Anti-religious bias
Luciano Pavarotti, a singer, died. Several pages of newspaper coverage was dedicated to him — in color, no less.
The Rev. D. James Kennedy, an evangelical conservative minister and broadcaster, also died. Two hundred words and a small black-and-white picture were dedicated to him.
Certainly the bias of the media was exhibited by that approach, but let’s consider something else: Which of the two will have had the most lasting impact when all is said and done?
George Lilly, Denver
"Which of the two will have had the most lasting impact when all is said and done?"
Which had the most beneficial and lasting impact?
Clearly, that would be Pavarotti, whose singing was an example of the best of our species, and deserves to be remembered.
Not then an issue of bias, as much as one of good taste.
Pavarotti is far more well known than Kennedy. I doubt either will have any lasting impact at all on the average person, but celebrity status is news.. even if it shouldn't be.
Posted by Kyle on September 15, 2007 02:39 AMSkank :
Impact on history is unbiased. Memory doesn't care, good or bad,
50 years from now the one with the biggest tombstone might be noticed. 500 years, no one will care.
Neither of these guys meant much to me, but I at least knew who Pavorotti was. He probably brought his fans joy, while Kennedy probably put the fear of god in his fans.
AF
Posted by on September 15, 2007 07:56 AMPavarotti reached millions, all over the world, with the beauty of music.
The other guy reached those who wanted to hear the confirmation of their own superstitions, prejudices, self-righteousness, bigotry, and feelings of superiority.
Pavarotti's passing is a loss for all humanity.
The other guy is replaceable by any other Preacher anywhere, anytime. No loss at all.
As with Enrico Caruso, Pavarotti's impact on the world as a whole will be remembered down through Centuries.
What was that other guy's name again?
Posted by Old Grouch on September 15, 2007 07:58 AMGeorge,
I have no doubt that in the metro area there is a teacher working daily with students or a priest ministering to a parish that will do more good work in a week then the Bronco quarterback will do in a lifetime.
The fact that the teacher or priest work in relative anonimty for small material reward while the name of the quarterback will be on the lips of the multitude and lives in Cherry Hills is not an indication of social bias. It is in the nature of the life we choose that we find that service is its own reward.
I doubt that either of these men was envious of the other. They will both be missed - that will have to be sufficient for those who remain behind.
So you've added prescience to your ability of all-knowing, Old Grouch? You must be pretty high on yourself.
Posted by on September 15, 2007 08:03 AMOld Grouch,
You are a pitch-perfect leftist.
It is not surprising that you would insult this man's memory even as he is lowered into his grave.
You imagine yourself full of compassion for humanity but in fact have nothing but contempt for human beings.
George Lilly asked:
"Which of the two will have had the most lasting impact when all is said and done?"
If you're expecting the RMN to weigh stories based on this criteria you will be disappointed. Crime is the main ingredient in this paper these days...which does make me wonder why your Preacher didn't get much ink.
Perhaps writing an article about Kennedy for your Church bulletin would help slake your thirst for equity, but make sure you write of Pavarotti as well, you don't want to show any bias now do you?
Posted by Charles B on September 15, 2007 08:46 AMJJ weighs in:
"It is not surprising that you would insult this man's memory even as he is lowered into his grave."
It is not surprising that George Lilly would use this man's memory to try and score a cheap political point about alleged "bias" in the RMN.
Meanwhile the same paper runs this story front and center on Saturday:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5698742,00.html
I guess it just don't feel right to be a Christian if you can't convince yourself you're being persecuted.
Posted by Charles B on September 15, 2007 08:58 AMCharles B,
Well, as we all know already, Jimmy - trying desperately to become Jesus - Jones has to put his oar in, with what he wants to be the "last word".
The question had to do with "lasting impact."
But, never mind what that might mean. For Jonesy it is just another springboard from which to fly off on whatever his own imagination of what ANY meaning ought to be - according to him, that is.
And, of course, as you say, he would find "persecution" there, even if someone were to be praising the Preacher. As with the 08:03 AM anonymous poster, the actual evidence of both history, and the breadth of difference between world-wide exposure and the correspondingly minuscule number of people who ever even heard of the Preacher, is left out of consideration.
But then again, there is so little touch with basic reality to be found in so many of those who are the most vocal in their affirmations of religious "superiority", that it is not at all surprising to read their inability to even find the point, much less reply to a point as made.
Which, among other things, does serve to make the forum fun.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 15, 2007 09:25 AMWho?
Posted by Colorado Dave on September 15, 2007 09:26 AMOld Grouch,
This is how you describe Dr. Kennedy on the event of his death.
"The other guy is replaceable by any other Preacher anywhere, anytime. No loss at all."
Now you pretend to be a caring, compassionate liberal motivated by concern for the good of humanity.
In fact you are an empty vessel of leftism so filled with vanity and sanctimony you are unable to extend the common decency of good manners to the memory of the recently departed.
True tyranny will always come from the left because their reflexive disrespect for the dignity of the individual.
You offer us an up close look at the vulgar reality.
JJ, he can`t be an empty vessel and filled. Don`t mix your metaphors.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 15, 2007 10:15 AMI cannot believe the letter writer had the audacity to propose such inanity and fatuousness.
Posted by Sheila on September 15, 2007 10:18 AMBoy, Jones, whatever side of the bed you got up on, you should get up on the other side from now on. What gross hyperbole you engage in. And you claim to be a good Christian man. Shameful! I hereby sentence you to count to a hundred before you submit your next post. Slow to wrath, my boy. You don't want to be caught exalting folly again.
Posted by Truth on September 15, 2007 10:41 AMSharon B,
Right your are. Make that
empty vessel of leftism, devoid of any sense of human decency,
Better?
Posted by James Jones on September 15, 2007 11:17 AMYes George, we all know that conservatives need their steady diet of fear, perceived prosecution and blind obedience.
No doubt that the finer things in life, the things that bring beauty to this world--music, art, comedy--allude your small mind.
Posted by No Doubt... on September 15, 2007 11:28 AMTruth,
What I know about Dr. Kennedy is that he was a man. He had parents and probably a family, perhaps wife and children.
In any event, there were no doubt people in his life who loved and cared about him. Those people today suffer an irretrievable loss in their own lives.
But in the Grouch's eyes he committed the unforgivable crime against society - he proclaimed Christianity. Not only was he religious, he publically practiced his religion. For the Grouch this is a crime for which there is no forgiveness - not even in the grave.
It is a moral outrage to use the event of a man's death to describe him as useless and his life as worthless. If you feel no sense of personal outrage, then that is your loss.
But even if that is the case, consider this:
It is a short step from characterizing people as useless and their lives as worthless to rounding them up for the Gulag. In fact, those characterizations are the necessary first step.
As usual with Jonesy, such a wholesale return of conjecture on such a trifling - really non-esistent - investment of fact.
Anyone else reminded of that good old Looney Tunes character, Foghorn B. Leghorn?
Ah! Well! Infinitesimally small ideas always get blown all out of proportion by big mouthed small minds in swelled heads anyway.
Keep right on keeping on, Jonesy. You're making points towards that Jesus designation.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 15, 2007 11:51 AMWho has the most lasting impact today: Billy Sunday or Enrico Caruso?
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 15, 2007 11:54 AMGrouch,
"As usual with Jonesy, such a wholesale return of conjecture on such a trifling - really non-esistent - investment of fact."
I make no conjecture. This is what you posted:
The other guy reached those who wanted to hear the confirmation of their own superstitions, prejudices, self-righteousness, bigotry, and feelings of superiority.
The other guy is replaceable by any other Preacher anywhere, anytime. No loss at all.
What was that other guy's name again?
Posted by Old Grouch on September 15, 2007 07:58 AM
The facts don't always speak for themselves, so I point them out for you.
Posted by James Jones on September 15, 2007 12:16 PMStan Broyles,
You can still get records of Caruso's voice; and hear for yourself what he presented - even with all the faults and failings of the old wax cylinder recording machines.
As to Billy Sunday . . . well . . . I don't know of any tent show Revival Meetings cruising the countryside today; and, other than as a mention in a work on the history of religion, who knows the difference between him and Billy Graham, or Pat Robertson, or the late Falwell, etc., etc? Or, for that matter, the names of those who were famous in the "Great Burned Over" period of the early 18th Century out on the East Coast.
Which simply goes to the point I made earlier. As Preacher, they are all more or less totally interchageable; and virtually indistinguishable, whatever be the personal, or familial - or even group - loss with respect to the individual as human being. (Which form of loss was never the point of the original question to begin with anyway.)
Posted by Old Grouch on September 15, 2007 12:18 PMPovaratti was known by many more people then the Rev. this is a newspaper i am sure that the singer would draw more readers then the Rev.; not an example fo bias reporting
Old Grouch =
BIGOTRY,
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own
Old Grouch,
"As Preacher, they are all more or less totally interchageable; and virtually indistinguishable, whatever be the personal, or familial .."
Exactly, in order to villify the man you first have to strip him of his humanity and reduce him to some loathsome object.
Just as Jews must be stripped of their humanity before they can be gassed and thrown in the ovens. No moral person would do such a thing to a fellow human being.
So at the time of his death, you must reduce Dr. Kennedy to what you view as a loathsome object - A Preacher. Once he is reduced to that state, you are perfectly comfortable in passing the judgement
"The other guy is replaceable by any other Preacher anywhere, anytime. No loss at all."
Of course you would never say anything that unfeeling about your fellow man as he goes to the grave - you would make such statements only about contemptible objects; Preachers for instance.
Posted by James Jones on September 15, 2007 12:52 PMAh! That Jonesy.
He huffs and puffs, and huffs and puffs, and huffs and puffs, and huffs and . . . . Too bad he never gets anywhere, just spinning his wheels.
But, he is giving us an excellent example of what it takes to make a Preacher! Lots of noise, and no real foundation, or content, in the whole of the sermon.
Keep on keeping on, old boy! Don't let the absense of facts stop you when you've managed to get all this reved up, Rev.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 15, 2007 01:11 PMGrouch,
Absence of facts?
Well, let's see now. I have your posts - that's about all really.
I do not expect you to understand my posts but, I do expect you to understand your own. The problem is you don't have the integrity to acknowledge the plain meaning and ineluctable ramifications of your statements.
The remarkable thing is that you think you can hide. That even with the printed word fully in view, you think you can disguise the truth with obfuscation.
So now I'm a Preacher too? That figures.
You don't have to be religious to comport yourself with a sense of ordinary decency that begins with the respect of human dignity.
I know nothing about Dr. Kennedy, but I'd take long odds that he never abused anyone in his life as you have abused him on this day, on this page at the time of his passing.
And that's right out there for all to see because you put it there.
Posted by James Jones on September 15, 2007 02:10 PMJonesy,
The heading of the letter was: "Anti-Religious Bias".
The burden of the letter was that Pavarotti got more newspaper space than Kennedy when they both passed away.
The question was: "Which of the two will have had the most lasting impact when all is said and done."
From my reply you have confected several sermons, the contents of which are based NOT upon what I replied, but rather, on what YOU imagine to be the content of the reply. As sermons, they are all full of concern about my being - among other stupid and idiotic sermonizing points - "an empty vessel of leftism". and "insulting Kennedy on his death", along with my "having no respect for human beings"; and some more idiocies that you dreamed up as you went along.
I did, indeed, say that as a Preacher he was, as are nearly all of that ilk, interchangeable and indistinguishable. Which, if you actually ever read what I say Jones, is just ONE of the reasons I've said so often that YOU are perfectly suited for the Pulpit yourself. And, yes indeed, I do have a great deal of contempt for that particular trade.
As for the rest, as a Preacher does, you went on to even greater heights of telling the world all about what YOU felt was wrong with me. Again proving that when you know nothing about something, that's the time you sound off, loudest and longest, from YOUR imagination of what something is - and or about the imaginary faults in another person's character - as a Preacher does.
YOU'RE offended - even though YOU were never the object of the letter, or its reply, in the first place. And, even though the entire offense is nothing more than made up whole-cloth in YOUR imagination, I am supposed to take that seriously. Yep! Preacher all right! Lots of hot air and conclusions, all from YOUR personal imagination, without a hint of basic facts, or reality.
In reply to the topic - and question - of the letter itself, I'll repeat. Pavarotti reached millions throughout the world, with the universal beauty of music. His passing is a loss for all humanity. Kennedy reached a limited number of those who wanted to be reached, with what they wanted to hear. Preachers are, for the most part, interchangeable and indistinguishable, one from another, and easily replacable as Preachers, which is no loss at all. Thus, since music is of universal interest and meaning, as with Enrico Caruso, Pavarotti's impact on the world as a whole will be remembered down through the Centuries. Which will make Pavarotti's life have the most lasting impact of the two.
Now, go tell your Mommy you've preached a long winded sermon against the Old Grouch, and that she needs you.
Grouch,
So you would have me believe you were making the point that there are more preachers than opera singers so the loss of the preacher, here and there, is not as significant as the loss of an opera singer.
Baloney. But this is important so I will parse your posts so no doubt will remain about the quality of your character.
"The other guy reached those who wanted to hear the confirmation of their own superstitions, prejudices, self-righteousness, bigotry, and feelings of superiority."
This is to dehumanize and reduce him to a contemptible object which makes him a legitimate target of your sanctimony.
"The other guy is replaceable by any other Preacher anywhere, anytime. No loss at all."
Now that he has been dehumanized you are comfortable in judging on his passing that he was a inconsequential man who lived a meaningless life.
"What was that other guy's name again?"
There is no point in that remark other than it appeals to your vanity to offer gratutious insults - even to the recently departed.
And now comes
"YOU'RE offended - even though YOU were never the object of the letter, or its reply, in the first place."
That's right. I was not the target and i am offended.
I am sure you are puzzled why anyone would take the time to defend the memory of a man who was in his life a stranger.
It is a requirement of honouring human dignity.
If you had any honour, you would apologize. Not to me, but to Dr. Kennedy and everyone that mourns his death.
Posted by James Jones on September 15, 2007 04:12 PMIt's bad enough for a person to be full of hyperbole, but even worse when he actually believes his hyperbole as Jones does.
Jones faults Old Grouch for saying:
"The other guy is replaceable by any other Preacher anywhere, anytime. No loss at all.
What was that other guy's name again?"
Presumably based on that saying, Jones accuses Old Grouch of having nothing but contempt for human beings and of characterizing Kennedy as useless and as having lived a worthless life.
That is hyperbole in capital letters. That is non sequitur in capital letters. It is the product of a person who has little control over his temper and over his reasoning powers. In the vernacular, it is nothing but BS.
Posted by Truth on September 15, 2007 04:55 PMJJ, haven't you realized by now that Old Grouch calls himself by that name to make his 20 upper class Boulderite years seem like something significant?
I'd say Old Grouch is winning this little debate. Congratulations!
Posted by Sue DohNim on September 15, 2007 05:14 PMClearly OG has contempt for the vocation of preacher.
Nothing he said precludes that though the departed had a contemptible job he was a good father etc. Jimmy made that up. All the rest about gassing Jews was an extension of that folly. OG did no dehumanizing, only insulting the man's chosen profession.
And preachers like politicians are many; some exceptional and others not, but many are capable of filling the role.
Pavarotti was a once in a generation freak of nature.
Posted by James Jesus Jones is a glow in the dark bitch on September 15, 2007 06:05 PMPavarotti was more than a "freak of nature". You have to use your talents. Many people could have sung like Pavarotti but it takes more than a little drive to succeed. Perhaps Dr. Kennedy used his talents in much the same way but I doubt he pleased his listeners to the same extent.
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 15, 2007 06:16 PMPavarotti was more than a "freak of nature". You have to use your talents. Many people could have sung like Pavarotti but it takes more than a little drive to succeed. Perhaps Dr. Kennedy used his talents in much the same way but I doubt he pleased his listeners to the same extent.
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 15, 2007 06:17 PMJJ, yes.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 15, 2007 06:42 PMAnyone remember who else died the same time Jerry Falwell did? "Anti-religious bias" indeed.
In 1989, when Lucille Ball and Sir Laurence Olivier died at roughly the same time, in many newspapers Lucy's death was the headline and Olivier's was reported on the front page below the fold. That obviously showed an anti-titled-Englishman bias, right?
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on September 16, 2007 09:36 AMFirst, a THANK YOU! to those who have offered their thoughts on the difference between the REALITY of what I posted and the subsequent vituperation from Jones concerning what HE imagines was there.
Usually, I try to avoid the "apologia pro vita sua" approach, as I think I have reached the point in life - as well as the age - when it is pretty much a matter of "take it as is - warts and all - and deal with it accordingly." But there does seem to be an inordinate amount of inability to deal with the "as it is" - rather than the, "as I think it sould be" - on the part of some who have need to correct the PERSON rather than deal with the topic, point of view, or presented thoughts.
I do have a low opinion of preachers, in general. Some 70+ years of having to deal with them, in various ways, has managed to give me a rather jaundiced eye when viewing them in "action". A goodly part of this view comes from the fact that, working for nearly 50 years in the mental health area - some 45+ of them as a head shrinker - has meant that I have met a goodly number of those unfortunates whose lives have been distorted and damaged in some way by one or another of the sharks, barracudas, pirhannas, and other denizens of the religion business; call them preachers, pastors, priests, or whatever title they choose to use.
As individuals, with individual and personal lives, loves, families, friends, etc., those in religion rarely, if ever, become well known to a therapist. And that is well and good. On the other hand, as a business, religion as such is one of the most fertile areas for creating the kind of dependency which allows the worst possible damage to be done to the lives and Psyches of the dependents. And, in religion today - as throughout the Centuries - we find those for whom the power over others is far more important than even the most beautiful, sensible, reasonable, and practicable of tenets, dogmas, and beliefs.
And nowhere else in life can we, or do we, find more damage done than by those who trumpet "God's politics", "God's word", "God's laws", "God's social programs", "God's war support", "God's economics", "God's wrath", "God's punishment" and all the rest of the ways in which "God" - by way of the religious leader - is supposed to rule over others.
All of which are, of course, absolutely binding upon the ruled over - with the most severe consequences for failing to obey in every jot and tittle - but, when it comes to the religious leader, are really nothing more than a matter of not getting caught himself.
Thus, when I hear someone - anyone - proclaiming HIS superior status of knowing all about - or of enforcing over others - "God" in some way, I am neither impressed, nor am I much inclined to respect that person's job title. And I'm even less inclined to feel any obligation of respect towards the religious business that employs him - whatever may be his PERSONAL virtues and goodness.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 16, 2007 09:50 AMI had never heard of the reverend, but Pavorotti was extremely well-known and loved around the world.
His talent and charisma deserve to be recognized. He was a rarity for our times -- a celebrity with class and intelligence.
Posted by Tree Hugger on September 16, 2007 11:41 AM
How about these quote from the dear departed:
"Adult sex with children has been a crucial component of the homosexual movement all along."
Is that as bad as what OG said?
"Not all the educators in our public schools and universities are deliberately deceitful, not all of them want to destroy this nation, but many do. The major teachers' unions certainly do."
So he clearly was a liar, breaking one of the commandments Jimmy Jesus loves so much.
"Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society."
Since Jesus Jones acknowledges the doctrine of separation of church and state as a central Christian tenet, JJJ must admit the man was also a bad Christian.
Posted by James Jesus Jones is a glow in the dark bitch on September 16, 2007 12:39 PM
Good riddance to yet another rabid, hysterical, anti-freedom, conservative preacher. What is this the third religious manic leader to die this year. Not bad.
Posted by Sean on September 16, 2007 01:13 PMPeople wonder how it is the holocaust could have occured in Germany in the min-20th Century. These were not the Dark Ages. Germany was the land of Bach and art museums.
How could these people have allowed this terrible thing to happen in their midst?
Watching you people dance of Dr. Kennedy's grave provides the answer - certainty.
You are so complacent in your moral certianity that it is but a moments work to reduce a man to an object. And not just any object, a despicable, loathsome criminal trying to usurp the just powers of government in his evil rampage.
That is exactly what the Nazi's had to do with the Jews to justify their savagery.
What happened with the Third Reich could happen anywhere at anytime. In isn't some special problem of the German people.
There is a thin veneer in every society that protects decent people from unpseakable savagery lurking just below. In this thread it becomes clear just how thin the veneer is.
Dr. Kennedy was a human being and however disugsting you find him you should recall that you have something in common with him - mortality.
As improbable as it may seem to you, one day you life will, just as Dr. Kennedy's has, come to an end. Death is the great leveler.
Your inability to extend to Dr. Kennedy the compassion we extend to convicted murders on their execution tells us a great deal.
You are certain.
Posted by James Jones on September 16, 2007 06:42 PMGood Lord, Jones, you are really a died-in-the-wool hypocrite. Your disgusting treatment of Old Grouch completely belies sincerity of your comments. Just as you have the right to praise Kennedy, others have the right to speak their opinions about him. The fact that a person in the public eye has died does not in any way mean that only good things can be said about him. Your post is sick with sanctimonious palaver. You have never been one to shy away from speaking ill about those who disagree with you.
Posted by Truth on September 16, 2007 07:22 PMJJJetc., & K&Hetc.,
Thank you for your postings concerning the message the man was presenting as being "christian". I had not even known that he was a close collegue of Falwell, much less about his ideas of "Dominion", or takeover of American life in all ways, along with forcing his brand of fanatical ideology down everyone else's throat. I am afraid that if I had, I would have been a great deal more caustic than I was when I answered the question about "lasting influence" in the original letter.
Just in passing, I wonder what the man proposed to do about the Jews in this country, after taking it over for his own brand of "christians/christianity". Following the "logic" of Jones - to abuse the word greatly - it would appear that we should all have had - and perhaps continue to have(?) - compassion for Hitler, Himmler, Mengele, Eichmann, and such, since they too shared our human mortality; and Jones appears to be very concerned about what happened to the Jews in Germany, after Hitler took over - with the conivance of Romanism, and the "christian" cults - on the basis of restoring Germany's "moral order".
It would appear that the matter is one of the success in governmental takeover - and enforceent of its own brand of religious fanaticism on a Nation - of one movement, Nazism in Germany, and the failure, at least to date, of another, "christian" Dominionism in the USA; with Jones advocating the position that the failure of the latter movement necessitates special compassion for its leader; though whether that compassion is more necessary because he failed, or because his self-proclaimed leadership was always supposedly "christian" remains - more or less as usual with anything from Jones - totally obfuscated by pointless personal rhetoric.
Thank you all again for bringing up more facts; and helping to place the whole matter in better perspective.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 16, 2007 07:51 PMJJ thinks anyone who is not in total, lock-step agreement with him is wrong. What nonsense! First of all, the many of us who've posted about this letter are not the ones pontificating and pledging to force our views on a nation. Fact...Dr. Kennedy was intolerant of those, even fellow Christians, who did not agree with his narrow view. My opinion of him is based on views that came from his very own mouth. So JJ, again, if you think that forming an opinion about Dr. Kennedy based on his views and the many published instances of those views, is "savagery" as you say it, then I guess that makes us all a bunch of savages. Not that I really care what you think, because, I don't see your opinion based on objective analysis of Kennedy's views and words.
In your blatant hypocrisy, you don't mention any of Kennedy's "savagery" in his attacks and assaults on any and every person who didn't follow his own narrow view. But, why should we expect anything other than this from you. I don't see you acknowledging the many people Dr. Kennedy reduced to objects in his infinite rants.
As far as mortality goes, at least I'll die knowing I didn't pontificate about forcing my views on others. I hope for your sake that you can say the same.
Posted by Keith and Hank sittin' in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G on September 16, 2007 07:58 PMJimmy's last missive was one of the blackest kettle pot-callings I've ever witnessed.
The richest irony was him accusing liberals of certainty. It was our Preznit, who JJJ endlessly supports, whose certainty got us into the worst foreign policy blunder in our history. After all he didn't ask his father, the former president who had previously gone to war in Iraq, for advice, he relied on his "higher father." It's only the religious nutters who posess true certainty.
Jesus Jones exhibits a particularly conservative trait of confusing behaviour and essence. Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jews for what they were, conversion could not save them. Old Grouch and the rest of us dislike dominionists for what they do, not who they are. If they keep their religious beliefs out of my life, I'm fine with them.
But JJ thinks what we do is who we are, and therefore liberals can be dehumanized because we're all the same, just like Hitler thought all Jews were the same.
"True tyranny will always come from the left because their reflexive disrespect for the dignity of the individual."
Since we're true tyrants all, nothing we say has merit, and we can be rounded up for the gas chamber.
Rev. Kennedy and the Hanks, Keiths, and An Americans of this forum exhibit similar certaintly in their calling liberals traitors, America haters, etc.
"Your inability to extend to Dr. Kennedy the compassion we extend to convicted murders on their execution tells us a great deal.
You are certain. "
The notion that the departed reverend is being treated worse than a murderer at their execution is a particularly vivid hallucination.
If disrespect for the dead is a uniquely liberal trait, see what was posted here when Molly Ivins died.
"The loss of columnist Molly Ivins was no great loss to the Rocky. We all go sooner or later, and, thankfully, Molly has gone."
rockymountainnews.com/denver/letters/2007/02/the_rocky.html#comments
rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion/article/0,1299,DRMN_38_5347556,00.html
And remeber Jimmy, it was government favoritism to particular religious beliefs that enabled the holocaust, something the departed reverend Kennedy endorsed.
"There is a thin veneer in every society that protects decent people from unpseakable savagery lurking just below. In this thread it becomes clear just how thin the veneer is."
Indeed, you demonstrate it regularly. You pontificate and insult people you disagree with because, like Jesus, you know what's best for everyone, though I doubt when Jesus criticized people he went out of his way to insult them because he enjoyed it.
Posted by on September 16, 2007 09:39 PMAnd K&H SIATK:
I like the way you talk.
Posted by James Jesus Jones is a glow in the dark bitch on September 16, 2007 09:40 PM9:39 was me.
but let’s consider something else: Which of the two will have had the most lasting impact when all is said and done?
George Lilly, Denver
********************************************
Ahhh....that would be Pavarotti.
Next question, George.
And BTW...NPR ran an interview, just the other day, about the late reverend Kennedy, douche bag.
Posted by Grim Reefer on September 16, 2007 10:10 PMJimmy-Jeezus said ” What happened with the Third Reich could happen anywhere at anytime. In isn't some special problem of the German people.
There is a thin veneer in every society that protects decent people from unpseakable savagery lurking just below. In this thread it becomes clear just how thin the veneer is.”
Yup, and you and your buddies regularly toy with that beast, don’t you.
The Nazi’s thought they could fix what they saw as an immoral culture by stirring those unconscious primitive currents. The religious-right like playing the same game in the US
Real Leo Strauss stuff.
Perhaps you should take more care Jimmy, you play with fire, you will wet your bed.
Posted by Bango Skank on September 17, 2007 12:04 AMBango Skank is true to his immoral leftist teachings and is also prone to re-writing history as were the left wingers after WII ended.
Liars trying to distance themseves from one their counterparts. The other being the communists and trying to make the Nazi's out to be "Right Wing". These dandies belong to you poop pants.
The National "Socialist" German Workers Party. Big goverment, goverment controlled, sound familiar. Your tactics of the "Big" lie are text book Hitler. It is luducrous to compare The Religious Right to the Godless Nazi's. That's more up your alley there left wingnut.
Look who's warning who about toying with the beast.
You and your buddies are the ones tugging at the tigers tail but you are cowards by nature and will crawl back under your rock when the Cultural war really begins.
What would the likes of you know about decent people. You only know how to call good evil and evil good you curr.
Bango, and now we have the the love child of Keith and Hank: Blinded in the Left Eye!
Whatever they named themselves, or their party the Nazi were right wing.
Anti gay, Jew, gypsy and they loved German industrialists.
Atheists or not, you can`t put these people on the "left" side of politics.
It is September, so the cultural war, notice he capitalized cultural, is about to begin over Christmas again.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 17, 2007 01:43 PMHi Sharon,
These characters do crawl out of the woodwork, or wherever, rather regularly. All full of the (self)-"righteous" fire of new-fledged commission to butt in, anywhere and everywhere, with their own version of whatever holy-baloney they swallowed lately; and is giving them a bad belly ache because they can't digest it.
This one's an energetic one, to say the least.
In any event, it is sort of like the cycle - mythological though it might be - of the bears getting ready to hibernate,and old Elijah getting up and going out, ranting and raving along, all about doom and wrath, so the tribal idol can feed the bears on the children who mock the Prophet.
OH! Yes! Rosh Hashana last Thrusday, Yom Kippur next Saturday. Timing just about right, I'd say.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 17, 2007 02:46 PMSharon B.(Bolshevik)
What's the matter having a problem accepting the truth about yourself and shattered your the lies you believed all these sad years. If you had a love child it would look like Hitler or Stalin.
Posted by Blinded in The Left Eye on September 17, 2007 04:21 PM”It is luducrous to compare The Religious Right to the Godless Nazi's. That's more up your alley there left wingnut.”
Glad you brought that up Mr.Blind.
The Nazi party was very big-c Conservative, and all about preservation of traditional values, purity of religion and strong on law & order.
They wanted to wipe out corrupt leftists, and were very pro-corporations – hence why Prescot Bush liked them. In fact the European and American corporates thought Hitler was a very fine person.
As you say, he also wanted a command-economy, but that was fine with corporations since it means tax money being put in their pockets. Corporations actually fancy the idea of a single payer rather than deal with all those fussy customers.
So the Nazi party was Conservative socialist, which shows you that conservatism is not a matter of right or left. You can get a Conservative Communist just as easily as a Conservative Capitalist. They were at the other end of the scale to Liberals.
Then there is the whole issue of how one views hard and soft freedom.
I am a postmodernist rather than what you call “liberal”, because I am “suspicious of grand meta-narratives” and doubt any grand claims made by political parties, movements, or religions. However, I acknowledge both the drive for personal freedom as well as the imperative people that be integrated within social structure, and their need to feel part of something with “higher purpose” whilst maintaining a sense of personal identity and freedom.
People are neither the immoral horde nor the noble creation, and your leaders with their appeal to “values and lifestyle” voters, are neither generating freedom, either soft or hard, nor are they leading by pointing to desirable moral values.
Posted by Bango Skank on September 17, 2007 06:42 PMGrouch,
Time for a little re-cap. The original letter was about media bias for which there was very support since obviously Pavarotti's death has more claim on the public attention then Kennedy's.
However, you were not satisfied with that, you felt the obligation, one more time, to demonstrate your contempt for religion and the religious and so you made disparaging remarks about Dr. Kennedy on the event of his death.
That changed the topic to the question of tolerance.
I pointed out to you that it is bad manners to say bad things about the recently departed. It is commonly understood that as human beings, we all share mortality and there comes a time to put our differences aside and show respect for that commonality.
Somewhere from the dim recesses you must have recalled a lesson that it is considered ungentlemanly to spit into a fellow creatures grave as the casket descends and so you offered up the explanation that you were not speaking about Kennedy, the man, but Kennedy, the preacher.
In less contrite postings you commonly refer to religion as the Je$u$ Bu$ine$$. However, chastened here, you have tried to draw purely moral distinctions about how you have solderied most of your life to undo religions harm. Then something miraculous happened.
Some of your younger colleagues came along who are not hampered by quaint lessons of etiquette. They danced on Kennedy's grave while accusing him of high crimes and treason and actually rejoicing at his passing.
You took courage from their corruption and returned to the field to speculate that maybe Kennedy's aim had been to institute a new holocaust once he siezed power. After all, he did procalim himself a Christian and we all know that the Jews did kill his saviour - pretty suggestive, right?
And so you return to the original purpose that only a few hours ago you denied was your intent. You're going to do yourself an injury jumping off and on the band wagon this way.
Now, there is no evidence that Kennedy had any political aims or that he was anti-semitic. But on the other hand, it's not as though he's in any position to defend himself. So, it's a pretty safe charge.
Your personal problem is foolishness. The important question is tolerance that is, putting up with something with which you disagree.
My comparison with America's left to the Nazi's was not made in a political or economic sense. I will deal with that topic directly with Sharon B and Bango Skank.
My comparison had to do perspective. The Nazi's never questioned their own postions and they did not tolerate the expression of different opinions just as the left will not tolerate any expression of religion.
Those who express religious opinions are reduced to objects, just as you have done with Kennedy, and it is but a short step from dancing on their graves to putting them in one.
That is not tolerant.
Posted by James Jones on September 17, 2007 08:50 PMSharon B & Bango Skank
Nazism was neither a religious nor an economic movement. It was a Socialtist party when Hitler joined but he purged the socialists. Since Christianty, as commonly practiced, did not get him where he wanted to go, he invented his own (albeit largely ignored) religion that vindicated his message.
Hitler portrayed Germany, and the Aryinan race, as superior beings who had been victimized by the western Europe and, most especially, the Jews. That message resonated because anti-Semtism was prevalent throught Erope.
Nationalism became the core of Nazi philosophy and imperialism was the aim. That's why they sent the tanks into Poland and France.
Of course it is also important to keep in mind that Hitler was a mad man. Toward the end of Nazism, the political beliefs were whatever Hitler said they were that week. At that point he was hysterical and contradictory.
So it really won't do to try to decribe rationally either the left or the right in America to the Nazi's in terms of philosophy. Americans are not imperialistic and neither Democrats nor Republicans would be foolish enough to make that case.
Both of you see the left as good and the right as evil. Since you also see the Nazi's as evil, you assume they should be described as Conservatives.
There is more to it than that.
And Bango - I noted your proverb
Don't play with fire or you'll end up with a wet bed.
Great stuff! I'll bet wet beds are a huge problem at the bath house?
Posted by James Jones on September 17, 2007 09:12 PM"The facts don't always speak for themselves, so I point them out for you...
"even with the printed word fully in view, you think you can disguise the truth with obfuscation...
"there is no evidence that Kennedy had any political aims..."
"Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society."
Jimmy, you're a fcuking idiot.
Posted by James Jesus Jones is a glow in the dark bitch on September 17, 2007 10:55 PMJJ, We could spend hours, once again, describing the Nazi and arguing whether they were left, right, or some wierd amalgam of both. Something mushed together like so many dictatorships are.
What we could do is list all the leftist traits in one column and the rightest traits in another.
Then, when analyzing a socio/economic/political party we can simply check each area off.
religion, workers party, industrialist, social conservative etc.
When finished, we count the rights and lefts and say "This dictator is left/right or right/left and maybe give percentages.
I love this kind of stuff but normal people will run screaming from the room if they have to listen to it.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 17, 2007 11:07 PMJimmy said ”Both of you see the left as good and the right as evil. Since you also see the Nazi's as evil, you assume they should be described as Conservatives.”
I leave that kind of simplistic stuff to you Jimmy-boy, I don’t rate left as more or less evil or good than right. I was also talking about the original intentions of the Nazi party, rather than how it developed.
The “beast” I was referring to was the fear of outsiders and the tendency of groups of people to do unspeakably nasty things when they are whipped up into a frenzy of group- identity and fear/hatred of a clearly identified outgroup “enemy”.
The Nazi party founders thought that to achieve the democratic utopia they wanted, they needed to motivate people by a shared hatred of an external enemy.
Goebbels was much taken with the US “new deal”, he just figured that people were basically wicked and irrational, so they needed to be herded by trickery and coercion.
He believed in “hard freedom”.
Try listing out all the beliefs the Nazi’s had about people, social norms, religion, business, and morals.
Then tell me who they look like, conservative or liberal.
”I'll bet wet beds are a huge problem at the bath house?”
I’m not sure what I think is more pitiful about this attempt – that you think it’s going to hurt my feeling if you suggest that I am gay, or that you think being gay is an insult.
If you want to insult me Jimbo, you are going to have to lift your game a whole bunch.
Here’s a handy rule of thumb, I don’t give a toss about most of the things you are jumpy over.
You are frightened and disgusted by gays, I find them really interesting and colourful.
You are very sensitive about the sanctity of the Church, I find that childish and silly.
You are fiercely patriotic and groupish, I find that juvenile and primitive.
On the other hand I see all humans as brothers and sisters, and rate morals higher than laws.
James Jesus Jones is a glow in the dark bitch
In a democracy everyone has the right to advocate social policy based on the dictates of their conscience. It is completely irrelevant if their conscience is informed by religion or atheism. The framers understood how vital the right is to not only hold, but express those opinions in the functioning of a democracy. That is why they wrote the right into the First Ammendment.
That is what Kennedy is doing in the quote. This is not a call to arms asking his fellow Christians to overthrow democracy. It is an exhortation that his personal values should prevail in every walk of American life. That is his right.
You do the same thing. But there is a difference.
Kennedy does not, as far as I know, say anything to hinder your right of advocacting your values. You, on the other hand, accuse him of treason for advocating his.
Your tactic of branding the dissenter as a traitor is exactly what the founders tried to prohibit. It is also an illustration of the intolerance of the left which is my point in this thread.
Now, as to your accusation that I am an idiot (by the way, this is another example of your intolerance) - I am not. I am able to read and understand decalarative statements and explain the meaning to idiots. I also have the manners, or tolerance if you prefer, to do so without being obscene.
Posted by James Jones on September 18, 2007 06:48 AMSharon B,
There are some lessons we can learn from tyranny that are more obvious. For instance, consider in recent history Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Saddam.
Each of these tryants ruled in a different culture, took a different view of economics and philosphy but they also had some basics in common.
The all governed through a powerful, centralized government. They were also all intolerant of dissent.
The US is constituted to prevent the centalization of power in the government and foster dissent in the formulation of social policy. That makes it tough for the tyrant to gain a foothold.
I have seen the Deomcrats become the party of big government in my life time. JFK was the last Democrat to hold the line against enhancing government power. LBJ ushered in this new era (Nixon implemented a good part of it) for the Deomcrats and despite the abject failure of the Great Society programs, the approach has gained popularity within the party over the past few decades.
All of the current Democratic candidates seek to increase the power of government over the citizenry - health care is a prime example. It is fair to wonder if JFK could find a place in the modern party. In my view, that is unfortunate.
When you combine a strong government with the intolerance I have been pointing out in this thread, you have the recipe for tyranny in place. That is why I assert that tyranny in America is more likely to come not from the right, but from the left.
That is the historic trend that I see operating today.
You are concerned about sending people screaming out of the room. I do that regularly even when I'm being nice. So what's the problem?
Posted by James Jones on September 18, 2007 07:07 AMBang Skank
"I leave that kind of simplistic stuff to you Jimmy-boy"
No you don't. For instance,
"The Nazi party was very big-c Conservative, and all about preservation of traditional values, purity of religion and strong on law & order."
Actually they were more interested in invading Poland.
I don't like being critical but your insults are becoming increasingly ponderous. You need to brighten things up a bit - one or two adroit sentences. Preferably one, i.e,
I'll bet you're a real crack-up down at work.
Posted by James Jones on September 18, 2007 07:15 AMBango,
You do not know me personally.
I have never posted an anti-gay sentiment here and I don't have any.
I have never expressed any anxiety about the sanctity of the Church and i don't have any.
I am patriotic but I am pretty sure I'm not groupish - whatever that might mean.
I think the law is an expression of our morality.
You ascribe those things to me falsely because you think about Conservatives stereotypically.
But then you don't pay alot of attention to what I actually do post so I suppose it balances out - sort of.
The point is - For a man who sees humanity as brothers and sisters, you certainly have a lot of prejudices.
Posted by James Jones on September 18, 2007 07:44 AMFor a letter about "anti-religious bias", this line of postings has certainly been one of very much the opposite for quite some time now.
Here, we are dealing, at excessively great length, with a belief-system; a religion as such. It is one of the most self-contradictory, and inherently mutually exclusive in terms, of all the possible religions around today.
It does not rest upon ANY grounds of evidence or facts. Indeed this religion is one that most vigorously rejects both evidence and facts that have even the slightest appearance of being critical, or of offering a refutation of the religion's dogmatic pronouncements. The more absurd the dogmatic pronouncements are, the greater is the intensity of the belief; and the more vituperative the denunciations of the believer against anyone challenging.
As has been demonstrated, time and again, throughout a host of postings here – and elsewhere on this website - the religion of, “How the World Ought to Be, According to James Jones” is - by far and away above all others - the most "jealous god" of all. And its founder, proponent, dogmatist, chief hierarch, and principal disciple, is - again by far and away above all others - the least self-reflecting, and least able to distinguish between objective reality and subjective personal embodiment of both "deity" and dogma of almost anyone posting.
It is what he says it is, when he says it – at least until he changes his mind, and says it’s something else; while also insisting that you have said something that has never been said at all.
And, YOU better believe it!
I don't.
And I see no reason to waste further time on it.
Why should you?
Posted by Old Grouch on September 18, 2007 09:08 AMPavarotti was a worldwide celebrity; D James Kennedy was not (I never even heard of him before). Those are the breaks. If letter writer George Lilly is a real Christian, he ought to know that Christians seek their reward in heaven, and not in this world of corruption and sin.
Posted by karen on September 18, 2007 11:12 AMJJ, there are two different kinds of Big Government.
One is big and forces people to have health care, operate safe businesses, take care of each other.
The other is big and makes laws that intrude on our lives, such as sodomy and blue laws.
Democrats are the party of big, helpful government, and Republicans are the party of big, controlling, censuring government with a lot of spying thrown in.
All our wordy discussions come down to which kind of Big Government did dictators have and what kind do we have.
I can not believe you do not see the difference.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 18, 2007 12:38 PMGrouch,
There has been no proselytizing or envangelizing in this thread whatosever. None.
The topic has been tolerance and it was your your intolerance in insulting the memory of Dr. Kennedy that was the trigger.
Tolearnce is an important topic because it it vital to understand that without dissent, democracy becomes a winner-take-all battle of might makes right.
Tolerance is required for effective democracy because it ensures that all views, including the minority, will be protected as free speech.
The protection of minority rights ensures that the majority position will be continuously challenged and re-examined.
If you look back through the threads you will see that I addressed you on exactly that point at 8.50 pm.
You really can't have missed it.
Posted by James Jones on September 18, 2007 12:41 PMSharon B,
But I do see the difference between Nazi or Bolshevik government and the US governement. The differences are quite clear.
You are not atking into account that the people who established the Nazi and Bolshevik governments did not set out to do evil. They set out to do good. But, they ended up doing evil.
That is called unintended consequences and it is the trademark of big government.
That's why the founders constituted a small government for the US in the first place and it's worked really well for a couple of centuries.
Conservative would like us to stick with the principles of individual freedom and saty away from the promises of security that big government offers.
Posted by James Jones on September 18, 2007 12:56 PMJJ, Then why do conservatives make and love those blue laws, and what we call bedroom laws?
They want big government that follows their ideology and part of that is control over the lives and actions of others. And not the actions that are actually harmful to others. I mean, just how much am I harmed if you buy booze on a Sunday?
Conservatives are deathly afraid of a government that may take a penny from them for anyone else.
they fear business regulations, don`t mind at all if they sell unsafe products and make people work in dangerous jobs that could and should be safer.
Big government, offering security, often delivers. My four grandparents lived nice lives because of Social Security.
Saving was impossible for them because of the war and depression.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 18, 2007 01:18 PMJames Jesus:
Your post to me is mostly gibberish and strawman talk.
"This is not a call to arms asking his fellow Christians to overthrow democracy."
Never said it was.
It was a call to arms asking his fellow Christians to make sure all Americans lived under Christian rules. I consider that anti-American, as the principal of separation of church and state is one of the fundamentally American things about our form of government. Since you acknowledge that principal as being right and fundamentally Christian, by your reasoning, he was also a bad Christian.
"Kennedy does not, as far as I know, say anything to hinder your right of advocacting your values. You, on the other hand, accuse him of treason for advocating his.
Your tactic of branding the dissenter as a traitor is exactly what the founders tried to prohibit. "
The founders tried to prohibit political speech?
Branding the dissenter as a traitor is exactly what your side of the aisle does ad nauseum.
If I want to say somebody's lame-brained ideas are anti-American, I'm allowed to lay out my case, and in so doing I deprive no-one of the right to express those ideas. That's how free speech works.
The concept that saying someone's ideas are anti-American is trying to supress their speech is almost as idiotic as claiming "there is no evidence that Kennedy had any political aims..."
Palestinian's rejoiced on 9/11, Rethuglicons were happy when Molly Ivins died. Being happy at the death of somone who you disliked is human nature so enough of this tyranny of the left BS already.
A skinhead could work his whole life to restrict the vote to white men. He could love his wife and children. That doesn't stop me from labelling his views anti-American, and being happy when his bad influence on our country is gone forever. I can still feel for his family's loss.
"Now, as to your accusation that I am an idiot (by the way, this is another example of your intolerance) - I am not."
Sorry, I'm intolerant of idiotic statements like ' "there is no evidence that Kennedy had any political aims..." ' Would you prefer "Your
statement is idiotic" or "you sound like an idiot"?
"I am able to read and understand decalarative statements and explain the meaning to idiots. I also have the manners, or tolerance if you prefer, to do so without being obscene."
Hooray for you! So can I, I do it all day long in my speaking and writing.
There are times when a well placed expletive helps amplify the point. Plus it's fun.
Unlike you, I don't claim Christ-like delusions of omniscience to justify my behaviour.
Sharon B,
Given your concerns, interests and general outlook, I think you should vote for and support Democrats.
Posted by James Jones on September 18, 2007 04:50 PMJJ, I think my description of the two types of Big Government was downright brilliant.
What, I should say given your opinions and outlook you should vote Republican?
Just can`t get a word of praise out of you.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 18, 2007 05:11 PMJimmy boy, what are we to do with you, eh?
To demonstrate how you aren’t simplistic, you gloss right over all the cultural norms they espoused and the “great civilization” they intended to build, and you state that it was all about invading Poland.
Then why did they keep going after Poland had been acquired, Jimmy?
“D’oh”
” I don't like being critical but your insults are becoming increasingly ponderous.”
Don’t be shy about being critical Jimmy, it’s an integral part of your persona. You find fault with people if they aren’t like you. Point taken though, I will watch my insults.
” I'll bet you're a real crack-up down at work.”
Hmmm.
I can see how that would play for your fellow homophobes, but it just has no legs unless one has a bit of a problem with gays.
Same with the bath-house and towel-boy stuff, it tells me what your fears and insecurities are, and that you have trouble seeing through somebody else’s eyes. You should be looking for things that I would find insulting, not what you are offended by. Get the idea?
” You do not know me personally.”
Yes, thank heavens!
I do however get an impression of you through what you write, what gets a response from you, and what doesn’t. So I can tell with pretty good accuracy that you are a misogynist even though you like to think you treat women with special respect, you are a racist, even though you try to be very kind and generous to the little heathens, you are a homophobe, but try hard not to gag when you think of them defiling themselves in the face of the Lord, and most of all, you are a pseudo-intellectual who prides himself on being rational, fair, and insightful – even though your postings are mostly spiteful ravings peppered with inconsistencies and fallacies, and you consistently defend along party-political and ideological lines even when it is an irrational position you are eagerly defending. You also pick on women, perhaps you didn’t notice that ;)
” I think the law is an expression of our morality”
heh heh heh, indeed you do Jimmy, indeed you do.
Here’s my challenge to you Jimbo, read Michel Foucault.
” You ascribe those things to me falsely because you think about Conservatives stereotypically.”
That is indeed a risk Jimbo, and I am keenly aware that my bias and prejudices may influence me in this way. So I keep a watch on that.
I think however, that it is you who try hard to act stereotypically rather than me who falsely sees stereotypical behaviour in your postings.
I think you want to be typically Conservative, and being so is pleasing to you.
You think it’s a good thing to aspire to.
” But then you don't pay alot of attention to what I actually do post so I suppose it balances out”
Your postings are very instructive Jimmy, and often I gaze in wonder at them.
For instance, I have never encountered somebody who exhibits quite so much projection as you do and still evidently functions in society. You can proudly say that you have been a topic amongst neuroscientists and neuropsychologists. The question is whether you read them Jimmy. Do you read your posts and see the spasmodic ego-defenses threaded through them?
” For a man who sees humanity as brothers and sisters, you certainly have a lot of prejudices.”
Oh Jimmy boy, how right you are. I do have such a load of them.
It’s the whole evolution thing you see, so many conflicting bits and pieces all interacting to produce the people that we are. I love my fellow mangelwesen, so I do.
Bango,
I did say less ponderous.
One thing you should know. It did not occur to me that you would read homosexuality into my Turkish bath gag. I meant it to evoke serivlity as would be the case with a sycophant or pussy.
Bot of course given your reation, I couldn't resist follwoing up along our line of thought.
I number among my friends homosexuals (none of whom work in bath houses) who would be amused at the way your mind creates the nexus between service and sex.
Sahron b,
OK a word of praise. I have never read anything quite like your Big Government analysis.
Still friends?
Posted by James Jones on September 18, 2007 06:50 PMJJ, I have many more. My mind works in strange ways.
Actually yes, still friends.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 18, 2007 08:16 PMSharon B
Good
Posted by James Jones on September 18, 2007 08:32 PM" number among my friends homosexuals (none of whom work in bath houses) who would be amused at the way your mind creates the nexus between service and sex."
Oh come Jimmy, you have made lots of gay-bashing references before now. To claim that you meant "servitude" rather than sex by the bath-house reference is incredible.
Pull the other leg Jimmy, it's a penis.
Posted by Bango Skank on September 18, 2007 09:16 PMGood luck Bango,
JJJ is the master of saying he never said what he really said.
Interesting how he has no defense for his idiotic claim that "there is no evidence that Kennedy had any political aims..."
No evidence at all:
"Kennedy was a founding board member of the Moral Majority, which Falwell formed in 1979. In 1996, Kennedy created Coral Ridge's political arm, called the Center for Reclaiming America for Christ, to mobilize conservative Christians against gay marriage, pornography and what he called "judicial tyranny," among other issues.
Kennedy also founded the Center for Christian Statesmanship, which organized Capitol Hill Bible studies and other events that attracted top government officials."
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/05/AR2007090500789.html
'In 1996, Kennedy created the Center for Reclaiming America for Christ to encourage Christians to become involved in politics. The center focused on issues such as abortion, pornography, homosexuality, evolution, and religious liberty.
"The church was solely focused on the proclamation of the gospel," Wright said. "He thought Christians needed to run on two tracks, the first track being the Great Commission, the second being the cultural mandate." '
christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/septemberweb-only/136-42.0.html
Jimmy Jesus never let not knowing what he was talking about stop him from talking.
Posted by James Jesus Jones is a glow in the dark bitch on September 18, 2007 10:16 PM