mouth shut re any criticism in those areas UNTIL our people are safely out of harm's way. THEN I might let the government people and/or the President have it if I think they/he screwed up. But I'm not going to give the enemy ammunition to use while the negotiations are going on.

Blunt responds to me but McCaskill never has once.

 

[Sunshine]

Many people think their personal feelings outweigh the possible safety of others

My ancestor in the American Revolution thought that our rights outweigh the possible safety of others, including himself.

You seem to have thoughts and feelings confused.

 

[Foxfyre]

Many people think their personal feelings outweigh the possible safety of others

My ancestor in the American Revolution thought that our rights outweigh the possible safety of others, including himself.

You seem to have thoughts and feelings confused.

That's funny. I don't know what my ancestors in the American Revolution thought, but I can't imagine ANY of the Founders suggesting that we exercise our rights at the expense of putting somebody else in unnecessary peril. Can you?

 

[Sunshine]

Many people think their personal feelings outweigh the possible safety of others

My ancestor in the American Revolution thought that our rights outweigh the possible safety of others, including himself.

You seem to have thoughts and feelings confused.

That's funny. I don't know what my ancestors in the American Revolution thought, but I can't imagine ANY of the Founders suggesting that we exercise our rights at the expense of putting somebody else in unnecessary peril. Can you?

They did it. Every last person who signed the Declaration of Independence could have gotten his entire family murdered by the crown.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

My ancestor in the American Revolution thought that our rights outweigh the possible safety of others, including himself.

You seem to have thoughts and feelings confused.

That's funny. I don't know what my ancestors in the American Revolution thought, but I can't imagine ANY of the Founders suggesting that we exercise our rights at the expense of putting somebody else in unnecessary peril. Can you?

They did it. Every last person who signed the Declaration of Independence could have gotten his entire family murdered by the crown.

Too funny.

You're equating your ramblings on the net to our founding fathers.

Someone needs a reality check.

 

[Sunshine]

That's funny. I don't know what my ancestors in the American Revolution thought, but I can't imagine ANY of the Founders suggesting that we exercise our rights at the expense of putting somebody else in unnecessary peril. Can you?

They did it. Every last person who signed the Declaration of Independence could have gotten his entire family murdered by the crown.

Too funny.

You're equating your ramblings on the net to our founding fathers.

Someone needs a reality check.

I see you're still drunk. You and your main squeeze TM musta had a late night of it.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

They did it. Every last person who signed the Declaration of Independence could have gotten his entire family murdered by the crown.

Too funny.

You're equating your ramblings on the net to our founding fathers.

Someone needs a reality check.

I see you're still drunk. You and your main squeeze TM musta had a late night of it.

I see you're still a bitch and incapable of bringing the conversation to an adult level.

 

[Paulie]

No doubt people don't write their reps. The easiest way to tell that they don't is that these reps KEEP FUCKING US. If the pressure was actually on from the electorate, the people would be getting what they want instead of the opposite.

Well I write, telegraph, e-mail, and telephone my reps on a pretty regular basis. I feel that is my responsibility as a patriotic American. And whether Republican or Democrat they get an earful of what I think about what they are doing about this or that. Sometimes I hear back from them. Most times I don't.

I also write Letters to the Editor and express my very strong opinions about this and that. Some are published. Most aren't. I sometimes call radio talk shows. Sometimes I get on. Usually I don't (mostly because I can't get through.)

I have no qualms or reservations in expressing my opinions about what I think our elected leaders should be doing when the issue is something I feel I have a good grasp of.

I do NOT have any knowledge of what our government is doing in hostage negotiations or troop movements or war initiatives, etc. So I keep my mouth shut re any criticism in those areas UNTIL our people are safely out of harm's way. THEN I might let the government people and/or the President have it if I think they/he screwed up. But I'm not going to give the enemy ammunition to use while the negotiations are going on.

Blunt responds to me but McCaskill never has once.

I get form letters back from Lobiondo. But he doesn't care about not receiving my one little vote. My district has been reelecting his sorry ass for years.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Well I write, telegraph, e-mail, and telephone my reps on a pretty regular basis. I feel that is my responsibility as a patriotic American. And whether Republican or Democrat they get an earful of what I think about what they are doing about this or that. Sometimes I hear back from them. Most times I don't.

I also write Letters to the Editor and express my very strong opinions about this and that. Some are published. Most aren't. I sometimes call radio talk shows. Sometimes I get on. Usually I don't (mostly because I can't get through.)

I have no qualms or reservations in expressing my opinions about what I think our elected leaders should be doing when the issue is something I feel I have a good grasp of.

I do NOT have any knowledge of what our government is doing in hostage negotiations or troop movements or war initiatives, etc. So I keep my mouth shut re any criticism in those areas UNTIL our people are safely out of harm's way. THEN I might let the government people and/or the President have it if I think they/he screwed up. But I'm not going to give the enemy ammunition to use while the negotiations are going on.

Blunt responds to me but McCaskill never has once.

I get form letters back from Lobiondo. But he doesn't care about not receiving my one little vote. My district has been reelecting his sorry ass for years.

The ones I get start off with one or two personal sentences but then appear mass produced and generic.

 

[Paulie]

Blunt responds to me but McCaskill never has once.

I get form letters back from Lobiondo. But he doesn't care about not receiving my one little vote. My district has been reelecting his sorry ass for years.

The ones I get start off with one or two personal sentences but then appear mass produced and generic.

That's what I mean by form letters. They're just generic template letters. That's what they send people when they know there's not enough pressure on them from the electorate to matter in their reelections. If there were enough people threatening them with their vote, there would be more action than just a template letter.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Timothy McVeigh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What the fuck Lakhota, you're using THIS to try to say McVeigh was a Christian? Really?
It says the opposite of what your insinuating. Are you stoned tonight or WHAT?

What he is trying to say is that McVeigh's deathbed conversion makes him Christian. Retroactively. McVeigh never pretended to be Christian. He was agnostic. Taking the last rites moments before death does not turn his lifetime into a Christian one.

Try as they will, they simply cannot equate the actions of any modern day Christians to the actions of modern day muslims. They want to equate WBC with the 9-11 terrorists and that just isn't going to happen. WBC is exercising constitutional rights. The SCOTUS has upheld their actions. And as Americans always do, once a right has been upheld in this manner we accept it, noxious though it may be to us, until another challenge comes along and changes it one way or another.

They try to bring in every little radical like McVeigh and Eric Rudolph, who said he preferred Nietzsche to the Bible, and claim they were Christian. They even try to bring in Jared Loughner who was a schizophrenic and killed in a psychotic state. They simply can't make it work. They have to hark back to a time in the world when people were too ignorant to even read what the Bible said and compare that with muslims who have access to and use modern technology to perpetrate acts of terrorism.

They even try to make the war in Iraq something perpetrated by Christians. They simply fail to acknowledge that our government is secular and the war in Iraq was an endeavor of our secular government.

Bottom line: They cannot equate anything that has happened in the current century perpetrated by Christians with atrocities perpetrated in the current century by muslims.

The link said that he was raised a Catholic, was baptized Catholic and was given last rights.

I'd say that makes him Catholic.

 

[Sunshine]

Blunt responds to me but McCaskill never has once.

I get form letters back from Lobiondo. But he doesn't care about not receiving my one little vote. My district has been reelecting his sorry ass for years.

The ones I get start off with one or two personal sentences but then appear mass produced and generic.

They giver our letters to their aids to answer.

 

[American Horse]

The link said that he was raised a Catholic, was baptized Catholic and was given last rights.

I'd say that makes him Catholic.

He was coincidentally a Catholic; The terrorist act he committed was not for the purpose of giving voice to his or any one else's version of Catholicism specifically or Christianity in general. There is no relative parallel except in the minds Of those of whom have an interest of perceiving one.

 

[Sunshine]

What the fuck Lakhota, you're using THIS to try to say McVeigh was a Christian? Really?
It says the opposite of what your insinuating. Are you stoned tonight or WHAT?

What he is trying to say is that McVeigh's deathbed conversion makes him Christian. Retroactively. McVeigh never pretended to be Christian. He was agnostic. Taking the last rites moments before death does not turn his lifetime into a Christian one.

Try as they will, they simply cannot equate the actions of any modern day Christians to the actions of modern day muslims. They want to equate WBC with the 9-11 terrorists and that just isn't going to happen. WBC is exercising constitutional rights. The SCOTUS has upheld their actions. And as Americans always do, once a right has been upheld in this manner we accept it, noxious though it may be to us, until another challenge comes along and changes it one way or another.

They try to bring in every little radical like McVeigh and Eric Rudolph, who said he preferred Nietzsche to the Bible, and claim they were Christian. They even try to bring in Jared Loughner who was a schizophrenic and killed in a psychotic state. They simply can't make it work. They have to hark back to a time in the world when people were too ignorant to even read what the Bible said and compare that with muslims who have access to and use modern technology to perpetrate acts of terrorism.

They even try to make the war in Iraq something perpetrated by Christians. They simply fail to acknowledge that our government is secular and the war in Iraq was an endeavor of our secular government.

Bottom line: They cannot equate anything that has happened in the current century perpetrated by Christians with atrocities perpetrated in the current century by muslims.

The link said that he was raised a Catholic, was baptized Catholic and was given last rights.

I'd say that makes him Catholic.

He said he was agnostic. At no point in time did he claim to have taken out that building in the name of any religion.

You were probably raised to be a human, but you turned out to be an ape. See how that works.

 

[Foxfyre]

The link said that he was raised a Catholic, was baptized Catholic and was given last rights.

I'd say that makes him Catholic.

He was coincidentally a Catholic; The terrorist act he committed was not for the purpose of giving voice to his or any one else's version of Catholicism specifically or Christianity in general. There is no relative parallel except in the minds Of those of whom have an interest of perceiving one.

Catholics rarely describe themselves as agnostics. We have a number of members on USMB who say they were raised as this or that brand of Chrsitianity, but then they renounced their Christian faith and describe themselves as agnostic or Atheist.

But whether you are Christian or skeptic or non-believer, a pro-scientist, a libertarian, or NRA member or whatever, there's something for just about everybody here among the guilt-by-association advocates.

. . . .In a letter to the Buffalo News daily in New York state yesterday, McVeigh used the word "sorry" for the first time, but instantly rendered it meaningless. "I am sorry these people had to lose their lives," he wrote. "But that's the nature of the beast. It's understood going in what the human toll will be."

There was anger in Oklahoma City yesterday after his claim that the bombing of a federal government building was a "legit tactic" in his war against the excesses of central government. Yesterday, his lawyer compared his role to that of a pilot who drops a bomb on a foreign country killing women and children. "He does feel for people but he doesn't feel like he did anything wrong," Mr Nigh said.

In his letter, McVeigh said he was an agnostic but that he would "improvise, adapt and overcome", if it turned out there was an afterlife. "If I'm going to hell," he wrote, "I'm gonna have a lot of company." His body is to be cremated and his ashes scattered in a secret location. . . .
McVeigh faces day of reckoning | World news | The Guardian

Monday, 20 October 2008 15:28

Timothy James McVeigh

Born: April 23, 1968, Pendleton, New York, U.S.A.

Died: June 11, 2001. Terre Haute, Indiana, U.S.A.

Age: 33

Cause of death: Lethal injection.

Notable because: Army hero turns against the system he fought for.



Timothy James McVeigh was a United States Army veteran and security guard who bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City on the second anniversary of the Waco Siege, as revenge against what he considered to be a tyrannical federal government. The bombing killed 168 people, and was the deadliest act of terrorism within the United States prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks.

He was convicted of 11 federal offenses, and was sentenced to death and executed for the April 19, 1995 bombing.

McVeigh was born to an Irish Catholic family in Lockport, New York, and raised in nearby Pendleton, along with two sisters.

He was picked on by bullies at school, and took refuge in a fantasy world in which he retaliated against them; he would later come to regard the U.S. Government as the ultimate bully. He earned his high school diploma from Starpoint Central High School. His parents, Mildred Noreen ("Mickey") Hill and William McVeigh, divorced when he was ten years old. McVeigh was known throughout his life as a loner; his only known affiliations were voter registration with the Republican Party when he lived in New York, and a membership in the National Rifle Association while in the military. Despite the former, he self-identified as a libertarian in a statement that was reported by MSNBC.com and The Washington Post; and in 1996, while in federal prison, he voted for Libertarian candidate Harry Browne in the United States presidential election, 1996. . . .

. . . .After his parents' divorce, McVeigh lived with his father; his sisters moved to Florida with their mother. He and his father were devout Roman Catholics who often attended daily Mass. In a recorded interview with Time Magazine. McVeigh professed his belief in "a God", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "never really picked it [back] up". The Guardian reported that McVeigh wrote a letter claiming to be an agnostic. He was given the Catholic sacrament of Viaticum before his execution. McVeigh believed the universe was guided by natural law, energized by some universal higher power that showed each person right from wrong if they paid attention to what was going on inside them. He said, "Science is my religion." . . .
Timothy McVeigh

However, for those who think describing themselves as or voting libertarian is not a factor in making a person violent, nor is being bullied as a kid--have ANY of us escaped that entirely?--nor is being a child of divorcees, nor is being registered Republican, nor is being raised as a Christian and renouncing that faith, or any of dozens of other factors that the naive might call suspect.

And as not one of them has demonstrated a propensity for violence or lawlessness or unusual ways of looking at things, I don't think there is anything to fear from any of the GOP hopefuls, not even Santorum, re their respective religious beliefs.

 

[candycorn]

We'll start with the left.

All the hate and mockery topics about Santorum and his religious beliefs. You scream about tolerance in all areas until a devout Christian speaks his mind. He has made it clear they are his beliefs and that is the extent of it. But you all post hate topics non stop. I'm not a believer but I am of the mind that to each his own. Many of you on the other hand can't seem to grasp the hypocrisy of your positions.

Now the right....

We have both soldiers and captives (in Egypt) in harms way. Yet many of you are all to happy to jump on the Obama is a fuck up bandwagon and critique or even slam the way he is dealing with the holy book situation. Lives are at stake and NO ONE knows if the way he is handling it may end up saving lives or torture of captives. We have plenty of reasons to want Obama out and this isn't one of them.

Playing in the mud can be fun on here but to me both of these issues are over the top when they are addressed in such a frivolous manner.

Hypocrisy? Now thats funny considering the source.

Santorum's positions define intolerance; faith is his business. If he wants to translate the Ward Cleaver style positions into law, people have a right to oppose. That the positions are so out of step with the 20th century (never mind the 21st), mockery is the proper response. I keep going back to his statement about a time when he was 7 years old and supposedly thought to himself (regarding his late Grandfather), "His hands dug freedom for me." Yeah...he really had that thought when he was 7. Santorum is basically a Gingrich in the making. When he's playing celebrity golf next year and is commenting on Fox, he'll be endorsing childhood janitorial apprenticeships too; we've just not had time to hear all of his silly ideas yet.

As for your other point...

The right hates Obama because he is black. Pure and simple. He killed the #1 terrorist in the world and Mudwhistle called it a mistake. Look it up if you don't believe me. We're no longer fighting in Iraq. The right called it a mistake. We aided Libyan rebels. It was called a mistake. When he's a hawk, the right jumps on him. When he's a dove, the right jumps on him. It's because he's black and no other reason. Lets not even talk about the birther issue where someone from the right called him a Kenyan earlier this month. Bripat (I believe) agreed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

He was coincidentally a Catholic; The terrorist act he committed was not for the purpose of giving voice to his or any one else's version of Catholicism specifically or Christianity in general. There is no relative parallel except in the minds Of those of whom have an interest of perceiving one.

Which would be true of anyone committing a criminal ace, whatever his faith, or no faith at all.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

We'll start with the left.

All the hate and mockery topics about Santorum and his religious beliefs. You scream about tolerance in all areas until a devout Christian speaks his mind. He has made it clear they are his beliefs and that is the extent of it. But you all post hate topics non stop. I'm not a believer but I am of the mind that to each his own. Many of you on the other hand can't seem to grasp the hypocrisy of your positions.

Now the right....

We have both soldiers and captives (in Egypt) in harms way. Yet many of you are all to happy to jump on the Obama is a fuck up bandwagon and critique or even slam the way he is dealing with the holy book situation. Lives are at stake and NO ONE knows if the way he is handling it may end up saving lives or torture of captives. We have plenty of reasons to want Obama out and this isn't one of them.

Playing in the mud can be fun on here but to me both of these issues are over the top when they are addressed in such a frivolous manner.

Hypocrisy? Now thats funny considering the source.

Santorum's positions define intolerance; faith is his business. If he wants to translate the Ward Cleaver style positions into law, people have a right to oppose. That the positions are so out of step with the 20th century (never mind the 21st), mockery is the proper response. I keep going back to his statement about a time when he was 7 years old and supposedly thought to himself (regarding his late Grandfather), "His hands dug freedom for me." Yeah...he really had that thought when he was 7. Santorum is basically a Gingrich in the making. When he's playing celebrity golf next year and is commenting on Fox, he'll be endorsing childhood janitorial apprenticeships too; we've just not had time to hear all of his silly ideas yet.

As for your other point...

The right hates Obama because he is black. Pure and simple. He killed the #1 terrorist in the world and Mudwhistle called it a mistake. Look it up if you don't believe me. We're no longer fighting in Iraq. The right called it a mistake. We aided Libyan rebels. It was called a mistake. When he's a hawk, the right jumps on him. When he's a dove, the right jumps on him. It's because he's black and no other reason. Lets not even talk about the birther issue where someone from the right called him a Kenyan earlier this month. Bripat (I believe) agreed.

While I agree that Santorums ideas on birth control are nutty I hardly see the imposition on others that many claim he wants to impose.

As far as your other claim..... Only idiots traffic in such nonsense.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

He was coincidentally a Catholic; The terrorist act he committed was not for the purpose of giving voice to his or any one else's version of Catholicism specifically or Christianity in general. There is no relative parallel except in the minds Of those of whom have an interest of perceiving one.

Which would be true of anyone committing a criminal ace, whatever his faith, or no faith at all.

He didn't commit a criminal act. He commited an act of terrorism. An act of crimes against humanity, a war crime.

Not an act for your local cops to investigate.

You guys like to label hate crimes but when it comes to terrorism its nothing more than a crime.



You are a fraud

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

A white kills a black or a gay and it gets the label of a hate crime regardless if hate was involved. A Muslim kills Americans and instead of being called what it is, its labeled a overseas contingency plan.

Idiot libs think labels only work against white people.