Thursday, July 03, 2008

Happy 4th!

I hope everyone has a safe 4th of July. Be careful with those firecrackers. Be careful with those hot dogs. I don't wanna hear of anyone blowing off their fingers! I'm skippin' town for the following week so I don't know if I'll have the chance to blog, or even want to. I'll be visiting historic Charleston and I can't wait. If you visit here while I'm gone, you'll have to clean your own mess. Later!

72 comments:

blamin said...

Be careful with those firecrackers. Be careful with those hot dogs.

Damn Marshall, I had this really big “thing” planned involving Johnsonville Brats and big bottle rockets; now I’m wondering if it’s wise. Oh well, ya never know until ya try!

Charleston, would that be WV or SC? I’ve been to both a few times.

Man, if you’re hitting SC you have to check out Ft. Sumter, James Island, Patriots Point (the Yorktown etc.), and the Isle of Palms. A whole lotta’ history going on in that area. Don’t get caught up in the “typical” tourist areas (other than Sumter and Patriots Point), but seek out the “less traveled”.

blamin said...

In the interest of “cleaning your own mess”.

Hearing that Obama’s running a “I supported welfare reform” commercial in 19 states.

Fact – after welfare reform was passed on the federal level, and under threat of funding cut off if state’s didn’t follow suit, Obama “supported” the reform, after stating that “he didn’t agree with the legislation, but “had to vote yes” in order to keep funding. Just how many ignorant f’s actually believe this man in this commercial?

I find it very interesting that Obama is “faking” right after sowing up the Dem nomination. I’ll call him “Flipper” since he’s flipped so many times. The left will claim that McCain has “flipped” several times also.

Isn’t it interesting that both candidates are “leaning” right at this point in the campaign? I hate to point this out, but it seems all the people in the know realize that conservative principals will win the day. You damn sure don’t see the candidates trying to be “more liberal”, hmmmmm, wonder why that might be?

blamin said...

Dan, Geoffrey, anybody?

Marty said...

"You damn sure don’t see the candidates trying to be “more liberal”, hmmmmm, wonder why that might be?"

Well, in the case of Obama, it very well could be his downfall.

Enjoy your time off.

We've got terrible July 4th weather here. Phooey.

Marshall Art said...

Blamin,

That would be SC, and thanks for the site-seeing tips.

Hey, you didn't expect Obama to play it straight, did you?

Mary,

The missus says the weather in SC won't be pleasant, either. Tropical storms and such. I don't care. I'm off work and out of town. How could weather make that suck? As I like to say, "I don't care if it's raining flaming balls of shit. As long as I'm off work, it's all good!"

Happy Fourth to you both!

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Blamin, I'm not sure what you want me to respond to, your trumped up, demonstrably false statements, or the very notion that being baited by false information should cause one's head to explode.

Sorry, I'm still celebrating that fact that Jesse Helms is worm food. While the God in Whom I believe will certainly forgive and forget his manifold sins and wickedness, I can at least be satisfied that he no longer steals oxygen from the many who so urgently need it.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

The more worthy would include, but not be limited to, malarial mosquitoes and tapeworms. The odd liver fluke.

Mark said...

Art, Wist I'd known you were headed this direction. I live in a subdivision in Fredericksburg called Ferry Farms. So named because that is the name of George Washington's boyhood home. He lived right across the street from this neighborhood when he was 6 years old and until the age of 20.

On Independence day, Historians announced the discovery of the remains of the foundation of George's home at Ferry Farm. I bet you would have enjoyed that. (I wondered, while driving past so many times in the last few weeks, what all the hubbubb was over there. There were people crawling all over the place).

Geoff, you're "still celebrating that fact that Jesse Helms is worm food. While the God in Whom I believe will certainly forgive and forget his manifold sins and wickedness, I can at least be satisfied that he no longer steals oxygen from the many who so urgently need it".

Well, I guess that proves how Christian you are. What God do you believe in? Oh that's right. You believe in the God of self indulgence. The one that changes His rules according to your Liberal ideas that are not based on God's word, but rather, on your own. Certainly not my God or Jesse Helms' God.

Do you know why Jese Helms never appeared on any of those Sunday morning news panel programs? He was in church! Apparently his God was more important to him than displaying his face on TV screens across the country.

How dare you claim to be Christian after that smarmy remark! Your attitude condemns you.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

First of all, I never said I was perfect. In fact, being a Christian first and foremost is about confessing one's sinfulness.

Second, there is no reason in the world why I should care what you think, Mark. Honestly.

Third, Jesse Helms was a horrible individual who held horrible political ideas and was in a position to act upon those ideas. While, as I said, his ultimate state is between him and God, I have no compunction (I know that's a big word for you, Mark, I hope you have dictionary) at all admitting that I am glad he is dead. I will go further and state that our country would have been far better had he never been born, or at the very least given a platform of power and authority from which to act.

There is no reason to pretend there was something in his life worth celebrating. There is no reason to pretend that we shouldn't speak ill of the dead, especially when that dead is someone as hate- and bigotry-filled as Helms was. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Will I confess this as a sin? Some day, perhaps. For now, I feel quite satisfied that I can dance a jig upon his grave, play blues and hip-hop in his cemetery, and I do so hope that the future Pres. Obama wins North Carolina because that would be a wonderful slap in the face of a man who believed all his life that blacks were inferior.

blamin said...

g-k-s

first – no argument there

second – seems to me you spent a lot of time responding to someone whom you “honestly” don’t care about, all the while massaging your own ego (quite transparently I might add) and attempting to degenerate his point of view.

Third – (keep your dictionary handy) Mr. Helms was a human being, he had his good and bad traits like any other. You seem to believe the bad in theman outweighed all other considerations. That’s your prerogative. If you truly believe in a God, you would mourn the fact that a damned soul passed before seeing the light. But you go ahead and wallow in vindictiveness it’s so very stereotypical of your ilk.

BTW I’m still waiting to see/hear the ”demonstrably false statements“ you feel I made. Was it the fact that Obama is attempting to purposely mislead his stance on welfare reform or the fact that both candidates are leaning more right? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Mark said...

So, I suppose you will dance a jig on Robert Byrd's grave as well? Not only is he much more bigoted than Jesse Helms ever was, but he was a proud member of the KKK, and often brags about that fact. But he is Democrat so I presume that gives him a pass by your reasoning.

Geoffrey, you would do yourself a big favor by studying up on the history of the Democrat and republican parties. It might surprise you to find it is the Democrat party that is the racist party, not the Republican.

You are not only a hypocrite, you are a self righteous jerk.

Marty said...

"It might surprise you to find it is the Democrat party that is the racist party, not the Republican."

I don't think racism has a party. I know both republican and democrats who are racist.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Again, I'm an "ilk". Rather than justifying myself, I was, as the congressional saying goes, advising and extending my remarks. Was I being vindictive? Perhaps. I was also being honest.

Was there some part of Helms that might have been praiseworthy? He is said to have been courtly, but my experience of southern courtliness is that it too often masks a certain view of those to whom one is courtly that is, shall we say, less than celebratory. I am quite sure he was loved by his mother and his wife. I am also quite sure that he remembered the birthdays of those to whom he was close, smiled for the camera a lot, and all sorts of other traits.

The same could be said of many who passed through this world whose deaths came far too late to undo the damage they caused. Simply because he may have had some good to recommend him is not in the least reason to be glad that someone who has done tremendous harm to our common life has, finally, passed out of it.

Which "ilk" am I supposed to be a part of? I'm not even sure I know what an "ilk" is? Is it different than a "gang" or a "cohort"? Please enlighten this sad, ignorant liberal on this point.

Les said...

"It might surprise you to find it is the Democrat party that is the racist party, not the Republican."

I wish I could find some sort of lazy, comfy personal contentment by being one of those simpletons who thinks a partisan affiliation can somehow pigeonhole an ideology. Heck, that a partisan affiliation even means anything at all, for that matter.

Oh, wait - I don't wish that at all, because I'm not a fucking moron. Mark, sometimes I wonder how you find the mental capacity to remember to breathe throughout the course of the day. When you're not busy threatening your fellow man with eternal damnation, it seems you like to occupy your time by cementing your status as this blog's village idiot. You think Geoff's a self-righteous jerk, do you? Pot, meet kettle.

I guess I should expect nothing less from the kind of people who think I'm no better than a murderer.

Marshall Art said...

Les,

So happy to know you still lurk. I don't believe I've called you a murderer. This is especially true since you claim not to personally believe in abortion and would, if put to it, seek to talk your woman into having the child.

However, as you claim to believe that a human zygote is not a person, for whatever reason, that would mean that you are not a murderer by definition. Some willfulness and malice aforethought is required, I believe. At worst, some form of manslaughter would be more appropriate.

At the same time, it is my job, or at least my desire, to see that everyone, or at least enough legislators, cut the crap with all the lame rationalizations, and admit what is so obvious to those for whom sex is put in its proper place, that people beget people and nothing else. It's really that simple.

Now, you are more than welcome to visit and call me names, if you are so compelled. I would prefer that all my visitors restrict their nastiness to the comments rather than the person who made them.

In addition, this charge that any believer of traditional sentiment threatens anyone else with damnation is really a pretty lame accusation. People like Mark and myself, to name but two, merely remind those who claim to be Christians what they should already know regarding their mistaken beliefs. That is, only God can damn anyone, and we only warn others when they go astray. A very Christian thing to do, actually. It's also why I'm so keen on reminding others on what abortion really is. I hope this clears things up and I'm glad to see you return, even if to talk smack.

Now, back to my vacation.

Marshall Art said...

As to that, thanks Blamin and Mark for site-seeing tips. Saw the Yorktown today, seeing Sumter tomorrow. Took a couple of walkin' tours and have been eating like a glutton.

Finally got access on this here hotel computer, but don't want to spend all nite bloggin'. Wish to hit and run only. Later, folks!

Les said...

"...this charge that any believer of traditional sentiment threatens anyone else with damnation is really a pretty lame accusation."

Oh, really? Let's cut the bullshit, Casper. Mark made it abundantly clear to me in so many words that because of my stance - my POLITICAL stance, no less - on the abortion issue, that I face the wrath of God. Don't believe me? Go back and read his sanctimonious diatribe aimed in my direction the last time I bothered to visit this place.

I don't apologize for calling a spade a spade.

Anonymous said...

les, you seem to be a decent fellow in a way, but your conscience seem to be bothering you in my view. Why else would you get so upset and not accept that perhaps those like Mark and Marshall may have your best interest as their concerns, a desire to see you avoid some punishment? Bad choices do have consequences and I think they affect us personally and nationally. Mom2

Marshall Art said...

You miss my point, Les. That we might say that your beliefs or behavior damn you is not a condemnation from us, but merely a reminder of what Scripture says, at least in our view. It is a reminder of what you have forgotten, denied, or of that which you are unaware.

Now if it pisses you off to be made aware, or reminded, or informed, well, that's another story. Of course, you are still welcome to believe what you will. That goes without saying.

BTW, are you out of spleef? You seem tense.

Les said...

No, you're missing MY point. It's uncalled for when people squeeze in the spectre of divine punishment when discussing their opponents' stances on political or social issues. As I've stated in the past, I find such tactics insulting to no end. Matthew 7:1 was written for a reason.

If you want to engage in such behavior, have at it. It's your blog. Just don't expect me to take you seriously.

blamin said...

Geoffrey,

When it comes to the misfortune of others it’s all a matter of class or classlessness if you will.

First, I think you should take a closer look at Helm’s record, the sophomoric courtly manners crack only goes to show how you gather information from very “narrow” sources.

Did Helm’s views cross the line on occasion; did he occasionally let his zeal overtake his sensibilities when he possibly could have reached more people with a more subdued reaction? Perhaps. But many believe that his voting record, the politicians he supported (he was instrumental in helping elect the greatest president of at least the last four decades), the bills he championed did much to better this country. His many years in the senate show a most excellent voting record.

I personally believe that Ted Kennedy has done much to harm this country, not to mentions his dubious past. But, I would never, ever, symbolically dance a jig upon his grave when he’s no longer among us. Instead I feel pity for the man. Pity and a deep sense of loss at all the man could have accomplished, if he only would have looked at history and results instead of pandering to the lefty establishment. If only he would have championed a mind-set of hope and a sense that all have the ability to achieve, instead of feeding, no gorging, the mindset of discontent.

But you know what? When Mr. Kennedy passes, I will mourn. I’ll pray for his soul, I’ll mourn for the man, I’ll mourn for his family, and I’ll mourn for all that could have been.

Marshall Art said...

Les,

I don't have a Bible handy at the moment. I'll be sure to review the passage you offer when I arrive home.

In the meantime, I agree, you're under no obligation to take anything seriously that you find posted here. However, I don't have the same hard time from which you suffer over people who don't feel they can disconnect their religious beliefs with the everyday. In fact, they wouldn't be all that faithful, would they? The only thing you have to worry about is if there is "secular" applications for that which is based upon the faith of another. I don't see that as much of a problem with Christianity, myself. But feel free to laugh off any such reminders of God's punishment if you yourself don't believe. I likely would myself.

Les said...

You're somehow just not getting my position on this, Art, and it's baffling to me. If one feels compelled to VOTE based on their religious beliefs, then fine. It's a free country. But when someone chooses to argue a political issue from a theological starting point, then it's NOT an even playing field. You, at the very least, conceded you can appreciate the importance of intent when dealing with the subject of abortion. But in His Holiness Mark's case, he decided first of all to assume HE KNOWS the mindset of pro-choicers, which in and of itself is both arrogant and absurd. More importantly, based on that very assumption, he introduced the aforementioned prospect of divine punishment, as if a threat like that were to somehow add credence to his argument.

I ask this - what's wrong with debating the abortion issue from a strictly scientific perspective? You've done it here at your blog. Your opponents have done it. You've both reached separate conclusions. At least that way everyone's on an even keel, and can examine the same pool of data and then formulate their opinions and determine which side of the issue they choose to support. There's simply no need to bring in the idea of hellfire and brimstone to try to scare someone into believing like you. Frankly, that's pathetic, and it makes me feel like I'm just wasting my time with people who debate in such a manner.

Les said...

By the way -

"I don't have a Bible handy at the moment. I'll be sure to review the passage you offer when I arrive home."

Gee, if only there were some sort of electronic world wide web of information at your disposal...

blamin said...

Les, I’m casting no stones, just pointing out a few obviousisms.

It’s the duty of any Christian to point out (shout out?) what they believe to be actions that will damn a persons soul.

It’s your prerogative to discount said reactions, but it’s kind of silly to get bent out of shape about something that people feel motivated to do.

Ya, ya, I know, it’s infuriating to debate from a stance of – what you believe to be reason – against someone who takes the stance of faith. But you should realize that faith and reason are not mutually exclusive.

You’ve got to admit, in your debates with Marsh, he’s always been kind enough to openly consider your views. And he most always does it from a stance of reason.

Les said...

Blamin, I gotta tell ya - your entire comment is a perfect illustration of what frustrates me so.

"...it’s kind of silly to get bent out of shape about something that people feel motivated to do."

Be careful, Blamin. If you're going to use that rationale, then you've got to be willing to apply it across the board - NOT just when it comes to Christians. I'm quite certain you'd feel differently if an given political issue were being discussed using the perspective of, say, islamic extremism as the starting point.

"...what you believe to be reason..."

Yeah. Silly 'ol me. Treatin' science as "reason" 'n all. Yee haw!

"But you should realize that faith and reason are not mutually exclusive."

Uh, yes they are. By DEFINITION. Faith is a belief based on absolutely ZERO evidence.

"...he’s always been kind enough to openly consider your views."

Bwahahahahahahahaha! Good one. No, really.

Anonymous said...

les, I think you just let your pride in your own intellect throw you over the cliff. That last comment was one of the least intellectual I have ever read from you. Don't turn into a total unbeliever. Mom2

Mark said...

Geoffrey, you are too modest. You certainly are perfect. You are a perfect ass!

Les said...

"That last comment was one of the least intellectual I have ever read from you. Don't turn into a total unbeliever."

Explain please.

Anonymous said...

Uh, yes they are. By DEFINITION. Faith is a belief based on absolutely ZERO evidence.>>

I don't believe that is a true characterization of faith. Hebrews ll:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not SEEN.
That does not mean that there is no evidence. A reading of the whole book of Hebrew 11 will inspire us. Another place tells us it is impossible to please God without faith. We worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. He will furnish that which we need, because our faith is not even of ourselves, lest we should boast.
I am proud that you stand with Israel. I will always do so as well. Mom2

blamin said...

Les,

Well of course I was speaking in generalities, every issue discussed is not a zero sum game (no matter how much some would attempt to make it so).

You said: “Uh, yes they are. By DEFINITION. Faith is a belief based on absolutely ZERO evidence.”

No, sir, you are dead wrong. Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive. That’s a fable pushed by the “world”, by those that wish to believe so, and those that are too lazy to find otherwise. Or, if it will make some feel better, believed by those that don’t have the time to find out otherwise, after all “it” sounds good on the surface, doesn’t it? Do you really want to go there? We can throw down if you wish, I’m afraid, in the end you’ll just attempt to poo-pa anything that makes you uncomfortable.

After all, you can just walk away, brush your shoulder, and fool yourself (pride) into believing “I can’t reason with “those” people”; all the while pushing the uncomfortable from your brain.

OK, I know you’re probably really pissed now. That’s the typical reaction. Are you typical?

blamin said...

You have to excuse me; I do so love my weekend blather (ego?)!

Les said...

*BREAKING NEWS*

Write it down, folks - Les agrees with Mom2!

"...the evidence of things not SEEN.
That does not mean that there is no evidence."

I agree 100%, Mom2, and upon a re-read of my comment, I absolutely chose the wrong words to make my point. I didn't mean there IS no evidence - I simply meant one has to BELIEVE that it's there. Hence the nature of faith - a belief in something based on, well, belief.

Blamin, you're just gonna have to do better. You don't know me at all, yet you jump to all these ridiculous conclusions about me. Get a grip already. If you DID know me, you'd know I believe in God. I have since childhood, and over the years I've come to terms with the fact that my faith is no way guided by practical or measurable wisdom. As the scripture Mom2 quoted states, my faith is merely the substance of what I HOPE for - nothing at all founded upon that which I can prove. I am perfectly aware that my faith comes at the expense of my scientific reasoning, meaning I sacrifice a little more of the tangible portion of my belief structure the more I believe in those things spiritual. Anyone who says they can prove the basis of their faith when it comes to spiritual matters is a flat-out liar. If religious beliefs were based on anything BUT belief alone, then we wouldn't have the terms "believers" and "non-believers" now, would we?

blamin said...

Ah, but Les, I’m afraid you have me confused with your stereotypical view of a bible thumping conservative – just call me “Thumper” . But in all fairness, I may have you confuesed with the stereotypical Lib.

I should now better by now, you’ve always (well sometimes) taken the time to support your position. Even though many times your rebut comes in the form of tried but true arguments (or a look down your nose view). LES , I’ve never questioned your faith or otherwise. I’ve only questioned your use of arguments. Hell, you may be playing devils advocate just for giggles and kicks.

But you have on occasion, taken the opportunity to portray your detractors as less than “Ivy league material”. Ya, ya, I know you can’t help it,

Les said...

"...I’m afraid you have me confused with your stereotypical view of a bible thumping conservative..."

Wrong. I respond to each and every comment based purely on its content. In addition, if I start to notice common trends in more than one of any given commenter's posts, such trends merely contribute to the cumulative online persona of said commenter.

"But you have on occasion, taken the opportunity to portray your detractors as less than 'Ivy league material'."

When applicable. As has the host. Par for the course.

Marshall Art said...

Les,

Frankly, it was the "fucking moron" bit to which I refer. By saying you are not one, you imply the other is, or at least that is the likely inference. Bad form, my man. I prefer my guests not attack each other in that manner (less blatant manners are acceptable). I, on the other hand, offer myself as target for such abuses by the mere operation of this here blog. I accept that aspect, but implore all to treat each other just a tad better.

"Gee, if only there were some sort of electronic world wide web of information at your disposal..."

Why I oughta...I just...uh...DOH!

I'm sure you didn't just mean Mark 7:1 as my Bible puts it thusly:

"The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and..."

So, was it the hypocrisy part? the unclean part? which part relates to commenter Mark's comments?

"Bwahahahahahahahaha! Good one. No, really."

You confuse "openly considering views" with "accepting as valid or true" the views of my opponents. I find this to be all too common in the blogosphere. How can I convince my opponent that I am indeed considering their arugments? By showing a pic or vid of me sitting ala "The Thinker" whilst muttering, "I am now considering the views of so-&-so"? It is difficult to demonstrate the consideration of another's views on a blog. I assure you that I do, even when I find the views of others wanting.

Les said...

"I prefer my guests not attack each other in that manner..."

Which manner are we talking about here? Swearing? Or the personal insults? How about giving Mark the Pious a warning for calling Geoffrey a "perfect ass"? Let's keep it fair and balanced, shall we?

You know what I'd prefer? I'd prefer your guests not use lame ass attempts at scaring their fellow guests with punishment from on high because they might disagree over politics. THAT'S what I'd prefer.

"I'm sure you didn't just mean Mark 7:1..."

I didn't. That's why I wrote Matthew 7:1. There's already too much "Mark" at this site.

Marshall Art said...

"How about giving Mark the Pious a warning for calling Geoffrey a "perfect ass"?"

Consider it given. But how about this: How about we all grow up and stop pretending we're offended, that this whole exercise is more than it is---a mere exercise in debate and discussion, that we all aren't so freakin' important and above everyone else? How about that? Is that something upon which we can all agree? Or shall we all just continue being so freakin hurt and sensitive? Jeez, Louise! I don't want this to degenerate into the Museum of Left Wing Lunacy, but I think we should all be tough enough to take a shot now and again without getting too freakin' obscene about it. Trust me. In the real world I throw around far too many f-bombs, so there's nothing that can be said to me over which I'll wet myself. I insist my guests don't have to deal with it and it's only my preferences that freakin' count.

Tell me true, Les. Are you really
"scared" by Mark's comments? Do you really feel anyone is? If his opponents feel strongly about their convictions, I doubt they give a flyin' rat's ass about Mark's warnings. But if they do, then it's likely a good thing he warned them.

Frankly, your recent comments sound as if you've much more on your mind than anything a commenter here has said. If you've a problem with me, you can spit out here or by email. You just don't sound like the Les I know and love. What up?

Les said...

"How about we all grow up and stop pretending we're offended..."

Small problem with that - I, in fact, DID take offense at those comments directed towards me in your "Stating The Obvious" thread. I'm simply tired of people using their own religious dogma to judge their POLITICAL opposition, and lashing back against such behavior is something I just won't apologize for. It's a scumbag tactic to use, and I won't take it quietly. Do such comments scare me, you ask? Of course not. They anger me. I saw enough of that crap from the hypocrites that surrounded me growing up, and it nearly cost me my faith.

I don't mind being cursed out. I don't mind being called stupid. I don't even mind when people question my patriotism any more. In fact, I don't even mind low blows like the following (you might have to copy and paste both lines - I suck at creating links):

http://capitalistinfidel.blogspot
.com/2008/07/rip_12.html

Why don't I mind these things? Because they're all charges based on tangibilities that I can argue with FACTS. Such cannot always be said with matters of faith, because no two people share the same walk with God. I just won't tolerate being spiritually "judged" by those who think they know the nature of my faith better than I.

Sorry.

Marshall Art said...

Wow! Grouping you in with Koz and Huffington Post is a low blow. My sympathies.

But when the fire and brimstone is stoked, why not just call them on their interpretations? In other words, when folks like Dan and Geoffrey try to justify their positions with Scripture, we (that is, those who oppose them in debate) seek to show their interpretations to be lame.

Anonymous said...

"stop pretending we're offended"

So.. you're not going to complain when Christians are targets? Oops.. too late for that

Marshall Art said...

I don't take offense when Christians are targeted. Not in the same way I would if it were a personal shot at me, if such offended me personally. When Christians are targets, it's usually, if not always, some lame accusation not based on reality. So I defend against the stupid charge leveled against Christians. Hope that clears it up for ya.

Anonymous said...

Nothing to clear up. Your other post did just fine. When your groups are targets. You dont like it. When others are targets you seem to jump all over it. Its just an observation.

Les said...

"...why not just call them on their interpretations?"

Because people should be free to believe in whatever religious interpretations they fancy, just so long as their religion doesn't impede the rights of others. Sure, I'll comment on personally held religious views on rare occasions, but mixing theology and politics is simply not a discussion in which I wish to engage. It's an exercise in futility.

Marshall Art said...

"Its just an observation."

But a poor one if I'm understanding you correctly. As I said, I defend the groups with which I feel some kinship, but mainly to set records straight rather than out of some kind of personal offense taken. Of course, in that sense, I don't like it, but because the attack isn't reasoned or logical.

In the same vein, I "jump" on other groups for the same reasons, though there might be a particular instance where perpetrators are especially detestable.

Marshall Art said...

"Its just an observation."

But a poor one if I'm understanding you correctly. As I said, I defend the groups with which I feel some kinship, but mainly to set records straight rather than out of some kind of personal offense taken. Of course, in that sense, I don't like it, but because the attack isn't reasoned or logical.

In the same vein, I "jump" on other groups for the same reasons, though there might be a particular instance where perpetrators are especially detestable.

Marshall Art said...

Les,

Your last comment seems to make your responses to Mark a bit of a contradiction. He's certainly expressing his opinions and for him, and some others, separating the religious from politics or day to day discussions and events denies for them what they feel goes hand in hand. In other words, if you won't deal with such discussions, why should the most stereotypical fire and brimstone admonitions provoke such anger and frustrations?

Bear in mind, at this point, it's just pointless curiosity for me and I mean nothing by pursuing this line of questioning. You don't even have to humor me. But what I'm getting at is if someone comes here and raises a point that's based on what I feel is a lame interpretation of Scripture, say Fred Phelps, for example, I'd be interested in exposing their poor reasoning and/or at the same time exposing myself to hearing a viewpoint I might not have ever before considered. (Not that Phelps could provide such, mind you.) Or it could be a Muslim wanting to install some Sharia inspired law, in which case I would want him to explain why anyone should give Islam the time of day or why his notions would be beneficial for our culture.

We've kinda gone around with this separation thing before. I just don't see that there is an argument that should prevent the consideration of Biblical perspectives in legislation if there is a practical application that benefits most, if not all.

Les said...

How is this difficult for you to grasp? I'll put it this way - some things I find offensive, some things I don't. Simple as that. Just so happens I find arguing political issues using one's personal religious beliefs as justification offensive. Why? As I've tried to explain to you again and again, because there is NO measurable evidence for personal spiritual claims and there never will be, yet the usage of such arguments inherently involves the aforementioned spectre of divine retribution if any given political opponent takes up a counter position. I just don't think there's any place for that in political debate.

Let's say Mark had used his "your sins will find you out" tactic against someone who DIDN'T believe in God. What possible advantage does this give Mark in the abortion debate? This kind of threat means absolutely nothing to the atheist, with the possible exception of making him think he's dealing with a batshit crazy person who believes in fairy tales. It undermines one's credibility in an argument that, at the end of the day, really has no spiritual scope whatsoever. It's a matter of biology, not theology.

That's my position. The end.

Anonymous said...

Okay. You like some groups and dont like others. Pretty much like everybody else. As I said, you dont like it when your groups are targets. Thats one reason you have a blog. Good for you. You're arguing over semantics. Just giving your brand of disagreement a different label doesnt mean you are any different from any body else.

Anonymous said...

I don't want anyone to confuse me with the anonymous anonymous, because I always put my Mom2 with mine and my thoughts are if this blog and some of our thoughts are so worthless, why does he bother to hang around? Just curious. Mom2

Marshall Art said...

anon,

You don't think making distinctions is helpful? I thought the point was regarding whether one is personally offended by attacks. I'm saying I defend against attacks when the attacks are stupid and baseless rather than over any personal feelings regarding the attack. Why would I be personally offended? So I'm different in the manner of my rebutttal and the mood that drives it. Are we done yet? This is getting kinda stupid.

Anonymous said...

This is completely stupid. Dr. Phil was right, this is a nation of whiners. You happen to whine about Christians being targets.

Marshall Art said...

It would be whining if it wasn't happening, but it clearly is. My post, "What Absolute Gall" presents a fairly clear example of it. David Limbaugh's book, "Persectution" is basically a collection of case studies of it. If you want to talk about whining, you'd have to look to the homosex lobby for that.

Anonymous said...

Yes, they are whining for equality. And you whine for continued abuse and exclusion. Its still a whine. Both sides do it. Even you.

Marshall Art said...

anon,

You have wide parameters for determining whining. I can see it now, "Oh damn! I've been shot!" "Stop your whining!"

Anonymous said...

Wide parameters? Hardly. You seem to whine more than most. You even have a blog devoted to whining.

Tag. Youre it.

Marshall Art said...

Obviously you don't quite have a handle on the meaning of the word. But hey, if it makes you feel better...

Anonymous said...

Hey, it seems like your problem. But, you have lots of them. How do you decide where to start?

Marshall Art said...

YOUR confusion is MY problem? How does THAT work?

Anonymous said...

Sorry my friend. I'm quite clear on things. Perhaps you should put the Texas Tea down for just a second.

Marshall Art said...

"Texas Tea"??!!! Isn't that oil? Wasn't that the bubblin' crude what come up from the ground whilst Jed Clampett was shootin' at some food? Yeah, you're quite clear on things.

Anonymous said...

Wow.

I cant help you. Only you can help you.

Marshall Art said...

Sure, Chuckles. I need help. Right.

Anonymous said...

Umm.. youre the one drinking oil. I just thought it was alcohol and drugs.

Marshall Art said...

That just shows that it's you who is need of help. Get some. I'll wait here.

Anonymous said...

What?
You're not even speaking English anymore. Be careful Marshall, or I'll call immigration on your ass.

Marshall Art said...

That's the spirit! You keep tryin'.

Anonymous said...

Wow.
You are one awesome person.

Marshall Art said...

I know.

Anonymous said...

You are amazingly clueless.

Marshall Art said...

If you say so. But you keep workin' that clever repartee.

Anonymous said...

And.. you just keep that delusion going.