dingy harry reid & the english language
his idiocy (or perhaps racism) is exposed by opinion journal:
OPINION JOURNAL: Last week Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate minority leader, boasted to a Democratic gathering that “we killed the Patriot Act.” Perhaps realizing that this was not the most appealing message to send to voters outside the Bush-hating base, Reid took to the Senate floor Monday and offered an apology of sorts:
DINGY HARRY REID: Mr. President, maybe I didn’t have the education of a lot of my friends. I was educated in a little school in Searchlight, NV. We didn’t have English class. Maybe my choice of words wasn’t perfect. Maybe I should have said we killed the conference report. But the fact is, that is what we had done. People can try to change the words and the meaning of it all they want, but that is what happened. I may not have the ability to express myself like the folks who were educated in all these private schools and fancy schools, but I understand the Senate rules. Everyone knows that cloture was defeated, killed, whatever you want to call it. That means that cloture was defeated and that bill is still before the Senate.
OPINION JOURNAL: This is the same Harry Reid who, a little over a year ago, called Justice Clarence Thomas “an embarrassment to the Supreme Court” because “I think that his opinions are poorly written.” If Reid’s literacy is as defective as he himself claims it is, doesn’t this make him, by his own standard, an embarrassment to the Senate?
Further, if Reid never even had an English class, what qualifies him to evaluate Justice Thomas’s writings? Or was he merely stereotyping Thomas as unintelligent because of his race, in the manner of ignorant men throughout history?
wow. they always told me the trouble with lying is that you forget what you said and then contradict yourself later. what an embarrassment. whenever someone calls harry reid “dingy harry,” it is an insult to dingy people everywhere.
Harry Reid’s the man. Match his wits to Bush’s anyday.
ok. bush is stupid (e.g. “nucular” and “misunderestimated”).
and reid is a stupid racist. (e.g. “i have no english training” BUT “i can tell that clarence thomas’ supreme court opinions are poorly written.”
A republican calling a democrat a racist is like Hitler declaring the same of Ghandi. Oh I forgot, republicans are not prejudiced; they discriminate equally. If you’re not part of the Hee Haw club, you’re screwed. Indeed, is Harry Reid trying to curtail the gains of the Civil Rights movement or public assistance programs such as medicaid and social security? No, I think that would be the Bushman.
As far as Harry Reid’s stupidity goes, you’ve made no case. So he doesn’t like Clarence Thomas’ legal opinions. So what? Have you ever read a patent or a legal opinion? Maybe you are a lawyer and so such things would appear to you to be written in normal English. I’m just a lowly scientist, and I can tell you for the rest of the world they are not. Harry Reid is infinitely qualified to critique Thomas’ (the harasser’s) legal opinions despite his defects in the English language. Quite frankly, I found “We killed the patriot act” to be well put.
Finally, a republican calling Reid a liar is the pot calling the kettle black. Bush (WMD man, Rove –the leak), Cheney (the last throes of the insurgency, Halliburton), and Rummy (we have enough troops) are real models of integrity. Why stop there? How ‘bout DeLay and Frist? Anyway, you should lay off Reid and talk about something more substantive and defensible.
by “ghandi” do you mean robert byrd?
you’re right that i’ve made no case. harry reid just looks really stupid (and racist) saying that. that’s an impression, but you are right–it isn’t a case.
the current social security plan, which forces payments into a practically no-yield retirement fund actually hurts low-income americans (those who, unlike the wealthy, cannot afford separate retirement savings accounts or other investments that actually earn a decent return). bush’s plan will benefit the poor more than it will benefit the wealthy.
you’re probably right. please tell me what i’m allowed to discuss on my blog. use the comments section below.
Forgive me. I shouldn’t expect a Republican to be familiar with Mahatma Gandhi. Try Googling him. While you are at it, try Mother Theresa, Nelson Mandela, and Desmond Tutu. Instead of talking about the anomalous Byrd, let’s try Strom Thurmond or maybe Jesse Helms. C’mon everyone knows that the parties did a flip flop with regard to Civil Rights issues. All you have to do is read your high school American History textbook and you’ll see how Democrats lost the southern block. Good riddance I’d say; although, it has been difficult to win the presidency without them. Hard to believe that Republicans were more progressive at one time isn’t it? Except for the anomalous few (e.g., Byrd), the present position of each party with respect to Civil Rights legislation is quite clear.
Social Security. Now you’re talking about something important. What part of “on average” do Republicans not understand? Doing better (on average) under Bush’s plan requires that some do worse. Let’s see, some out of millions of people. That’s a lot that do worse under Goofball’s plan. What about survivor’s benefits? Are people going to give willingly out of their private retirement accounts? Let’s not fool ourselves anymore. We don’t need to dismantle the most successful welfare program in the history of mankind so that the rich can be richer when they retire. We do need to quit doing the reverse Robin Hood and use the “tax relief” given to the wealthy to shore up SS for the foreseeable future. One more Google search for you. Try Jesus Christ and see what he told the wealthy man to do with his riches.
You are right. It is your blog. I will refrain from responding. I was under the impression, however, that you welcomed comments and debate.
Debate? Yes.
Comments from trolls? No.
And yes, you are a troll.
Republican = Hitler. Nice.
Did a Google search for “Hee Haw club”, and got some donkey t-shirt from Cafepress that is no longer on sale. After all, it is donkeys, not elephants, that go “hee-haw”.
Ahhh the memories…Anita Hill…the last woman liberals cared about who alleged sexual harassment.
Of course not. We’re all members of your imaginary “Hee Haw club”.
Indeed. Jesus taught that people should render everything unto Caesar so that the government could establish widespread and effective welfare programs. You can find this in the New Testament book of Job.
Dingy Harry Reid. You’re a troll. My but those are nice Christian things to say. You must be Mormon. Ah well, better to be a troll than a complete ass and intellectual midget such as yourself. Oh I forget these are Republican characteristics. Just look at Bush as you are trying to emulate him. And yes Jesus did advocate a welfare state. Try Mosiah 4:16-19 and 4 Nephi 1. Anyway, tchau, I won’t bother with this site anymore.
translation: I won’t bother this site anymore.
please! the dingy people are getting offended.
yes, compelling citizens to contribute to good causes with the force of law has long been one of the lord’s tactics. you know what he always says– “free agency is a recipe for disaster!”
yes, and i feel a strange sense of embarrassment with harry reid because he is one of my “peeps.”
congratulations, i think you just qualified for the insult post.
I can’t resist because you just invoked the free agency argument that all dingy Mormon republicans do. What would this wonderful experiment in capitalism be like if everyone just used their free agency? What kind of anarchy are you advocating? I’m sorry but you are right -yes, compelling citizens to contribute to good causes with the force of law has long been one of the lord’s tactics. Read your 12th article of faith and recognize that all societies have to dance with the devil a little or they cannot function. Yes citizens are compelled to participate. For example, if I don’t pay my taxes so the goofball can fight his war, I will be thrown in prison. The free agency argument doesn’t cut it.
Glad to hear I made the insult post. Did I win anything?
you have won all of my love and admiration.
uh, i don’t know. but it’s sometimes called the “free market” so take a guess.
yes it does (if you will stop changing the argument). my support for the war (and compulsory taxes) is completely different than jesus christ’s support for a zion “welfare” state. his desire is for us to become like him. we can only undergo this spiritual change by voluntarily changing our minds and hearts. forced government taxes for welfare would achieve the outward result (of money for the poor), but does nothing to effectuate the inward, eternal change with which christ is concerned.
the economic support we are providing for the liberation of the muslim world has never been intended to help americans achieve righteousness. we are pursuing a secular interest in safety and security (a-la alma 43).
we believe in being subject to our laws and government. since our government is democratic, we can change it by political means. this includes altering a failed social security system.
Let’s follow the logic here. You’re saying that since both phrases contain the word “free”, that God sanctions free market economics. Oh that is rich! What about some of the ill effects of free market economics such as the emergence of sweatshops, child labor, corporate exploitation (human and natural resources), and human trafficking? He must be really happy with our free market economics since it dictates the worth of souls here on earth. I’m sorry but my D&C says that the worth of a soul is great in his eyes. You Republicans don’t even believe people should earn a livable wage as free market economics should determine their value.
So what you are saying is that Christ only wants us to take care of the poor –via civil governments- once we have all achieved a true Christ-like state. I guess he doesn’t really care about whether or not the poor are fed; he’s just concerned about our (the wealthy) development. That is completely asinine! Of course he wants us to use governments to ameliorate the conditions of the poor (his children) here on earth! I agree with you that he wants us to develop the gift of charity; but, why not try the axiom (combining J Golden and Spencer W. Kimball) “do it, damn it”? Faith and growth in the gospel only come about as we apply gospel principles in our lives. What, practicing charity (as a nation) will only help us become more Christ like! No kidding! It doesn’t work the other way around as you suggest. Wait to help the poor! Wait for what?! The Millennium? We of all people should be encouraging the government to help in the care of the poor.
I’m not changing the subject. I guess my point went over your head; I’ll dumb it down a little. You suggest that a civil government that collects taxes to feed the poor strips away the free agency of individuals. I state that you should not have a problem with this because every government sets up laws –even in the free market world- by which citizens are governed. Since we are told to support civil governments (AF 12), we are thus required to relinquish some of our free agency. My free agency was stripped away in the support of Ronny Reagan’s massive military spending campaign and in King George’s blunders.
Nice segue into your next point. Yeah we’re really planting a Jeffersonian Democracy in the heart of the Muslim world, aren’t we?! We’re really whipping those Gadianton Robbers! To plagiarize from a nice bumper sticker –I wonder how our oil got under their (Gadianton robber’s) lands. They must’ve stolen it. Don’t try to combine Iraq with the war on terror. Even your captain Bush had to concede that Iraq and 9-11 are not related. We now know that Bush planned to go in long before approaching the UN and weapon’s inspectors were given a chance. If not for his lying, at least for his stupidity and ineptness, Bush should be impeached.
Finally, I don’t know what you’re smoking! Social Security is not a failed system. Yes, as we have borrowed from the trust fund and as we have inadequately supported it, it will go broke. However, it is far from a failed system. That is, if administered as intended (and indeed as it was) it will prevent the horrible level of poverty among the elderly that was rampant prior to its realization. Again, let’s roll back the tax cut on the wealthy (make them pay their fair share) and let’s shore it up so that it will last into the foreseeable future.
you are proving yourself a very inept reader. i merely implied that people are able to use their “free agency” in a “free market.” that the free market may occasion both good and bad consequences (just like agency) should be obvious. i’m not defending the free market as “more christian” than a state-run economy.
Here is a history of the lds church’s caring for the poor, from providentliving.org:
and from somewhere else:
the lds church is doing a ton to help governments in the care of the poor and needy. the lds church has a model welfare program that should be emulated by the government. it teaches self-reliance (another eternal principle–sorry!) rather than the dependence fostered by the 1960s welfare reforms. those expansive changes swelled the dole to overflowing by encouraging idleness and discouraging marriage, among other things.
churches should be given more support by the government to help the poor using their own methods (which are more efficient and individualized than the government’s). the lds church stands ready to help, as do the catholic charities, and other organizations. the democratic party and the aclu are working against any such partnerships, because they violate the sacrosanct “separation of church and state.” i’m sure you’re very proud of their work, though.
please help me with the incongruity of the above statements, when combined with your criticism of my desire to change social security.
al-qaeda & zarqawi get to, but i can’t? now you’re just being unfair.
i got a letter from the SSA telling me my retirement age has been raised from 65 to 67. this is a failure. i also got a letter telling me my retirement benefits (assuming i am able to continue working through my extended working years) will be approximately 70% of what i would have gotten with full benefits. “full benefits” means a return of approximately 1.5% above inflation. this is a failed “savings” program. to participate in this “savings” program, i am prevented access to approximately 15% of my earnings. investment experts are very consistent in saying that if one can put away 10-20% of his income over his lifetime (beginning in his early 20s), and earn a 6-8% of return, he will retire a millionaire. the problem for the poor is, after SS and medic-whatever are taken out, they cannot afford to put an additional 10-20% away. they’re too poor!
by the way, if you really want to get energized about being a righteous christian democrat, start reading lydia cornell. [1] ::: [2]
And you are proving yourself more inept a reader than I am. You are stating that people are able to exercise their free agency in a free market. I am saying that a regulated free market economy by a government that makes provisions for the less fortunate does nothing to take away from such individual’s right to choose good or evil. You intimate above that it does.
I am well aware of the humanitarian efforts of the church as well as other religious organizations. Now we have to ask ourselves if those efforts are sufficient to meet the need. Of course the answer is no. Thirteen million American children below the poverty level and two million homeless people per year should really shame us. Then consider the fact that we’re the lucky ones living in the land of milk and honey. Obviously religious organizations do a great deal of good but their efforts need to be supplemented by governments. I, like you, would love it if enough fast offerings were collected to help all poor individuals but let’s face reality.
I think you need to go back to Sociology 101. Poor people do not stay on the “dole” because they are lazy and dumb. Those stereotypes have long been debunked and are now held only by members of that infamous Hee Haw club. Many stay on public assistance (I won’t use your pejorative anymore) because that is the smart thing to do. Our wonderful free market economy hasn’t provided jobs for them of sufficient caliber to provide for health care, daycare, housing payments, or transportation (i.e., a living wage). I’m all for welfare reform provided we actually fund programs (a thorn in the side of Republicans) to provide adequate training so that these necessities can be obtained through gainful employment. Where this is not possible (e.g., cases of mental and physical illness, etc.) there needs to be a state-sponsored safety net.
I am all for the government giving money to charitable organizations. The problem with religious organizations is that they tend to use the misfortune of others to proselytize. If money were only given to organizations who are not involved in such exploitation, many on the left would go along with you. I’m afraid that preventing such proselyting is intractable. Thus we are back to the government providing the relief.
You’ve created the incongruity by taking the statements out of context. We should support civil government, not wicked leaders. Fortunately, in our government, we have the mandate to remove such morons. We exercised it with Bill Clinton (as we should have). Now it’s time to rid ourselves of mr. clownshoes and his cronies.
Zarqawi. You mean the terrorist created by George Bush (another reason for impeachment). Al-qaeda in Iraq wouldn’t exist if Bush hadn’t lied to the world. Now our credibility is shot and, unlike the sympathy that was expressed for the US after 9-11, we are met with contempt and distrust around the world.
Wow thank goodness for biotechnology and the SSA; now we can be active and productive into our seventies. I actually have no intention of retiring. They will have to carry my stiffened corpse from the lab, so I can’t really empathize with you there. Again, I say your problems could be fixed by making the wealthy (including corporations) pay their fair share.
Right you are about the poor. Why not shift their unfair tax burden to the rich? GW does just the opposite. As I mentioned above (your incompetent reading shining through), many of these people would do worse under Bush’s plan. Also think about others that would actually benefit from GW’s plan. Pump and dump schemers as well as those wonderful providers of mutual funds (your Gadianton robbers). And don’t insult my intelligence with the few bad apples notion. Just curious, what kind of oversight will the federal government provide to protect us? Finally, you Republicans have never understood SS thinking of it as a retirement plan. It was never intended as such. But since you guys love your money (careful that’s the root of all evil)…
“I am troll, here me roar!”
Republicans have two classic tactics when they can’t respond intelligently. Cheat (a la Bush and Tom DeLay) or punt. I see you have chosen the latter and removed my last post because you could not respond.
Actually, you should be a Democrat because I don’t hear any roaring, just breying.
Your last comment was not deleted. It was caught by Wordpress’ automatic spam filter. Heh.
I’ve approved it and so it should appear shortly (look for it above, it was timestamped when you originally posted).
like so many of your statements in this thread, you assume too much. we have a spam filter. i don’t know what word or phrase triggered it; usually it is “p0ker” or “vi@gr@.” but perhaps the filter has grown wise to bogus arguments, too.
actually, all i’m intimating is that christ would prefer individuals (instead of politicians) making the choice. you’re right that we all still have the power to choose good or evil whether the state regulates the economy or not. excellent point!
governments, i agree, do some things that private charities can’t: (1) they make sure that everyone is treated equitably, and cover everyone when (as you note) private charities cannot shoulder the entire burden. at the same time, governments are inefficient. one study showed that just $0.53 of every dollar collected for welfare in the united states reaches someone in need (the UN is much worse). imagine if churches like the LDS church (”100% of donations goes to those in need) had that money. considering these issues, i would say that a very minimal “safety net” should be maintained by the government, but only to reach those that private charities do not, and to provide some help in extreme circumstances.
exploitation? religiosity (as i’m sure you’re aware) helps marriages stay together, helps people get off drugs, helps them live more stable lives and hold jobs. religious communities provide a large support group, full of friends, potential networking contacts, and babysitters. tell your friends on the left that the “exploitation” will help the poor escape poverty.
sustaining government. again, you have a READING PROBLEM:
but you tell me i can’t seek to democratically change what i think are inherently “evil” social programs? where is that out of line with AofF12? i’m not throwing molotov cocktails at people cashing their social security checks. seeking democratic change falls properly under “obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”
ah, yes, i remember it like it was yesterday….after 9/11, zarqawi was one of our biggest sympathizers. he was seen flying american flags outside his cave. mosques flew banners declaring “not in our name,” while mullahs worldwide denounced the attacks. palestinians didn’t dance in the streets with joy.
/sarcasm
this is a very bad argument you have just made. i have heard some people argue that we created terrorism with our meddling in the middle east over the past 30 years. this, while it is no reason to abandon the fight, is at least plausible. your theory is utterly ridiculous. bush has made zarqawi famous, perhaps, but he has not made him the terrorist that he is.
presumably a cessation of your commenting on this blog will coincide with this event?
first, only a small percentage of a worker’s social security will be eligible for privatization. second, they’ll probably limit what degree of risk a SS-financed investment can have. third, they’ll come up with new restrictions every time they see a new loophole being used by some evil republican money grubber.
No unfortunately it has not. If it had, you wouldn’t be able to post anything.
I agree with you that Christ would prefer that we make the choice to help the poor. The point that you are missing (described above - YOUR POOR READING COMPREHENSION SKILLS AGAIN) is that he has no qualms with the government helping the poor. Trust me, he actually cares about them. I know that’s hard for a Republican to understand. Here’s some advice that my graduate advisor kept grinding into me, “It’s not all about you!” Take it.
Hey I’m all for introducing the poor and down trodden to the Gospel. Don’t make them feel or indeed do not make the relief dependent upon their conversion. Irregardless of what you think, the majority of normal thinking people would say that exploiting the misfortune of others in this manner is unethical. By the way, were you one of those missionaries who “used the spirit” by following the obits? Maybe you’re just planning on a career as an ambulance chaser. I needn’t remind you that many religions are not good; think about what Christ told Joseph Smith. No, proselyting should not be coupled with relief efforts by the government. Also consider the Charles Mansons, David Koreshes and Jim Joneses of the world.
So the government is inefficient. Well that’s cause to throw out the baby with the bath water. We should’ve stopped in 1776 and reconsidered. I say better a percentage of something than a whole lot of nothing (yeah, let’s wait until Zion comes, yeah that’s the ticket). Try working to fix the inefficiency in government.
I’ve already described what I meant by exploitation above. Obviously you missed the point again. Sure increased religiosity will help with poverty (e.g., fewer single parent households). Let’s leave that to the missionaries (the Elders and us members), not the government. You’re also missing another point. Religiosity doesn’t completely solve the problem. The church has become wise to this (perpetual education fund ring a bell), why can’t you?
Inherently evil social programs! My but those are strong words from one so ill informed. I’m surprised that you don’t realize that the Church is at odds with you on this one. When I was growing up we were taught to be self sufficient and not take anything from the government. In the mid to late 90’s I had a section of the blue book read to me in a ward correlation meeting (I’ll probably never attend another as I’m too liberal). Finally, vindication! The church encouraged members to seek financial help from families first, then the wicked government with its evil social programs, and finally from the church. Wow they totally reversed things! I figured you would be aware of this as you live in Happy Valley and all. I got that right didn’t I. You must have attended BYU with views like these. By the way, maybe you should contact President Hinckley and tell him he needs to do something about this since he is obviously unaware of those evil social programs.
As for Zarqawi, I’m surprised that you cannot recognize a tongue-in-cheek comment like that. Of course George Bush did not turn him into a terrorist. He already had those aspirations. Whether or not he would have attained them had Bush not lied to the world is another story. You have to agree with me though that if Bush had not gone into Iraq, Al-Qaeda in Iraq would not exist. The front in the war on terror would still be in Afghanistan/Pakiston where it should have been. As I’ve said, you cannot link Iraq with the original war on terror. Even the most imbecilic members of your party have given that one up. Are you seriously saying we should attack the Palestinians and every other country that had an Imam rejoice over the 9/11 attacks? Boy that’s really smart!
Yeah, the government will provide the wonderful oversight it has in the past. Can anyone say (Enron and Worldcom). And with Bushman appointing well-qualified individuals to high-ranking posts, we should rest assured. /SARCASM
You’ve still missed the point above. Many would do worse under the Bushman’s plan and SS was never intended to be a retirement plan. Instead, look at this as your chance to learn charity by providing for the elderly. You should give more of your money to the SSA.
Actually I will quit posting comments here when stupid Republican vituperative railings stop.
“is that he has no qualms with the government helping the poor.”
Huh? Christ drove home over and over its is a choice on a personal level. And render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s? At no point did he march around the government halls demanding that the social benefit program be increased, rather he kept tell people to give to the poor.
“Don’t make them feel or indeed do not make the relief dependent upon their conversion. Irregardless of what you think, the majority of normal thinking people would say that exploiting the misfortune of others in this manner is unethical.”
Regardless of what you think, offering them a chance to change, of salvation both spiritual and temporal is not ‘misfortune of others’.
“Religiosity doesn’t completely solve the problem. ”
Huh? Who said it did? It affects the problem greatly, but never was a panacea.
“Inherently evil social programs! ”
Anything that takes money from person A and moves it to person B’s pocket with out persons A say so does have problems. Calling it ‘charity’ is laughable to the extreme.
“he church encouraged members to seek financial help from families first, then the wicked government with its evil social programs, and finally from the church.”
And now it’s changed again, family first, then church, then church’s help located an appropriate government program at a local level. *Shrugs* Times, they change. Doesn’t mean I agree with having the government programs there in the first place.
“As for Zarqawi, I’m surprised that you cannot recognize a tongue-in-cheek comment like that.”
One has to have established that one can have a sense of humor. You started attacking, how can anyone figure out in a few short posts that decided to kid, right there?
“You have to agree with me though that if Bush had not gone into Iraq, Al-Qaeda in Iraq would not exist.”
They already did. Besides, this was one of the points of the operation, to draw the terrorist scum to a central location. The media has done a fine job telling us how many of our troops have died, but a lousy job letting the world know how many of the terrorists we’ve sent to Allah. The plan is working as we drain the swamp.
“As I’ve said, you cannot link Iraq with the original war on terror. Even the most imbecilic members of your party have given that one up.”
Sigh. This takes far longer than this comment could cover, but yes, the Iraqi war was an extension of the WoT. I’d try to explain it in detail, only from an armchair general’s POV, but why bother? You’ve decided its a Bad Thing, any data contrary will be rejected out of hand.
“Are you seriously saying we should attack the Palestinians and every other country that had an Imam rejoice over the 9/11 attacks? Boy that’s really smart!”
How about just the ones that are active threats, like Syria, Iran, North Korea, but only after other avenues are exhausted? ‘Cause that’s the Bush Administration policy right now.
“And with Bushman appointing well-qualified individuals to high-ranking posts, we should rest assured.”
I agree, President Bush is totally messing that up.
“SS was never intended to be a retirement plan”
Yes it was.
From http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/
“A secure, comfortable retirement is every worker’s dream. And now because we’re living longer, healthier lives, we can expect to spend more time in retirement than our ancestors did. Achieving the dream of a secure, comfortable retirement is much easier when you plan your finances.
Your Social Security benefits are the foundation on which you can build a secure retirement. Most financial advisors say you’ll need about 70 percent of your pre-retirement earnings to comfortably maintain your pre-retirement standard of living. Under current law, if you have average earnings, your Social Security retirement benefits will replace only about 40 percent. The percentage is lower for people in the upper income brackets and higher for people with low incomes. You’ll need to supplement your benefits with a pension, savings or investments. ”
It never was meant to be the only way to retire, but it has turned out that way. Due to increasing taxes on the middle classes, less people have had the willingness to save and invest. Not a Evil Government Plot, but one of those ‘unintended consequence’ things.
President Bush’s plan is a stroke of common sense genius, something his critics will never admit. Or maybe take the time to understand it. The numbers add up, the risks are lower than the current SS, in the average, what with Congress dipping their hands into the pot over and over again. It really could change retirement for the better as we know it.
“Actually I will quit posting comments here when stupid Republican vituperative railings stop.”
Ah, now you are telling the hosts what they can post and the manner in which they should post. Thanks. I’m sure they appreciate that.
And you’ve misused ‘vituperative’ in your sentence. Well, it’s an issue of comparison and quality, sure, but I hardly would count what Travis said as ‘vituperative’. Ann Coulter, yes, Travis, no.
But why do you post? You’re dismissive of the hosts, and can be down right rude and condescending. Do you really think that being a jerk is going to change anyone’s mind here? The lines have been drawn, sides chosen, a pissy attitude on someone’s home turf isn’t what I’d call ‘constructive’, but hey, whatever floats your boat.
Ah, joined by a fellow troll. Nice of you to drop in.
“Huh Christ…”
Your point is? There is no scriptural evidence that Christ did not want governments to help the poor. However, we do see evidence that he really cared about them. So if governments, in all their inefficiency, help the poor, logically he would have no problem with that. Get the point. You’re making it too difficult. You’ve missed it on another level as well. We’ve established the fact that religious charities are insufficient to help the poor and thus governments must help. Again, Christ is actually concerned about the poor and if money is used to help them out (instead of making more nukes), I’m confident he is pleased. If you haven’t read the comments above, don’t bother us with silliness.
“Regardless of what you think, offering…”
Tell that to those who drank the magic kool aid in Jonestown. Obviously you did not read my comments about the danger of proselytizing by the wrong religions (if you’re Mormon, that’s all of them). No, again I’m afraid you are wrong. Government programs are the proper venue for helping the poor. Even Travis conceded this to some degree (something about the more equitable distribution mode, etc.). This takes nothing away from churches using their own money and proselytizing to their hearts desire. I still find it unethical and I would venture to say that many of these so-called converts become disillusioned over time and leave their respective religions.
“Huh? Who said it did?…”
No, nobody said that religiosity would solve all problems but that is all moron republicans offer. Don’t redistribute any wealth. Wait to proselytize the world and hope that everyone would –out of the goodness of their hearts- provide for the poor. What an inane idea. We have governments and other secular institutions now that, for all their failings, do a great deal of good in this world. We just need you money grubbing repubs to stay out of the way.
“…Calling it ‘charity’ is laughable to the extreme.”
Your ideas presented here (devoid of substance) are laughable to the extreme. I guess it depends on the person. For those willing to give their money for the relief of the poor, it is a blessing (charity) while for the unwilling (republicans) it is a curse. Not the first time we’ve seen this dichotomy in the Gospel. Also, taking person A’s money to build up Ronny Reagan’s nukes or support king george’s war without consent has problems. I didn’t sanction their use of my tax dollars. Additionally, since we have enough nukes to blow the world over several times, Christ would rather have us use the money to help his children out down here. Man, what caves did you guys crawl out of (incidentally, I know this is improper English).
“*Shrugs* Times,”
I think you are wrong. Even recently I’ve heard the church say that qualified individuals should use their entitlements (a.k.a. evil social programs. Even if you are right, under your description, even the local welfare programs would be evil. I don’t know how many members I knew that used WIC and supported you silly ideas. Kind of like biting the hand that fed them.
“One has to have established…”
Again you are caught not reading the comments. I did establish my since of humor from the start. I said, “you must be mormon…” That’s okay. Travis missed it too and it landed me on the insult list. What can I say, I’m a geek scientist; my humor is lost on others. I do try.
“They already did. Besides, this was one of the points of the operation,”
Oh boy. Now you are giving way too much credit too Bush. Even in his most imaginative days, he could never come up with something as laughable as that. Imagine:
GW: C’mon Cheney. Let’s go to Iraq and smoke ‘em out. Just like at the O.K. Barn er um Corral.
I won’t even dignify your comment with a response.
“How about just the ones that are active threats, like Syria, Iran, North Korea, but only after other avenues are exhausted? ‘Cause that’s the Bush Administration policy right now.”
And this one is even worse! If you want to usher in the Millenium, proceed with that asinine foreign policy. Thank goodness the only half-smart one of the crew is Sec. of State.
“Yes it was.”
C’mon that is nothing but rhetoric to keep gullible, weak-minded republicans at bay. Read your history textbook. It was instituted as means to take care of the elderly whereby the working generation provided for the retiring generation. It was never meant as a retirement plan as you guys have envisioned.
Don’t use Bush and genius in the same sentence. It is an insult to geniuses everywhere.
“And you’ve misused ‘vituperative’ in your sentence.”
And you need an English lesson. Vituperative (adj.): containing or characterized by verbal abuse. If “Dingy Harry Reid” and “Yes, you are a troll” and “your incompetent reading” and “being a jerk” are not vituperative rants, sue me.
I came upon this sight quite by accident. I don’t know, blame me. I don’t like it when people criticize others and do not allow a chance for defense (especially when such polemics are employed –see above). Why don’t you practice what you preach? I’ll gladly admit that I am hot under the collar and a jerk at times. If Travis doesn’t like it, he can remove my comments. I’m just tired of neo-cons hijacking a beautiful religion and turning it into a selfish sort of thing. And yes that is a republican philosophy; compassionate conservative is nothing more than an oxymoron.
Okay all. Anonymous has pricked my conscience. I noticed that most of the rants are mine. Travis has been quite gracious in allowing me to comment here. I apologize to you anonymous too. You are right. It is unlikely that we will affect one another’s opinions. Respond all you like to my comments. I will not make anymore political comments here. This time, I promise.