RadPurple

"Vacation, all I ever wanted..." The Go-Gos rocked.

2006-05-03T22:59:00.000-04:00

Well I am back. Didja miss me? 6 more As to add to my transcript. And a great vacation stuffed between flights from hell. Darn it all to heck, no stalkers showed up either.

Pictures will have to wait. The IT major screwed up and didn't get them onto the CD right. I have to wait till my friend emails them to me. However I can tell you all about the wonderful time I had.

Oy.

I have never had so much trouble flying before. I blame it on my wife. Just kidding sweetie. Our first flight was from home to O'Hare. It didn’t arrive here until 1/2 hour after it was scheduled to depart. great.
We finally get on, they close up and start backing the plane up and the flight(y) attendant is doing her final check when she stops . . . her eyes open wide . . . and she says (while staring at my son)," Oh no. He can't be there. Oh no." She then runs away (ok, quickly shuffles away sideways) back to the front and STOPS THE PLANE!! great.
The wife and I look at each other and easily read the "WTF?" in each others eyes. She comes back and tells us he can't be in a car seat in this row because it is directly in front of the emergency exit row. great.
Now she is all in a tizzy. We finally get the guys in front of us to switch, but the young guy in front of Alex won't wake up. great.
After a couple more pokes and a slightly loud "EXCUSE ME SIR" his head pops up and he mumbles, "Whuh, oh I was shleeping." No shit? And with a full airsick bag before we've even left the ground? Passed out was more like it. great.
Now we have to wait for her to run back up front and call security to get Drunky McPukeshoes off the plane. Then we wait some more while they load Granny ShuffleSlowly on to take his place. Needless to say we left over an hour late and many people missed their connecting flights in Chicago. Luckily for us our connecting flight was also delayed so we made it in time.

Which brings us to Denver. I thought O'Hare was big. Denver International is HUGE. It is so big they have an underground rail to take between terminals. Sheesh. However it was much easier to navigate and we met my friends and off we went for a fun filled 10 days. I will fill you in on all the fun details later with pics. We had a great time.

Now for the return flight. Oy. We were supposed to leave at 5:29. We didn't leave until after 7pm. Bad weather in Chi-town. great.
We arrive in the Really Windy City about 10:10. Our connecting flight was scheduled to leave at 9:30. Fortunately it was delayed. Unfortunately by the time we got from our arrival gate to the right departure gate, 13 miles away, they had given away our seats and the plane was preparing to leave. great.
Now I'm mad, on top of sweaty and out-of-breath from busting my hump to get there and I am told I will have to either pay for my own hotel room (because "We can't control the weather.") or sleep in the airport . . . with a 3.8 yr old . . . who WANTS TO GET ON THE AIRPLANE and can't understand why we're NOT GETTING ON THE AIRPLANE!! And even better, we can't get any of our luggage, so we don't have any bathroom stuff or a change of clothes. great.
Fine, Gimmee the freakin hotel info. Shuttle is where? Another 12 mile hike . . . with a tired, cranky almost 4yr old that wants what? yeah . . . TO GET ON THE AIRPLAAAAANE. Call the ride back home and tell ‘em to catch some Zs. We will see them some time tomorrow. We finally get to the shuttle area where there are approx. 43 vans and mini-busses honking and vying for space to pick up their respective customers before roaring off leaving clouds of diesel exhaust. great.
We get in our bus for a 20 minute fun-filled, spine-jarringly comfy ride to our hotel of choice where it is now midnite. We haven't eaten in 12 hours and the only food available is room service. $30 later we have enjoyed a ham sandwich, salad, and 2 OJs. great.
The next day we catch the same teeth-shattering shuttle back to O'Hare around noon, check in to get on stand-by for 4:20 and a definite for 6:30. Of course they are again on opposite ends of the airport. So we wait, and wait, and wait. Finally some good news! We are on the 4:20 flight, which now won't be leaving until 4:40, which didn't leave until after 5pm. The bad news is none of our seats are together. When we get on the plane my Wife has to start negotiations so she can sit with my son. I get to sit next to Mr. Nose-buried-in-book. Fine by me. At least he didn't smell or snore. I took care of both of those.
I tell ya, I held my breath from the moment I found out we were on it until they closed the doors and started moving the plane. I was sure they were gonna ask someone to get off at the last minute. But they didn't and we made it.

So nice to be home.

Can't wait to do it again.

Sorry about the lack of activity.

2006-04-11T22:04:00.000-04:00

Last 2 weeks of this semester. Final projects all due.

Then heading out to Colorado Springs for 10 days, then back here to school for final semester.

Busy, Busy, Busy.

Oh and if any Neo-con Stalker-types want to beat ME up or bring ME flowers and candy, you know where you can find me from the 20th to the 30th.

KEvron is SOOOO lucky.

NaNaNaNa, NaNaNaNa, Hey HEEEY GOODBYE!

2006-04-04T14:24:00.000-04:00

Delay is gone . . . for now.

He is not only leaving politics though, he is also leaving Tex-ass.

To live in Virginia.

Near Washington DC.

I don't think of it as losing a slimy politician but more as gaining a slimy lobbyist.

UPDATE: On the "I-don't-freekin-believe-this" scale we have pegged a solid 10. By resigning, Tom Decay gets to use his campaign funds to pay his legal fees.
.
.
.
Please excuse the projectile vomiting.

More GOOD News!

2006-03-29T12:58:00.000-05:00

Operation Iraqi Liberation has liberated all those grateful flowers-and-candy Iraqis and is putting in a democratic style government. With a Constitution. Just like Afghanistan. Yippee!

Oh. wait. Afghanistan's constitution? Based on Islamic law. So converting to Christianity is not only prosecuteable, but may be punishable by . . . death.

Yep, can't wait for Iraq to be JUST AS FREE!!

Why no good news?

2006-03-28T08:23:00.000-05:00

Because.

Why are we in Iraq?

2006-03-27T15:41:00.000-05:00

Two Years Before 9/11, Candidate Bush was Already Talking Privately About Attacking Iraq, According to His Former Ghost Writer

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade·.if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency." Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father's shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. "Suddenly, he's at 91 percent in the polls, and he'd barely crawled out of the bunker."

Spin THAT, fuckers.

Good News from Iraq

2006-03-16T18:01:00.000-05:00

Sorry to get your hopes up. There isn't any. Rather, the little good news I have heard does not come anywhere near the amount of bad news.

Some claim it is because biased journalists only report the bad. I challenge anyone to report good news. I will take second-hand accounts, stories, anything. I will consider all good news and then weigh it against the copious amounts of bad news and see how it stacks up.

Wake up. It is not getting better.

Oh and desperate-for-attention troll? Go Cheney yourself. Did you even bother to read the post or go to ANY of the links? I didn't think so.

A word about the Oscars

2006-03-13T20:58:00.000-05:00

As we all know Brokeback Mountain lost the nod to Crash. But Gay advocates are not worried, they know that there is nothing wrong with . . . coming in number 2.

Thanks Bill.

A Question for Republicans regarding IMPEACHMENT

2006-03-03T18:55:00.000-05:00

I am sure you remember the issue about why Clinton was impeached -- even though it was seen as insignificant to about 70% of Americans, according to the polls at the time.

Republicans went through with impeachment anyway, because -- as we were repeatedly told -- it is critical to hold the President to a higher standard, and establish that no President is above the law.

OK, fine.

What makes a wilfull violation of a law important enough to impeach a Republican President?

In this Dubai Ports transaction, at least two provisions of a critical national security law were broken by Bush, and by several members of his administration. They freely and openly admit to the violation, and have offered absolutely no justification for breaking the law.

The Exon-Florio amendment to the Defense Production Act requires a 30-day review of all such transactions by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. Then reviewed by the President. If the president agrees the deal should go forward...

A 1993, amendment requires, by law, that a mandatory 45-day investigation be conducted AFTER the 30-day review on any transaction that:
* Involves a corporation owned by a foriegn government
and
* Involves a national security concern (like, for instance the part of this contract that involves handling 40% of all military hardware and its corresponding classified information).

By a Bush executive order in 2003, codified in 31 CFR, Part 800, the Secretary of Defense sits on the Committee of Foreign Investment in the United States. Scott McClellan said that the Defense Department played a major part in the review. The deal was approved by, allegedly, a unanimous vote of the entire committee on February 13th. Yet, the other day, Rumsfeld and General Peter Pace both said they had just learned of the transaction over the past weekend - a week after approval was given. And Bush said he was unaware of it, as well.

These are all violations of an important national security law. Is that impeachable? Or, would Bush have to give a misleading answer to a irrelevant question about sex in a civil suit that got thrown out for lack of merit -- in order to be impeached? Is that what constitutes a "higher standard" and establishing that no President is above the law?

Just asking. You know, trying to figure out where the line is for these things.

Woof.

Open letter to 'pastor' Fister and other Christian homophobes

2006-03-02T19:17:00.000-05:00

I am a male. I have a male friend. He is my best friend. I love him.

Does that make me gay?

No. So I get to go to heaven.

Having sex with him would make me gay, and keep me out of heaven because it is a sin?

So, if gays love other gays but don't have sex . . . do they get to go to heaven?

Perhaps you neo-con-nazi-christo-fascist-zombies need to be reminded that Jesus died for our sins. If we accept him as our savior, our sins are forgiven and we can enter heaven. That goes for ALL sins, including having sex.

Let he who is without sin throw the first butt-plug.

U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006

2006-02-28T14:06:00.000-05:00

I was very surprised to see these results.

Released: February 28, 2006

U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006

* Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll shows just one in five troops want to heed Bush call to stay “as long as they are needed”
* While 58% say mission is clear, 42% say U.S. role is hazy
* Plurality believes Iraqi insurgents are mostly homegrown
* Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11, most don’t blame Iraqi public for insurgent attacks
* Majority of troops oppose use of harsh prisoner interrogation
* Plurality of troops pleased with their armor and equipment

I had an argument with my brother once where I claimed he had been brainwashed by the Army and had been turned into a 'fascist warmonger' because he supported the war in Iraq. He said those of us here at home, protesting the war, were responsible for poor morale among the troops over there.

As always, Stalemate.

Read the rest here.

What it means to be a Republican

2006-02-26T12:43:00.000-05:00

by Larry Beinhart

The vice president shoots you in the heart and in the face. Then you apologize for all the trouble it’s caused him. That’s what it means to be a Republican.

Despite almost hysterical warnings the president stays asleep at the wheel. He does nothing about terrorism and 9/11 happens. He responds by running away to Nebraska. Three days later he makes a supposedly impromptu speech with a bull horn on the rubble of the World Trade Center. He is universally cheered as a hero. That’s what it means to be a Republican. The president puts together false claims to go to war with the wrong country. His party universally supports him. That’s what it means to be a Republican.

Read the rest here.
The jist of it is :

What it implies is that Republicans can’t be dealt with as if reason and facts will sway them. Because it wont. It’s hard for reality based people, regular Democrats and Liberals to understand that.

What it let’s us know is that reality based people, Democrats, Liberals, real Conservatives, old-fashioned Republicans and non-profit Christians have to take more vigorous and rigorous stands. Or reality and real American values and the American landscape will disappear, not just temporarily, but forever.

The three D's

2006-02-23T08:02:00.000-05:00

Duhbya, Dubai, FreeDumb

Holy Moronic Asshats Batman!!

2006-02-16T14:52:00.000-05:00

I am having trouble believing this guy is for real. He is just TOO stupid.

I think it is a joke. If looked at that way it is a pretty funny take on the righteous Christian fascist zombie brigade.

So I'm no economist . . .

2006-02-16T13:28:00.000-05:00

. . . but I like my free stuff.

I received an email about execs at telecoms wanting to charge for surfing, then was reminded of it while checking out another blogger.

The "internets" should remain freeware.

Go here for the info and letter(email) campaign.

Federal finance reform solution

2006-02-15T14:14:00.000-05:00

10% flat tax across the board. On everything taxable. EVERYTHING. No tax breaks, no loop holes, no refunds, no IRS audits.

You earn $500,000.00? You pay $50,000.00 in tax.
You buy a $20,000.00 car? You pay $2,000.00 in tax.
You buy a $20.00 pack of MJ cigarettes? You pay $2.00 in tax.

Use the revenue to finance campaigns, no more fund-raising and lobbying. Put all political parties on equal footing. Free TV ads during election years.

It just popped into my head and I am sure it has flaws, but why wouldn't it work?

Give me one good reason . . .

2006-02-10T02:07:00.000-05:00

. . . why pot should NOT be legalized.

I bet I can counter it.

Jesus loves me, this I know . . .

2006-02-08T18:11:00.000-05:00

. . . cause the Bible (and Mark) tells me so.

Does GOD exist?

Am I going to hell?

Do you give a fat hairy rats ass?

Did Jesus have any brothers or sisters or did John "forsake" Mary for her extra-marital (extremely extramarital) affair?

Trinity? Isn't that the kick-ass chick from the Matrix?

And just exactly who the hell is the Holy Ghost?

Brokeback Mountain . . .

2006-02-08T10:38:00.000-05:00

Watch it for the hot gay sex,
Love it for the Gay Agenda.

What a crock. The "agenda" in hollywood is . . . wait for it . . . money.
*SHOCK*
Noooo
*SHUDDER*
It can't be. Say it ain't so.

I don't know about the rest of you, but when I go to the movies, I go to be entertained. I think Blue Dragon explained it very well.

Because guess what chickadees, there is NO GAY AGENDA!

I'm sorry, I know you frightwingers just turned me off with a dismissive "elitist liberal pig." come back frightwingers. Let me explain what I mean. I want you to go to IMDB. com. Go now, and if you look up 2005, you're gonna find about 4,471 entries in films made in the US. Of those 4,471 entries, we have such monikers of quality as: Are We There yet?, Assualt on Pricinct 13, Bee Season (starring Richard Gere), Beef 3, The Benefits of Drinking whiskey (and I'm just through the B's.) Of all 4,471 films, three films that deal with gay and gender issues were nominated. Brokeback Mountain, Capote, and Transamerica (Felicity Huffman is nominated, not the film). Do you know why these films were nominated, and not Beef 3? Because, maybe, just maybe, THEY WERE GOOD MOVIES! Maybe they had good characters, an interesting storyline, good cinematography, ya know, the things we're SUPPOSED to nominate movies for. Also nominated was a film about the possible destructive nature of vengeance, and a movie about standing up to our government when it dabbles in Tyranny. Why aren't you guys freaking out about Clooney's movie? That's actually got a theme that puts you in danger! That's got a theme about Americans standing up to their government when it oversteps its bounds. That may give people ideas. But no, you're eerily silent about that. Maybe because it would mean you back that drunk ass fool, McCarthy?

Do yourself a favor and read the rest here.

I don't pick movies for their supposed agenda. I just won't go see a movie if I think it is garbage, or I am afraid it will turn me gay .
(*cough* DL Fister *cough*)
Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Thanks for being SOOOO patient...ass

2006-02-06T12:37:00.000-05:00

Our (Right)eous Christian Warrior has been posting like . . . well . . . crazy. The one post that made an actual point was from this report from the whitehouse. It may even be correct. But there is a lot to research.

So far the only thing I have found that is wrong is the unemployment numbers. Most likely the rest will be the same. Mostly correct but slightly off and a touch misleading.

From the Dept of Labor:

Clinton numbers for his 8 yrs:
He started at his highest of 7.3 and had a relatively steady drop to 3.9 with 3.8 as his lowest near the end. His average was 5.2.

Bush numbers from his 5 yrs:
He started at 4.2, which was his lowest, then began the climb to his highest of 6.3 before falling slowly back to the current 4.7. That gives us an average of 5.4. Umm thats not better than Clinton . . . is it?

For a good comparison here is the chart showing both presidencies:

As for the 4.7 million NEW jobs?

It doesn't take into account the 2.6 million jobs LOST prior to that for a net growth of only 2.1 million jobs. Clinton had over 14 million new jobs during his 8 yrs. Bush better hurry up.

Although to be fair, RVs source did say Bush's last monthly number of 4.7 was lower than the AVERAGE of EACH DECADE.
Repeat after me:
bullshit comparison.
apples to oranges.

I also have life and doing research is time consuming. I will research the rest as fast as I can.

Until then . . . questions? comments? concerns? mindless assbaggery?

State of the Union - part 2

2006-02-02T22:09:00.000-05:00

From factcheck.org:

"The misstatement of the union"

February 1, 2006
Summary

The President left out a few things when surveying the State of the Nation:

*
He proudly spoke of "writing a new chapter in the story of self-government" in Iraq and Afghanistan and said the number of democracies in the world is growing. He failed to mention that neither Iraq nor Afghanistan yet qualify as democracies according to the very group whose statistics he cited.
*
Bush called for Congress to pass a line-item veto, failing to mention that the Supreme Court struck down a line-item veto as unconstitutional in 1998. Bills now in Congress would propose a Constitutional amendment, but none have shown signs of life.
*
The President said the economy gained 4.6 million jobs in the past two-and-a-half years, failing to note that it had lost 2.6 million jobs in his first two-and-a-half years in office. The net gain since Bush took office is just a little more than 2 million.
*
He talked of cutting spending, but only "non-security discretionary spending." Actually, total federal spending has increased 42 percent since Bush took office.
*
He spoke of being "on track" to cut the federal deficit in half by 2009. But the deficit is increasing this year, and according to the Congressional Budget Office it will decline by considerably less than half even if Bush's tax cuts are allowed to lapse.
*
Bush spoke of a "goal" of cutting dependence on Middle Eastern oil, failing to mention that US dependence on imported oil and petroleum products increased substantially during his first five years in office, reaching 60 per cent of consumption last year.

So, nothing really new there, just more half-truths and misnomers. Hopefully the Dems will take some solid action on it, something better than "We can do better". And FUCKRYIN OUT LOUD!! stop letting the Repubs mangle, distort, and trash Dem ideas and then turn around, make minor changes, and present them as their own. Anyone remember Murtha?

State of the Union?

2006-01-31T22:52:00.000-05:00

Diagnosis:

Some mental deficiency due to lack of SUBSTANCE and repetitive meeting of wall and head.

oy.

Nothing to hide . . .

2006-01-29T21:01:00.000-05:00

. . . except the truth of course.

Hat tip to Carl

Jan. 26, 2006, 9:21PM
Bush defends Abramoff photos
He says images showing him with disgraced lobbyist won't be released to the public
By MICHAEL HEDGES
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - The photographs Democratic strategists would love to send to potential contributors — of President Bush gripping and grinning with now-disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff — will remain in the White House private collection, Bush said Thursday.

Under dogged questioning at a press briefing, Bush dismissed the photographs as routine shots taken at public receptions and denied any close relationship with Abramoff.

Can someone please explain why if there is nothing to hide . . . the photos can't be published? When is this administration going to be held accountable for it's actions?

FUCKryin out loud.

"Dissent is the highest expression of patriotism."

2006-01-26T11:15:00.000-05:00

At least it USED to be, back when Tommy Jefferson said it.

Now though, the neocon fascist warmongers claim dissent is equal to treason and aids and comforts the enemy. How quickly they forget what they did to Clinton. Oy.

Why can't we find anyone who thinks like this anymore (emphasis mine):

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more imporant to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

- Theodore Roosevelt, "The Kansas City Star," May 7, 1918

HOO-RAAHH!! TESTIFY TEDDY!!

Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away. That only works with teeth.

I found that quote while perusing the comments over at Media Matters under an article about Flush Limpballs and his latest idiotic meanderings. How long till that idiot just implodes?

Anyway, my aimless wandering post does have a conclusion. I think Media Matters is arguably the best debunker of media bull-shizit out there. I challenge anyone to find a right-wing debunk site that comes anywhere close to doing the same.

And dissent? I do.

How Conservatives Argue.

2006-01-19T15:43:00.000-05:00

Do yourself a favor and check out this post if you haven't already. I was rollin half way thru.

Christian Values in Action . . . or is that Inaction?

2006-01-19T15:11:00.000-05:00

I cut this letter-to-the-editor out of my Sunday paper. I was going to respond to it when I had some free time from family and schoolwork.

Liberate U.S. from Christianity
Let's adhere to the statement "separate church and state."
Liberate us from all aspects of Christian principles derived from the Christian resource, the Bible.
No more Christmas, a Christian holiday.
Truth is a Christian principle. Let us be free to lie.
Not to steal is a Christian principle. Free those convicted of stealing.
Not to murder is a Christian principle. Free those imprisoned for murder.
Helping others is a Christian principle. No more donations to help the less fortunate.
Did you know that to not offend someone is a Christian principle? Offend!
Expose the many hidden Christian principles within our society and be rid of them.
No more Golden Rule, trust, love, faithfulness, etc. These are all Christian principles.
Wake up, America.
Separate church and state?

AVRIL BLACKWOOD
GREECE

I sat down at my puter, went to the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle and proceeded to the opinion page. I did not write a response to Ms. Avril Asswood. Two others did it for me and not too shabby either.

Christians don't own morality

The Jan. 15 letter "Liberate U.S. from Christianity" implies that Christians are the only people who follow ethical principles.
People of all faiths tell the truth, help their neighbors and refrain from stealing and murder because it is the right thing to do.
The Bible and Christians don't have a monopoly on morality. I'm proud of our secular government, which provides security for all people to live their lives according to their own faiths.
Speaking as a Christian, I am appalled at the movement in this country to legislate opinions and foist the Bible on everyone else. Did the "Show respect for others" Sunday school class forget that "others" includes everybody, not just Christians?

SUZANNE STATES
ONTARIO, WAYNE COUNTY

AMEN SISTAH!! And my favorite (emphasis mine):

Liberate U.S. from religious biases

Regarding the Jan. 15 letter "Liberate U.S. from Christianity":
How full of himself must the writer be to think that his religion is the only way to live a moral and ethical life.
When you make decisions every day, if you base them on the happiness of others or on easing the suffering of others, then you live by a positive moral code.
If on the other hand you think that only people who adhere to the teachings of the Bible are moral, then I suggest you meditate on the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch trials and the molestation of children by Catholic priests.
What we really need to be liberated from is all narrow-minded thinking and conflict that is inevitably wrought from religion in any form.

JASON REIFSNYDER
ROCHESTER

BAM!!

How about a little truthiness?

2006-01-14T06:06:00.000-05:00

Our friendly RIGHTeous Christian VVarrior has posted yet another inanity. He posted this entire article which ends by comparing Iran to Iraq. His own comments are limited to the title - "Yet, Noone is Acting." Well DUH. Did you read any of the article? Or did you just get the heads up from Newsmax or one of your talking point memos about it?

Lets get real for a second, OK? Here is my short list of why "Noone is Acting."
From the article:

The Europeans and US could face difficulties in referring Iran to the UN Security Council for breaking a moratorium which was voluntary in the first place, and without the IAEA declaring Iran to be in breach of its obligations.

Athough it doesn't matter if Iran does get referred to the S.C. because the US didn't wait for their support or approval when it invaded Iraq.

Oh wait, we don't have enough troops left to invade Iran. Gee, you don't think Iran already thought of that do ya?

Oh well. We'll just let Israel take care of it. Oh wait, Israel? That might not go over very well with the other Arab countries. Can you say Nukular parking lot? Cuz, that is what the whole area could become if Israel decides to act.

Finally, the UK is terrified that their troops will be the ones getting the worst of any retaliation, and maybe rightly so. You see, Iran and England don't get along very well, there's a history there. And, being that the UK is our greatest ally right now, it's not likely that we will be able to do anything without risking the loss of their support.

Then who do we have? Poland? Sheesh.

Obviously something has to be done, but I think the guys in charge have to think before acting. Plus, there isn't any "Revenge for Daddy" factor this time.

Why doesn't our govt support the troops?

2006-01-11T20:01:00.000-05:00

According to a secret PENTAGON study, the deaths 74 of 93 Marine could have been prevented as well as another 340 soldiers, if they had had the right armor.

Such armor has been available since 2003, but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.

This kind of hypocrisy makes me sick.

Source

Dawkins, Rhea and WND, OH MY

2006-01-10T12:08:00.000-05:00

I decided to swipe a page from the Vesti-book and take a gander over at WND's Email to the Editor page, when I stumbled on this little inanity:

Regarding "Dawkins': Religion equals 'child abuse'," this guy doesn't know what he's saying. Perhaps Mr. Dawkins is perplexed about the definition of child abuse?

I come from a home that was a cesspool of promiscuous sex, real child sex abuse, child pornography, lesbian experimentation, bisexuals, and drug use. I survived. Looking back, I strongly believe that parents who deny God and the moral teachings of the Ten Commandments to their children are raising them to be hopeless. I believe that parents must show them Christianity because there is hope in the gospels and no where else!

Nina Rhea

I followed the link to find WND mangling quotes by applying straw man tactics (emphasis mine):

In part two, "The Virus of Faith," Dawkins attacks the teaching of religion to children, calling it child abuse.

"Innocent children are being saddled with demonstrable falsehoods," he says. "It's time to question the abuse of childhood innocence with superstitious ideas of hellfire and damnation. Isn't it weird the way we automatically label a tiny child with its parents' religion?"

Two things come to mind:

First, does anyone actually read anything for themselves anymore? Dawkins did not claim it was child abuse. I will explain it for the mentally deficient WNDers. Dawkins was saying that the scary images of fear taught by religion was an abuse to the innocence, the happiness, of childHOOD.

Which brings me to point number two where MiseRhea contradicts herself. How did she survive "real child abuse" without that "hope of Christianity" from her own parents? Especially if you consider hope to truely exist "in the gospels and no where else!"

Maybe I too am perplexed.

The fish is owned by:

2006-01-04T15:48:00.000-05:00

I don't want to spoil the puzzle for anyone that doesn't WANT to know the answer. See the comments for the solution.

I found the "Einstein Puzzle" here. The solution is also there with explanations.

Puzzle of Redemption

2006-01-04T07:57:00.000-05:00

There are 5 houses in 5 different colors. In each house lives a man with a different nationality. The 5 owners drink a certain type of beverage, smoke a certain brand of cigar, and keep a certain pet. No owners have the same pet, smoke the same brand of cigar or drink the same beverage.

The question is: "Who owns the fish?"

Hints:

* The Brit lives in the red house.
* The Swede keeps dogs as pets.
* The Dane drinks tea.
* The green house is on the left of the white house.
* The green house's owner drinks coffee.
* The person who smokes Pall Mall rears birds.
* The owner of the yellow house smokes Dunhill.
* The man living in the center house drinks milk.
* The Norwegian lives in the first house.
* The man who smokes Blends lives next to the one who keeps cats.
* The man who keeps the horse lives next to the man who smokes Dunhill.
* The owner who smokes Bluemasters drinks beer.
* The German smokes Prince.
* The Norwegian lives next to the blue house.
* The man who smokes Blends has a neighbor who drinks water.

Carl cannot answer. One winner per household per visit per whatever. May the Schwarz be with you.

How about a puzzle?

2005-12-27T23:18:00.000-05:00

I like brain-teasers. I found this while surfing.

My wife and I went to a dinner party with four other couples. At the beginning of the party, some people shook hands. (Obviously, no one shook his or her own hand or spouse's hand, and no one shook hands with the same person twice.) During the party I surveyed all the other people as to how many hands each one shook. I got different answers from everyone. What did my wife say?

Can you figure it out? It does have only one possible answer.
I will post the answer in a couple days.

All God's laws are enforced.

2005-12-27T22:34:00.000-05:00

That is the end. The discussion is over with one simple phrase. I have no arguments left. How can I possibly continue?

After the relatively sane give-and-take, over several days, with plenty of scriptural research, my good righteous conservative Christian blogger ends the debate with:

All God's laws are enforced.

I guess I knew it would just be a matter of time. When loss is iminent, cover the room with pea-green puke to disrupt the exorcism.

What a fucking cop-out.

RV says Capital Punishment is OK by God.

Our "debate"

Fun with Dick and Jane

2005-12-26T18:29:00.000-05:00

I just got back from seeing Fun with Dick and Jane. Mostly, it was typical Jim Carrey fare. Except it did get a little deeper than that.

I don't want to put out any spoilers but . . . it poked some great fun at our fearless pResident Dubya as well as a little light revenge on the bad behavior of some major corporate executives and their companies. cough*ENRON*cough. It is worth seeing just for the last line of the movie and the "Special Thanks To..." credits.

If you see it and don't agree . . . well . . . screw you. I liked the movie and its sideways slams at corporate greed.

If you don't want to see the movie but DO want to know the spoilers . . . maybe I'll tell 'em if ya ask me nice.

Maybe

'Tis the season

2005-12-24T10:57:00.000-05:00

Happy Merry Christmahanukwanzikah!

Bible Thumping . . . the Good Parts Anyway

2005-12-23T00:08:00.000-05:00

A right-wing blogger had the following interesting post. It made me think about the possible hypocrisy of the Bible itself.

I recently received an ignorant comment from another libertard atheist who says I should be against capital punishment because he found a verse in the Bible he doesn't believe in that says Jesus helped a man in prison. Lol, as stupid as that justification is, not to mention atheists quoting the Bible, I have to point out how and why I favor the death penalty, according to what I believe, which is The Truth.

- Genesis 9:5-6: "And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."

- Leviticus 24:17-22: "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast. And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again. And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death. Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God."

- John 19:11: "Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above..."

- Romans 13: Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

- Numbers 35:30-31: "Whosoever killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die. Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death."

Any Questions, Libertard Atheists?

Being what this righteous Christian would identify as a "Libertard Atheist" I decided to take him up on his offer and post a question.

How do you decide which verses are right? How do you decide which verses to follow? Because the Bible also says:

Romans 12:
[17] Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
[18] If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
[19] Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Exodus 20:
[13] Thou shalt not kill.

I forgot these, so I went back to remind him of them as well:

Matthew 5:
[38] Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
[39] But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

John 1:
[17] For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

I eagerly await his response.

I have often heard the saying that the Bible is just a group of stories written by men. Men make mistakes. Maybe not all the stories that should be in the Book are , and maybe some of the stories that are in the Book . . . shouldn't be. But that is for another post.

2005-12-08T19:44:00.000-05:00

I read a post at The 5th Estate Blog and the follow up comments. I liked it so much I thought it needed repeating. Here is the link to the full post and it's comments. I have made minor adjustments for readability and understandability out of context. Read away.

Let’s have a look at the 1st Amendment shall we?

“Congress shall make no law respecting [meaning ‘in respect to’] an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.

It’s pretty clear to me at least that the 1st Amendment:
a) disallows the establishment of an official and mandated religion and
b) allows everyone to practice any religion in public and without legal constraint.
So the celebration of Christmas is utterly consistent with the 1st Amendment.

One argument by the “right” is “not allowing people to publicly celebrate a religious holiday DOES violate rights granted to them in the 1st Amendment.” That would be correct, but ONLY if the public celebration of a religious holiday were to be specifically banned BY LAW. No such law exists, no such law has been proposed and such a law would indeed be unconstitutional. The ONLY constraint on the celebration of Christmas (or Christianity in general) in public is with regard to its sanctioning and promotion by government to the exclusion of other religions. Government buildings and organizations are obliged, consistent with the 1st Amendment to recognize other religious holidays coincident to Christian holidays (or indeed vice versa,), OR NOT AT ALL, again consistent with disallowing the establishment of ANY official, state mandated religion.

Is anyone being arrested for celebrating Christmas? No, they aren’t. The decorations are going up all across America, Christmas presents are being bought and Christmas trees are being decorated, so where is the evidence of Christmas being “disallowed” in anyway?

Christmas is indeed a national holiday and because it is the only truly national religious holiday that makes Christmas appear to be “official”, it appears to be inconsistent with the notion of the ”separation of Church and State” and suggests the government is ergo Christian and Christianity therefore the “official” religion.

However, whilst Christmas is officially recognized, its observation is not mandatory but optional and therefore it IS in accordance with the separation of Church and State, consistent with the 1st amendment and constitutionally permissible. Ergo Christianity is NOT an official religion and therefore the United States is NOT officially a Christian nation—it just has a lot of Christians in it. Those who would seek to make the US officially Christian would actually be “going against” the constitution of the United States, which would seem to be a bit un-American, don’t you think?

Another claim is,”This country was founded by conservative Christians.”
They seem to be mixing up the Puritan Pilgrims with the Founding Fathers here. The Pilgrims were indeed conservative Christians who left England after the resurgence of Catholicism under Charles II. The Pilgrims founded a colony, not a country. America didn’t spring up full blown the moment they landed at Plymouth Rock. And here’s some news for you…the pilgrims were so conservative that THEY DIDN’T CELEBRATE CHRISTMAS! To them the notion of taking a holiday and making merry in the name of Jesus was tantamount to blasphemy. Nor did they espouse religious freedom—they simply dismissed all but their own form.

The United States of America was founded by the thirteen colonies after a war against Great Britain over—no, not religious freedom, but over taxation and representation. The authors of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were all very learned men and most of them were Deists which meant they believed in a God but did not subscribe to any specific form of organized Christian worship.

And along with the specific instructions about the prevention of an established official religion contained in the 1st Amendment it is made clear in Article 11 of the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," (generally known as the Treaty of Tripoli):

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

This treaty was endorsed by the President John Adams who was also of course a “Founding Father”, it was approved by the Senate on June 7, 1797, ratifed and signed into law on June 10th 1797 without contention, and it was published in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.

Any questions?

He's baaaaaaaaaaaack, and he's bah-humbugging

2005-12-08T18:39:00.000-05:00

I did pop in a couple times to see if any body cared. It's nice to be missed. Thanks for checking in peeps.

Now to my post.

BAH Humbug. I guess I hate what Christmas has become; a cross between ultra-commercialism and a weapon used by right-wing fundies. A weapon to divide the coutry even more with inane ass-plucked deuche-baggery like "The War on Christianity".

I think what the fundies have forgotten is that this season is about more than THEM. According to one of those Christian songs or hymns or whatever, it's the season of "peace on earth" and "goodwill towards men". Let me say that again . . .
PEACE ON EARTH, GOODWILL TOWARDS MEN!!
I think that means being nice to each other, respecting each other, you know, crap like that. There are plenty of holidays this season OTHER THAN CHRISTMAS, you pompous, overbearing, ass-ratchets.

Everyone is so worried about exactly how much to spend on Whats-her-name and how much did Whos-its spend on us last year, they forget the peace and goodwill parts. Or do you need another picture frame to cram on your mantle? Or a new DVD player to go with the TV in the bathroom?
If it were up to me, you'd get a "Happy Holidays" or "Seasons Greetings" card and be done with it. And yeah, I'd buy a box of 20 cards and everyone would get the same one. Feel free to not get me anything. My wife loves Christmas, so she can do it. Happy Holidays. Leave me out of it. If it weren't for the fact that I have a son and he is now old enough to know about Santa and not old enough to "know" about Santa, I would close the book on the season.

I've already done what I do like doing during this season. I got a couple of gifts for my son and I donated to those less fortunate. I couldn't give much, but there are people worse off than me.

So Happy Holidays. See? I just made nice to everyone I know and like and I don't have to worry about offending anyone but self-righteous, bible-thumping, right-wing fundy hypocrits.

I feel better already.

We were ON A BREAK!!

2005-11-24T19:08:00.000-05:00

Yeah, I watched "Friends", sue me.

I am taking a short break. It's not like my blog is the political equal of The Huffington Post or Jesus' General or Red Tory. And it isn't nearly as funny/raunchy as either Vesti or the Rude Pundit.

So check back in a week or two.

Or don't.

Whatever.

FUCK! Stop PRESSURING ME!!

Oh and Happy Turkey Day. Remember, turkey has triptofan(sp?) so don't eat and drive.

So I took another test.

2005-11-16T07:58:00.000-05:00

You are a
Social Liberal
(66% permissive)

and an...
Economic Liberal
(33% permissive)

You are best described as a:

Democrat

Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid
Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

'Pastor' Fister makes me sad.

2005-11-13T22:18:00.000-05:00

I hate to re-publish these comments, but I am saddened by the story they tell. First, here are the comments from "Nation of Crybabies" post :

Martin Rayner (Red Tory) said...

FUCK YOU FAGGOTY ASS NIGGERS!!!!
We've got you right where we want you. me and Vesti are going to kill you dead....plumb dead!!!!
You're ass hats and we hate your hats of ass because we're rockers!
NUKE AMERICA!
8:30 PM

???????? What is not here? hmmmm.

Martin Rayner said...

Rad, I contacted DL about this via e-mail. He didn't respond. But thanks for pointing that out. He is also impersonating Vesti. (Not that it's terribly difficult to differentiate between the two.) I may disagree with DL on just about everything, but I'd never stoop to the level of this moron.
6:14 PM

DL Foster said...
Admin note:
I have been away and unable to monitor comments in a timely fashion. I review them and take appropriate actions as soon as possible.
DL Foster
8:40 PM

RadicalPurple said...
DL.
You managed to delete MY explanatory comment from earlier but not the NASTY OFFENSIVE one? What is wrong with you?
10:21 PM
Delete

As you can see something is amiss here. Somewhere between the 8:30pm post by the Faux Martin/Red one day and the 6:14pm post by the real Marty the next day a post is missing.
Mine.
The post Marty refers to in his post.
The post where I informed Mr.Fister that it was a stalker/asshole/poser that posted the nasty message.
The post that gave the link to Marty's real blog and informed him which post to read.
The post that asked him to ignore the pictures there and read the whole post before dismissing it entirely.
(Anyone who visits the Fanboy post and has also seen DL Fister's "writing" will understand my plea.)
Did I get any response from Reverend Fister? No. What I got was MY comment deleted and HOURS later the NASTY one is STILL FUCKING THERE!!! That is what makes me sad.

Good Fister, Are you scared that seeing the photos of shirtless studs will turn some of your readers GAY?

Or maybe you had to delete the temptation the link held for YOU.

Either way, deleting the link was more important than deleting racist, homophobic death threats?

Glad to see your "Christian" priorities are set on stun.

Bear (or bare) with me . . .

2005-11-11T19:42:00.000-05:00

I had to copy/paste all previous comments after editing my blog setup. I deleted none and tried to keep them as close to original as I could.

Thanks. RadP

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Veteran's Day

2005-11-11T12:23:00.000-05:00

A Thank You and a moment of silence...

...for those gone before their time.
...for those who serve.

No politics, just thanks.

I feel the need to share this.

2005-11-11T10:44:00.000-05:00

Over at 'Pastor' Fisters I saw the following comment and had to show everyone, just in case it disappeared from over there. It was in response to DL yay-ing and hooray-ing the passing of the 'no-gay-marriage' amendment in Tex-ass.

Regan said...

Reasoned equal protection and standards do not and have not been specific about 'gays legally marrying'.
It doesn't have to.
There are no specifics about WHAT KIND of man and woman can marry and their condition of marriage is to be two consenting and non related adults.
This condition does not change and the bans are specific to gays ONLY, not just any two men or two women.

The worst kind of heterosexua, who isn't even free to walk the streets has the freedom, not privilege, to marry.
Marriage is NOT a privilege specified in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, it's a freely recognized institution among HUMAN beings, no condition of which is a personal characteristic, even perceived as a flaw that is unique and specific to a minority of human beings.

The worst kind of heterosexual has the protection, freedom and basic conditional standard to marriage, that a homosexual, much more suited to meeting his responsibility has for the same option.
This is called, unequal and unConstitutional.
If the black, gay is the same doesn't fly here.
That's because you don't WANT to recognize this undisputable truth.

Gays are beaten, jailed, harassed, horrifically killed or tortured, fired from jobs and careers destroyed too.
Not because of incompetence or activity AGAINST another human being, but because of their condition as a gay person.
Gay people understand segregation, understand struggle for identity and having their identity defined by someone else at the exclusion of all else of merit a gay person can offer society.
THIS is contrary to the Bill of Rigghts.
Period.
And anyone, especially a black man who claims experience with racism, and compassion for those 'struggling' should recognize when a person is struggling with the conceit of those in power, rather than the condition of WHAT they are.

Equal, means equal.
Not changing up the rules to isolate a minority for the purpose of inferior standing.

12:40 PM

Duh, it dont matter nun tuh me.

2005-11-08T15:48:00.000-05:00

RetardVet makes another BEAUTIFUL post called: I'm Lovin' It!

It is a 1300 word essay to say . . . he doesn't care what we say.

*cough* *cough* BULLSHIT *cough*
(Sorry, scratchy throat lately, must be my CRAP-detector)

Anyway...uh...yeah...I don't care what he...uh...says 'bout me or nothin...neither.

P.S. Any and all retarded comments from fright-wing kool-aid drinking pusbags are welcomed, will be laughed at and ridiculed.

aaaaaaand . . . GO!

edit:
He edited my comment on his site down to this laughable piece of excrement:

On the matters we agree on like Terri Schiavo and Tom Delay. Good on ya.

RV: It's time you morons humble yourselves and blog about politics. You fruitcakes come here and act like my site is a forum for your ignorance. You'll either post logic and relevance or you'll be dismissed. I have no time for idiots like you and your cronies.

Edited By Siteowner
RadicalPurple | 11.08.05 - 2:52 pm | #

I also called him a hypocrite and told him to go Darth Cheney himself, and laughed at his innane attempt to discount us with a 1300 word posting. I wonder why he erased those parts? he he

Rev Fister and his "Mary Magdelene"; Scar

2005-11-08T15:06:00.000-05:00

Well our favorite auto-homo-phobic Adam(DL Fister) now has his Eve(Star Jonez with a "z"). And her first post?

Did it pay Sheryl Swoopes to be gay?

A meandering slop-pile of rumor and speculation, with a simple-minded attempt to blame cancer, injuries, and other "acts of God" on . . . what? HOMOSEXUALITY!! If only they weren't so . . . GAY, none of this would have happened. Especially heinous to them is Sheryls coming out for profit. SHREEK!
Bleh. Do they work together to come up with this drivel?

Why do bad things happen to good people? Just ask DL Fister or his new chicky. I'm sure they will be able to come up with something. *cough* gay *cough*

The best part is this hypocritical sputum from Star:

... I have no comments, I have no judgments all I have are prayers for Sheryl Swoopes.

except of course for the rumor, speculation, and innuendo. Right Star?

Repugnant Vet

2005-11-06T21:55:00.000-05:00

Well it’s time. Not to take anything away from vets and navy men in general, but this ass-clown claims he is:
"...a veteran who put his life on the line for the freedom of the United States and the liberation of millions of Iraqis."
Really? You mean during the month and a half you spent taking care of REAL risk-takers like the Marines of the 24th MEU? The Marines you acted as a shuttle service for? The HEROES you brought home? Whatever, FOOL.

This disingenuous jackass wants us to believe he is the greatest thing since sliced bread, when the truth is he probably couldn't fight his way out of the Wonder Bread bag. Lord knows his awkward blog and delete-happy comment section leave a LOT to be desired. I know mine isn’t much better, except I don't try to be anything more than what I am, and I don’t delete posts from visitors, even when if they ARE Fright-Wing, Kool-Aid guzzling, neo-con, homophobic dooshbags.

Anyway, you can visit his blog HERE although I don't recommend it, unless you like the Kool-Aid, or seeing this idiot in action, or arguing with a brick wall, or want to see how fast your post can be deleted.

He says this:

RV: Lol, And I didn't even delete anything.

But deletes this:

RV: I don't think so. It's a proces(sic) of elimination and common sense. If he provides a way to become "unregistered" then he is probably tryng(sic) it, himself.....meaning he's registered.

Maybe if you had taken the time to read his site other than the 7 reasons, you would see that he tells how to UNregister - move without a forwarding address. That does not imply in any way that he is or isn't registered.

If you want me to school you on gay marriage and the Bible, start a new post about it and I will.
RadicalPurple | Homepage | 11.06.05 - 8:30 pm | #

That last bit from me was in response to this:

RV: And if you're a guy you should seriously change your alias on here, lol. Unless you're gonna harp on me about gay marriage next.

I won't harp on you about gay marriage until you post on it.

RV: I already have.

And my handle has nothing to do with being gay, not that there's anything wrong with that.

RV: Being a guy and purple is usually a sure fire sign. And yes, there is something wrong with an immoral lifestyle that God, our Creator, condems(sic).

If he is the strong, confident man he claims to be, why does he remove posts that show him up? I heard a saying once that fits here:

“All hat, no cattle.”

And how.

Over at DL's World of Homophobia

2005-11-04T18:31:00.000-05:00

The Reverend has an interesting problem. How to make himself sound right and the rest of us sound wrong. Oh, wait, he figured it out. Delete posts that disagree with him and shed light on his hypocrisy, then claim it is to "protect" others.

RadicalPurple said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
8:19 AM

DL Foster said...
raddyp,
I have so much compassion, I am deleting your comment out of deep concern for anyone who may be damaged and wounded by it. I have compassion for you. You are apparently lost and extremely out of touch with real life, thanks to a steady diet of AeroAmerica.
For the 1163rd time, your comments should be in response to the post. I understand that you have unresolved anger issues, but you will have to pay someone to handle that. No freebies here.

Want to know what my inflamatory, revolting, damaging post was? It went something like this.

DL, I read some of Toscanos posts and have to say, he seems to be a better "Christian" than YOU. He doesn't slam anyone, and he DOES allow differing opinions to be posted, without negative, snide comments or false claims that he allows dissenting opinion. His posts also try to inform and help others by describing the "hell" he went thru to try to be something he is not; "ex-gay", as well as the tactics those "caring" organizations use. He shows how he feels about being a Christian and dealing with the conflicts that arise from that combo.

Please feel free to check Peter Toscano out yourself and make up your own mind.

Prediction for 2008

2005-11-03T22:41:00.000-05:00

Harry Reid will run for POTUS. Why do I say so? Because I believe this is his first shot across the bow and a very useable example of his "strength and leadership" come campagin time:
Closed Door Session

Cherry-Picking Unemployment

2005-10-31T17:03:00.000-05:00

Over at BowyersPlace the unemployment rate looks like Bush is the best president ever . . . until you actually check the numbers. According to Bowyer, Bush's CURRENT rate of 9.4% is better than Clinton's AVERAGE rate of 10% which is accurate but misleading.

He had a 10% average in the Clinton yrs, his last 3 yrs averaged less than 8.9%. His lowest was 7.0% His highest 11.1%
Bushs AVERAGE is over 10.5% and this 9.4% is his lowest since he took office and ran it up from a low of 7.7%. His highest was 11.3%
Nice cherry-picking Mr.Bowyer.

See for yourself at US Dept of Labor

Banned from BlogtardsFor Bush

2005-10-31T11:40:00.000-05:00

I got banned. It is my first banning. These are the emails explaining.

To:abuse@blogsforbush.com
Your comment was denied for questionable content. If you feel this was in error, please contact the moderator.

This is questionable content?

THEM: "Think about it, there are liberals in this country who believe that Saddam Hussein was a legitimately elected dictator of Iraq, but don't believe George W. Bush is the legitimately elected President of the United States.

ME: Really? Who are they?"

Or was it because I posted contradictory to stated beliefs.
So much for the freedom of speech.

Their response:

Your post was denied because you have been banned from posting comments at Blogs For Bush. All attempts by you to post comments will be denied by the system, with the message that you received - which is a canned message from the system when comments are rejected.

Moderator

My response:

To: "Moderator"

Why am I banned? For contradictory beliefs? Because of COWARDS? Because I was RIGHT? It can't be because I posted off-topic or you would have to ban at least 2 or 3 others.

Their response:

You are banned for questioning the moderation policy. Further emails from you will not be read nor responded to.

--Moderator

My final and most likely ignored message:

To: "Moderator"

I see. So you ARE a bunch of fuckin cowards that can't take a point of view that differs from your own and POKES HOLES in your obviously WRONG belief system.

It may not be the best writing I have ever done. . . .but I felt better afterwards.

Pussies.