Posted 3 months, 21 days ago in 
Loading ...
The premise that elected officials praying in public is somehow “establishment” is ludicrous. Establishment of a “state religion” means government enforcement with legal authority to punish those who don’t conform. It’s not a juvenile sense of social discomfort at being “odd man out.” (It seems that atheists have no discomfort at Buddhist monks or shamans practicing their religious rituals in public.)
Religion, labeled “personal” and practiced only behind closed doors is of no value to the individual, nor to the rest of the world — which, I imagine, was the intent of atheists all along.
JEAN BRIDGMAN
Grand Junction
152 Responses to “Our government has not endorsed a religion”
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 11:17 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Unfortunately, the US Supreme Court disagrees with Mrs. Bridgman. The case McCreary County v. ACLU of Ky.(2005) states that endorsement of one specific religion violates the Establishment Clause.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 11:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Unfortunately for the Supreme Court, no religion has been established.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 12:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Are there any two cases that are exactly the same? Scott has continuously pub himself in the place of being the trier of fact. There is no doubt in his mind that anything is different in the case of the Grand Junction city council invocation issue than to the precedent he submitted. Scott uses assertion to try to sway public opinion. And his assertions are agenda driven. And they are not consistent with due process. What he is seeking is to establish a short cut to the installation of his agenda. He has no concern for public acceptance of any decision. He does not feel the need to conform his opinions to that of the public. He has no concern for what could happen if the public rejects his opinion. He believes that he has the force of law behind his opinion and he will consider no other point of view. And he denies knowledge of anything that does not support his point of view. With all these facts in evidence, he cannot understand why the public feels that the atheists are trying to shove their agenda down the public throat. And that is why the atheist agenda is doomed to failure, whether supported by law or not. He creates his own resistance by the method he and his group use. And that resistance continues to build with each new demand. And I for one do not understand how they can ever hope to succeed using this strategy. Any victory they may obtain along their way, will be subject to reversal and therefore represents nothing but a temporary fix, not to a publicly perceived problem, but to their problem. And that to me is nothing more than shoddy workmanship. It is not the solutions they seek. It is only new issues for their cause. And I predict that they will find many new issues in the future, most of their own creation.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 12:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Alphalpha,
“Unfortunately for the Supreme Court, no religion has been established.”
Unfortunately for alphalpha, he didn’t look up the case in question.
AP,
“Are there any two cases that are exactly the same? Scott has continuously pub himself in the place of being the trier of fact.”
No, I’m putting myself in the place of pointing out how the law has been interpreted by the authorities who are charged with interpreting it. Subtle difference.
“There is no doubt in his mind that anything is different in the case of the Grand Junction city council invocation issue than to the precedent he submitted.”
The fallacy of you claiming to know what is in my mind aside, you certainly haven’t pointed out anything that makes them different.
“Scott uses assertion to try to sway public opinion. And his assertions are agenda driven.”
Ah yes. That agenda again. The one that you cannot prove even exists.
“And they are not consistent with due process.”
Right. How dare I try to use existing law to make a point!
“What he is seeking is to establish a short cut to the installation of his agenda. He has no concern for public acceptance of any decision.”
So I should let the majority trample on my rights just because they’re the majority?
“He does not feel the need to conform his opinions to that of the public.”
So I don’t have the right to my own opinion?
“He has no concern for what could happen if the public rejects his opinion.”
Sure I do. That’s why I don’t reveal myself as an atheist publicly. The response around here is a good example.
“He believes that he has the force of law behind his opinion and he will consider no other point of view.”
Sure I will. That’s how I became an atheist – by considering other opinions. Of course, in order to consider another opinion, I need a reason to consider it. So far, you’ve given me no reason to.
“And he denies knowledge of anything that does not support his point of view.”
Sigh. Not hardly. I just don’t consider a layman’s opinion of the law to carry equal weight as the opinion of the US Supreme Court.
“With all these facts in evidence, he cannot understand why the public feels that the atheists are trying to shove their agenda down the public throat.”
I understand that just fine. Of course, people spouting off about agendas they can’t prove exist probably exacerbates the situation.
“And that is why the atheist agenda is doomed to failure, whether supported by law or not.”
Can something that doesn’t exist fail? Interesting philosophical question.
“He creates his own resistance by the method he and his group use. And that resistance continues to build with each new demand.”
I guess polite letters and meetings to discuss the issues aren’t working. Of course, I once asked you what method would be better and you never answered.
“And I for one do not understand how they can ever hope to succeed using this strategy.”
Maybe because it’s worked?
“Any victory they may obtain along their way, will be subject to reversal and therefore represents nothing but a temporary fix, not to a publicly perceived problem, but to their problem.”
Sure, but every case that is decided in favor of non-sectarian invocations makes it that much harder to reverse the whole thing. And so far there are a lot of cases in favor and none against. I’m not holding my breath.
“And that to me is nothing more than shoddy workmanship. It is not the solutions they seek. It is only new issues for their cause. And I predict that they will find many new issues in the future, most of their own creation.”
If your predictions are anything like you understanding of the issues, I’m not worried in the least.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 12:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, who is “he”? and what case didn’t he look up? And why do you spread out your messages so much? Do you think I’m impressed with your ability to press the enter key?
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 1:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
Your memory is as faulty as your logic. You will recall that I suggested that the atheist group go to the Christian community and solicit their support for any changes the atheists wished to make in the city councils invocation. Your reply at that time was to the effect that public opinion played no part; that the issue was between the atheists and the city council, and that you did not believe that approaching the Christian community would have produced the desired results. That is the approach I suggested to you, and that is the approach you rejected, in favor of confrontation. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 2:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Alphalpha,
“who is “he”?”
That would be you.
“…and what case didn’t he look up?”
The one I referenced in my first post that demonstrates that endorsing a specific religion is, in fact, considered to be establishing it for purposes of the First Amendment.
“And why do you spread out your messages so much? Do you think I’m impressed with your ability to press the enter key?”
No. Since this board doesn’t have a quote feature, I do this so it is obvious what I am replying to. I wish it didn’t take up so much room, but…
AP,
“Your memory is as faulty as your logic. You will recall that I suggested that the atheist group go to the Christian community and solicit their support for any changes the atheists wished to make in the city councils invocation. Your reply at that time was to the effect that public opinion played no part; that the issue was between the atheists and the city council, and that you did not believe that approaching the Christian community would have produced the desired results. That is the approach I suggested to you, and that is the approach you rejected, in favor of confrontation. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.”
No, the atheists figured they’d ask the people who are actually involved in the situation. If that’s what you call confrontation, then I guess that’s what it is. It worked, anyway. The invocation changed.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 2:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You “assumed” that I am male? Do you believe that you are also infallible?
And simply because you have a flawed interpretation of the Constitution does not mean the Constitution is flawed. What knowledge do you possess that makes you the sole arbiter of what is correct, and what is not?
Do you hold a degree in law? Have you presented any cases before the Supreme Court? Do you have any expertise in any field? If so, what field might I ask?
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 2:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Alfalfa, scottie is a self exalted person and his knowledge is beyond either reproach or comprehension.
He has claimed superior knowledge on every subject posted to date.
Like the guy behind the curtain, pay him no mind for he is the all knowing wizard of duh.
His field seems to be lying to his employer to stay on their payroll because he is irreplaceable. Well, in his own mind anyway.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 2:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thank you for the background on Scott. What is the deal with his employer?
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 2:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP - You are exhibiting your usual conservative Christian arrogance, bigotry and intolerance with your statement that, “You will recall that I suggested that the atheist group go to the Christian community and solicit their support for any changes the atheists wished to make in the city councils invocation.”
By making that statement you are declaring that the “Christian community” is the only spiritual group in Grand Junction whose opinion and support counts.
For your information, the “baby Jesus” ain’t the only supernatural game in town.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 2:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
According to scottie, he works for a ‘religious organization’ that would fire him in an instant if they discovered he is an atheist. But what he does for them is much too important for them to fire him (his opinion) so he keeps his feelings towards them secret.
Sorta makes your heart glow with pride doesn’t it scottie?
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 2:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
In other words, he fits the profile perfectly?
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 2:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
alphalpha,
“You “assumed” that I am male?”
Yes, I guess I did. No offense intended. I apologize if I was wrong.
“Do you believe that you are also infallible?”
I’d like to, but all the mistakes I make keep jolting me back to reality.
“And simply because you have a flawed interpretation of the Constitution does not mean the Constitution is flawed.”
I never said it was, and my interpretation is based on the Supreme Court’s interpretation. If you have a problem with anything I’ve said about it, take it up with them.
“What knowledge do you possess that makes you the sole arbiter of what is correct, and what is not?”
I never said I was the sole arbiter. Don’t take the words of my admirers too seriously. I’m not half as smart as they think I think I am.
“Do you hold a degree in law? Have you presented any cases before the Supreme Court? Do you have any expertise in any field? If so, what field might I ask?”
No law degree, just a lot of reading actual Supreme Court cases that relate to current issues. Yes, I have expertise in several fields. Mainly sailing merchant ships. Not terribly useful around here, I admit.
And don’t assume Willis knows what he’s talking about. I don’t work for a religious organization at all, and never said I did. I once told him I volunteered with a group that would not allow me to continue if they knew I was an atheist, and Willis got confused.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 2:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yes, you did, Scott, yes you did. You used threats of litigation, intimidation and that Scott is confrontation and then you denied that you hired the lawyer to do it, so that you could hide your hands later. Good grief, man, don’t you realize how thin that is? Everybody on this forum and the public knows that Hugenberg is working for the atheists. Nobody believes your propaganda anymore. You wouldn’t admit the truth if it bit you in the butt. You just keep proving that atheists have no standards, morals or values. Why you would think that anyone would want to adopt your beliefs or dis-beliefs is beyond comprehension. I used to think that you were a fairly descent human being, but that turned out to be bogus too. All you care about is shoving your atheist agenda down others throats and you will do or say anything that you believe will help you in doing that. Your sense of shame is apparently non-existent.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 2:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Dominionists. Christianists. Look em up.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 2:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GJBubba,
No GJBubba, the Christians are not the only game in town. You can assume I was aware of that fact since I was talking to an atheist. Try to keep up. But the Christian community is by and large the largest portion of the religious community on the western slope, and therefore it follows that would be the place to start. That option was rejected by the atheists out of hand because of their bias against talking to Christians. What did they fear, that they would be converted to Christianity on the spot? No, the reason they didn’t go to the Christian community is because, contrary to what they would have the public believe, theirs was not a request, but rather a demand and they were aware of the fact that the Christian community would not be susceptible to threats of litigation and intimidation. The atheists weren’t looking for solutions, they were looking for confrontation
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 3:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
“Yes, you did, Scott, yes you did. You used threats of litigation, intimidation and that Scott is confrontation and then you denied that you hired the lawyer to do it, so that you could hide your hands later.”
Have you read the letter that was written to the city council? I have. Were you in the meeting with the city attorney and the city manager? What is your source for your information? What is your source for any lawyer being hired by anyone? You don’t know as much as you think you do.
“Good grief, man, don’t you realize how thin that is? Everybody on this forum and the public knows that Hugenberg is working for the atheists.”
Then everybody knows wrong. It’s as simple as that.
“Nobody believes your propaganda anymore. You wouldn’t admit the truth if it bit you in the butt. You just keep proving that atheists have no standards, morals or values.
Because we don’t acknowledge that your conspiracy-laden ideas have any faoundation whatsoever in reality? Sorry, if that is your standard, you’re out of luck.
“Why you would think that anyone would want to adopt your beliefs or dis-beliefs is beyond comprehension.”
Good thing we’re not trying to convince anyone to adopt our beliefs. Just get the invocations changed. One down, one to go.
“I used to think that you were a fairly descent human being, but that turned out to be bogus too.”
I haven’t changed, AP. I just happen to know that you don’t know what your talking about.
“All you care about is shoving your atheist agenda down others throats and you will do or say anything that you believe will help you in doing that. Your sense of shame is apparently non-existent.”
Hardly. I just don’t feel ashamed for knowing what is actually going on. That comes from having a source that is personally involved with the situation, and not getting all my information from the Sentinel.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 3:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
“No GJBubba, the Christians are not the only game in town. You can assume I was aware of that fact since I was talking to an atheist. Try to keep up. But the Christian community is by and large the largest portion of the religious community on the western slope, and therefore it follows that would be the place to start. That option was rejected by the atheists out of hand because of their bias against talking to Christians. What did they fear, that they would be converted to Christianity on the spot? No, the reason they didn’t go to the Christian community is because, contrary to what they would have the public believe, theirs was not a request, but rather a demand and they were aware of the fact that the Christian community would not be susceptible to threats of litigation and intimidation. The atheists weren’t looking for solutions, they were looking for confrontation”
Either that or they wanted to talk to the people who were actually involved.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 3:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP - Then why didn’t you suggest the atheists consult with the “religious and secular community,” or the “community-at-large?”
Who do you think you’re fooling - to you and your ilk, the “baby Jesus” is the only legitimate religious game in town (or the world).
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 3:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, why do you play with these jackasses? It’s the same crap over and over again. If they truly don’t understand that’s one thing, but all they’re interested in is argument and a forum in which to berate people. They can’t do it out in the street, or any place in public, because they’d be bleeding and on their asses within seconds.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 3:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Would that be the same Daily Sentinel that atheists on this forum were praising for their intelligence and honesty in choosing to endorse the atheist candidate of choice. It would seem your opinions waffle with the wind. You carefully use the term that Mr. Hugenberg was not hired by the atheists. Tell me Scott, was it publicly announced by an atheist that Mr. Hugenberg was working with the atheist group? Try yes or no? Everything with you is staged, with deniability in mind. The truth is not in you. You are a snake oil salesman who has no regard for the truth. Just how believable do you think your claim that Mr. Hugenberg is not working on behalf of your atheist group is? You and your group have exhibited a very serious disregard for the intelligence of the public, and as a result, your personal credibility and the credibility of your atheist group is so low that you would have to get on a stepladder to come up to eye level with a snake. Why lie when the truth would work as well. Now please tell me one more time that Mr. Hugenberg is not working on behalf of the atheist agenda. I don’t really want to hear it, but it does display for all to see, your attempts at weaseling out of the truth.
How credible now do you think your contention is that the Christian community was not involved in your demand on the City Council? Would we be talking here today if the Christians felt they had no dog in that fight? Obviously their opinion didn’t count. Only Scott can decide who is involved. Have the gotten involved enough for you now?
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 3:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I am not trying to fool anyone, GJB, I will leave that to you atheists. I understand it is a point of pride with you. On what basis do you speak for me, or for any Christian, for that matter or any person of any faith? You have a serious degenerative mental process which makes you incapable of speaking the truth for yourself or anyone else. You have adopted so many different alter egos, that you have divided your personality and mental process to the point where there is just really no one left. Something must have gone badly wrong in your early childhood to have resulted in such malignant arrested development. I am really quite surprised that you are functional to whatever small extent that you are. And that can only be to your credit.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 3:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
A-P, hired means for money or trade, idiot. Hugenberg most definitely is working WITH the evil atheists. For free. What a concept! Some one with knowledge helping others out in an area they are not as knowledgeable as an attorney. Get a life, out in public, if you’re able to handle it and survive with the lack of intelligence and commonn sense you show in this space. Be a real person, not some pathetic Walter Mitty, spouting off continual nonsense and abuse.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 3:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Johnb
That sounds a lot like sour grapes with political overtones. If you had just listened to me in the beginning, you wouldn’t be feeling so bad right now. You sound a lot like a man who would like to finally speak his mind, so why not put it out on the table? Since I do not take your threats seriously, feel free to write whatever you want. Go ahead, big John, spare me nothing. Just vent all of that nasty, pent up frustration, but when you are finished, you might just take a second to look at the scoreboard. I think that about says it all.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 3:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Johnb,
Thank you for butting into our conversation, JohnB. You may have just saved Scottie from actually having to tell the truth. And that was the idea, wasn’t it? But your admission is welcome. Keep it up and you might even do some repair to your credibility. But I am not going to hold my breath.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 4:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
A-P, “butting in”? This is a private space? I don’t know what “credibility” you are taliking about but I think those who actually know me think I’m quite credible. No credibility with you? I’d call that a badge of honor! Rant on, fool.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 4:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I think you are quite credible John. I know you. On the other hand, I don’t know who a_p is. So I find it difficult to take anything he says seriously. Step out of the darkness a_p. It’s nice out here in the open.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 4:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
“Would that be the same Daily Sentinel that atheists on this forum were praising for their intelligence and honesty in choosing to endorse the atheist candidate of choice.”
Sure. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.
“It would seem your opinions waffle with the wind.”
I dare you to find a post from me praising the Sentinel for endorsing Kearsley. If there is any waffling going on, it isn’t from me. Plus, praising the Sentinel on one issue doesn’t mean you can’t disagree with everything else they say.
“You carefully use the term that Mr. Hugenberg was not hired by the atheists.”
Because it’s true.
“Tell me Scott, was it publicly announced by an atheist that Mr. Hugenberg was working with the atheist group? Try yes or no?”
As I have stated all along, yes. GJBubba has already pointed out that “working with” doesn’t mean “hired by.” Of course, you have to accept that atheists can be altruistic and will actually do something without getting something in return. That doesn’t seem likely.
“Everything with you is staged, with deniability in mind. The truth is not in you.”
Well, at least the truth that you want to be true. You don’t seem interested in reality.
“You are a snake oil salesman who has no regard for the truth.”
Ironically, that’s exactly how I see Christianity.
“Just how believable do you think your claim that Mr. Hugenberg is not working on behalf of your atheist group is?”
No one said he wasn’t working with the atheist group. They just didn’t hire him. He volunteered. They didn’t even ask.
“You and your group have exhibited a very serious disregard for the intelligence of the public, and as a result, your personal credibility and the credibility of your atheist group is so low that you would have to get on a stepladder to come up to eye level with a snake.”
Good thing we weren’t trying to convince the public of anything, now isn’t it? You have this hang up about public opinion. Perhaps its because you know you can’t win the legal argument.
“Why lie when the truth would work as well.”
I have been telling the truth all along. You just don’t want to hear it in favor of your own version.
“Now please tell me one more time that Mr. Hugenberg is not working on behalf of the atheist agenda.”
Bill Hugenberg is not working on behalf of the atheist agenda. There is no atheist agenda. Bill Hugenberg has offered his legal expertise to the atheist group in their dealings with the city council and the county commissioners. He has not been hired by, nor does he represent the atheist group.
“I don’t really want to hear it,”
That much is obvious.
“…but it does display for all to see, your attempts at weaseling out of the truth.”
You mean the truth that you don’t want to accept.
“How credible now do you think your contention is that the Christian community was not involved in your demand on the City Council?”
When did I contend that?
“Would we be talking here today if the Christians felt they had no dog in that fight? Obviously their opinion didn’t count.”
Sure it counted. I doubt the council members would have kept the invocation had it not been for the public outcry. But they also recognized they had to change it. And they did.
“Only Scott can decide who is involved. Have the gotten involved enough for you now?”
I never said that, nor do I think that. But that wouldn’t matter to you, would it?
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 5:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
A-P, sorry , I overlooked your mention of a “scoreboard”. This, to you, is some sort of game where you chalk up—what, percieved put-downs or points in arguments made? It’s all in your demented mind, numbskull. You’ve accomplished nothing in this space other than make a fool of your cyber-self and put on an embarassing display of a vastly over-blown ego that any rational person can see and wonder what kind of a person moving about in our society, assumedly, would stoop to the things you say and the tactics you use. You’ll be credible when you come out from under your rock and declare yourself. Until then, you are a magnificent figment of your own imagination. What have you accomplished in this space-or any space- that is worthy of putting “points on the board”? You definitely need not respond to that because it would be delusional and probably a lie, to boot.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 5:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
You seem to be indicating that Mr. Hugenberg id doing his work pro-bono, because of his devout belief in atheism. You don’t believe it is for the publicity, do you? And since you are in to your bandying of words, let me make my question clear. Do you think his working with the atheists is a result of the former or the later?
The reason that the atheists didn’t file in court is because they would have had to hire a lawyer and I doubt that Mr. Hugenberg would be qualified to go into Federal Court. And I think there was some serious doubt on the part of the atheist whether they would prevail. And really, why should they go into court, they achieved at least in part what they wanted through threats and intimidation. And this way, they get to keep their anonymity or at least they think they do. As for their credibility, we’ll let the public decide how believable it is to say; ‘Oh, he is not our hired lawyer, he is just appearing in court representing us because of his beliefs’. ‘Now, he won’t be writing this pro-bono work off on his income tax nor will our lawyer who was described by the Daily Sentinel as a gadfly be taking advantage of all the free publicity’. Yeah right.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 6:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
John B,
Correct me if I am wrong, but just a few posts ago you posed the question, “Scott, why do you play with these Jackasses? It is the same crap over and over again”. Isn’t it interesting that you decided to join the conversation. It would appear that I hit the nail on the head and the nail is getting angry.
My observation is that your debating skill is almost as good as your political picks. What do you think big John, no chance you would make it as a weather man, huh? Well, that’s western Colorado politics for you. You just never know till you know.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 7:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
“You seem to be indicating that Mr. Hugenberg id doing his work pro-bono, because of his devout belief in atheism.”
I have no idea what Mr. Hugenberg’s motivations are. I do not believe he is an atheist. From what I know of him, it is my understanding that he is doing what he is doing out of a concern for the Constitution. Of course, you will no doubt reject that since anyone you brand as an atheist couldn’t possibly do anything out of anything other than self-interest.
“You don’t believe it is for the publicity, do you?”
No, I don’t.
“And since you are in to your bandying of words, let me make my question clear. Do you think his working with the atheists is a result of the former or the later?”
Neither. Of course, you seem to see things in black and white, so the possibility of other options probably doesn’t even occur to you.
“The reason that the atheists didn’t file in court is because they would have had to hire a lawyer and I doubt that Mr. Hugenberg would be qualified to go into Federal Court.”
No, the reason the atheists didn’t file a lawsuit was to let the city council correct their actions themselves, which they did. And as I understand it, Mr. Hugenberg is more than qualified to argue a case in Federal Court.
“And I think there was some serious doubt on the part of the atheist whether they would prevail.”
You would think wrong.
“And really, why should they go into court, they achieved at least in part what they wanted through threats and intimidation.”
Do you always consider sending a polite letter and meeting in a non-confrontational way to be “threats and intimidating?” Or do you simply not know how the atheists approached the city council? I’m guessing the latter.
“And this way, they get to keep their anonymity or at least they think they do.”
Right. That’s why they signed their names to the letter. Good way to keep your anonymity.
“As for their credibility, we’ll let the public decide how believable it is to say; ‘Oh, he is not our hired lawyer, he is just appearing in court representing us because of his beliefs’.‘Now, he won’t be writing this pro-bono work off on his income tax nor will our lawyer who was described by the Daily Sentinel as a gadfly be taking advantage of all the free publicity’. Yeah right.”
You’re right. That’s ridiculous. Good thing no one is saying that.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 7:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
John B,
Sorry I didn’t answer earlier.
I actually have a good reason for debating them. It seems that in the past, one of the few methods a judge had to determine public sentiment in a case such as the invocation issue was by Letters to the Editor in the local papers. Today, with the internet, forums such as these provide the same information, and a lot of it. So all of the name-calling and accusations that get flung around at members who are declared atheists and at atheists in general can be considered evidence in court of how the public feels about atheism. Willis, AP and others are doing their part in demonstrating why atheists feel marginalized and need to remain anonymous. If the county commissioner invocation does go to trial, and it seems to have a better chance than the city council issue did, these discussions will provide plenty of evidence for the plaintiffs. Trying to please the voters instead of carrying out your sworn duty to uphold the Constitution doesn’t hold much water with a judge. That’s about the only way public sentiment is going to influence a case like this, and Willis and AP are doing their side no small amount of damage.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 8:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ah, belatedly, Mr. Hugenberg is disavowed by the atheists. The following is a quote from an earlier post in answer to this question from me ““Tell me Scott, was it publicly announced by an atheist that Mr. Hugenberg was working with the atheist group? Try yes or no?”
Scott’s answer was “ Of course, you have to accept that atheists can be altruistic and will actually do something without getting something in return.
Clearly. We were talking about Mr. Hugenberg, and we weren’t talking about the atheists working for him, we were talking about him working for the atheists. I suspect what we have here is a Freudian slip, and now Scott is trying to correct what we are not supposed to know. Thank you Scott.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 8:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You are going to have a small amount of difficulty with the preponderance of evidence. Your friend GJBubba isn’t exactly helping you out with all his assumed alter egos. The court may have to do some assuming of it’s own. That is anything you present was written by atheists as a self serving statement. I am in wonderment. First we had an expert on horses who doesn’t know squat about horses. Then he became a farm boy who can’t answer the simplest questions in thirty minutes. Then we had GJBubba and his fictitious military career as a door gunner and flight trainer who doesn’t know squat about the aircraft he said he served on and last but not least, we have a legal expert trying to enter hearsay evidence from an anonymous source. I guess you might say that this whole group of atheists are just out looking for a curriculum to matriculate in. Try not to get any on your shoes fellas.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 8:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Apparently Ms. Bridgman has limited understanding of how ‘religion’ can be established in a society. And that does not require an outright act by any governmental organization. There is also ‘de facto’ imposition when religious doctrine, dogma, or belief is used as the foundation of law(s) and/or regulations then government is use to enforced one or both. That is known as indirect imposition of religion. Some may wish to ponder on this point a little further prior to attempting any response.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 9:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Ah, belatedly, Mr. Hugenberg is disavowed by the atheists. The following is a quote from an earlier post in answer to this question from me ““Tell me Scott, was it publicly announced by an atheist that Mr. Hugenberg was working with the atheist group? Try yes or no?”
Scott’s answer was “ Of course, you have to accept that atheists can be altruistic and will actually do something without getting something in return.”
Actually, my full answer was “As I have stated all along, yes. GJBubba has already pointed out that “working with” doesn’t mean “hired by.” Of course, you have to accept that atheists can be altruistic and will actually do something without getting something in return. That doesn’t seem likely.
Notice the answer “yes” that AP conveniently left out. Apparently my full answer didn’t convey the message he wanted me to be sending. Who has the agenda again?
“Clearly. We were talking about Mr. Hugenberg, and we weren’t talking about the atheists working for him, we were talking about him working for the atheists.”
And again, I pointed out that “working with” doesn’t mean “hired by.” Apparently AP does not want to acknowledge what I actually said, just the parts that he can quote mine to support his conspiracy theories.
“I suspect what we have here is a Freudian slip, and now Scott is trying to correct what we are not supposed to know. Thank you Scott.”
Thank you for showing your willingness to distort what is actually said to justify your paranoia. Apparently “Lying for Jesus” doesn’t apply only to creationism.
“You are going to have a small amount of difficulty with the preponderance of evidence.”
I think any average post by Willis will get the point across quite nicely.
“Your friend GJBubba isn’t exactly helping you out with all his assumed alter egos. The court may have to do some assuming of it’s own. That is anything you present was written by atheists as a self serving statement.”
Just because you assume that doesn’t make it true.
“I am in wonderment. First we had an expert on horses who doesn’t know squat about horses. Then he became a farm boy who can’t answer the simplest questions in thirty minutes. Then we had GJBubba and his fictitious military career as a door gunner and flight trainer who doesn’t know squat about the aircraft he said he served on and last but not least, we have a legal expert trying to enter hearsay evidence from an anonymous source. I guess you might say that this whole group of atheists are just out looking for a curriculum to matriculate in. Try not to get any on your shoes fellas.”
Zing! That whoosh you heard was the point going right over your head, AP. Keep it up. Your doing great.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 9:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
All this time little scottie has claimed that the ambulance chaser wasn’t working with the atheists.
” No, the reason the atheists didn’t file a lawsuit was to let the city council correct their actions themselves, which they did. And as I understand it, Mr. Hugenberg is more than qualified to argue a case in Federal Court. ‘
Sounds like he isn’t interested…
” No one said he wasn’t working with the atheist group. They just didn’t hire him. He volunteered. They didn’t even ask. ”
Actually scott, YOU said he wasn’t working ‘for’ the whiners.
Such a tiny little excuse to try to wiggle through wouldn’t you say?
” No one said he wasn’t working with the atheist group. They just didn’t hire him. He volunteered. They didn’t even ask. ”
Such a tiny little hole to squirm through….
” Bill Hugenberg is not working on behalf of the atheist agenda. There is no atheist agenda. Bill Hugenberg has offered his legal expertise to the atheist group in their dealings with the city council and the county commissioners. He has not been hired by, nor does he represent the atheist group. ”
Yup, pretty tiny little hole indeed.
Just out of the goodness of his pea pickin little heart? The ambulance chaser?
Sure scottie, you stick with that one little buddy.
Yes Alphalpha, HE certainly does fit the ‘profile’.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 9:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
“All this time little scottie has claimed that the ambulance chaser wasn’t working with the atheists.”
No, I have never claimed any such thing. Care to support this one, Wuillis? How about posting a thread and post number where I did. I’m sure you wouldn’t make such a claim without having that information close at hand, right? Like when you claimed I admitted never reading the Constitution? You ran from that thread with your tail between your legs. I expect you’ll do the same here.
“Sounds like he isn’t interested…”
But you wouldn’t know, would you? Ever spoken to Mr. Hugenberg in person? I have.
“Actually scott, YOU said he wasn’t working ‘for’ the whiners.”
He’s not. “With” is not the same as “for.” Even you should be able to figure that out.
“Such a tiny little excuse to try to wiggle through wouldn’t you say?”
But those little words have different meanings, and thus change what is being said.
“Such a tiny little hole to squirm through….”
You’re the only one squirming. Found that cite yet? Or are you going to run off and try to pretend it never happened again?
“Yup, pretty tiny little hole indeed.”
Repeating yourself doesn’t make your point stronger.
“Just out of the goodness of his pea pickin little heart? The ambulance chaser?”
Hard for you to imagine, isn’t it? Guess what Willis. There are a lot of things that you can’t imagine. Doesn’t make them less true.
“Sure scottie, you stick with that one little buddy.”
I will The truth has worked out pretty well so far. How about that cite you claimed you had?
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 9:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Alas, little bobbie, from Delta, still considers himself to be the wisest person in all the West with his endless supply of useless opinions.
Go run for office in Delta County again bobbie, we need another laugh…
yeah, at your expense. That’s what makes it so funny bobbie, you tell us all how intelligent you are and how valuable your opinions are and only get ZERO percent of the votes.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 7:33 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
OK, I think I’m up to speed.
Classof52 is the wonderful writer of all those Letters to the Editor. John B. Is John Borgen, another writer of Letters to the Editor. RLaitres, yet another Letter to the Editor writer. Scott, another prolific writer of posts to this blog. dc is Duke Cox, Letter writer….
There is a pattern here. Every one dearly loves to see his name in print, except for Scott who, for some reason feels the need to hide.
Each of these individuals knows, deep down inside that they are the only true intelligence on this blog and it frustrates them that the lowbreds just don’t get it. Each has an ego with no bounds, but none have any accomplishments in their lives that has truly improved the lives of their fellow humans. Each believes with a religious fervor that they are right and all others are mindless dolts for not taking in the wisdom they attempt to impart.
They feed off each other and boost each others egos. They all spout the same old tired socialist agendas and pretend it is all new and never before known to man simply for the fact that they are the presenters this time around.
In short, this tiny little group has nothing to offer intellectually that hasn’t been presented around the world many times in the past and been proven to be a certifiable failure ever time it is tried. And yet they persevere in the hopes that some will bow to their (self proclaimed) superior intelligence. FAT CHANCE FELLAS!
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 7:53 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Nice summation alphalpha… I believe you nailed it perfectly. Be forewarned, however… they will accuse you of lying and/or being intellectualy dishonest.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 7:59 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“except for Scott who, for some reason feels the need to hide.”
Does anyone else see the irony in this coming from someone with the handle “alphalpha”? I’m willing to bet that’s not an old family name.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 8:03 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I enjoyed to summation, but why wasn’t DaBookie of GJBubba mentioned?
N problem, John B. took care of them in his post in the ‘establishment’ thread.
” The fact that you might disagree is irrelevant. You are not a real player in anything that counts. Your silly stuff circulates in this small space and you never have to answer for it except in cyberspace. Just once, I’d like to see you put it all out there for the actual public to see just how juvenile and deranged your nonsense is. But that’ll never happen because your “courage” is safe babbling to maybe twenty people who don’t know who you are. ”
Anonymous posters are not the brightest and have nothing of value to present to the real world.
” . In other words, not cowards like you and your fool friend who have made this space the laughing stock of most people who have sampled it. Pathetic! ”
So, he accuses the tmonkey, e_u, chanco, sugarfoot, proteus, etc adnauseum of being the pathetic little fools I have been calling them for all these months.
WAY TO GO little johnnie. You finally caught on.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 8:43 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AA,
“OK, I think I’m up to speed….”
I can see why you don’t want to use your real name
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 8:48 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
It is always interesting to note that accusing another of believing themselves to be of superior intelligence actually originates with the accuser, and not the accused. Nowhere have I seen an accused of making such a claim. It is the accuser who makes the evaluation then accuses the accused of doing so. Nowhere have I seen any of their victims making such a claim themselves.
It is not that the accused are so intelligent, it is really that such accusers cannot accept the fact that someone may know something they don’t. Intelligent people will, when encountering some subject they know nothing or little of, make every attempt to learn. The reactionary mindset will, on the other hand, first deny that they don’t know, then proceed to attack those who do. What they are attempting to do is to hide their own ignorance behind a cloud of smoke. That tactic might be humorous if it were not so blantantly transparent.
Do such accusers really believe that they are right? They absolutely do. They have convinced themselves that they are. Unfortunately for them, and this is true in many cases, when condemning another one is all too frequently condemn a characteristic that one possesses and does not like. So, they unknowingly end up condemning themselves.
alphalpha accuses others of ‘never having contributed anything’. That also is a defensive posture and is really a very childish tactic. One that is based upon the ‘belief’ that by tearing another down such makes them better than others. And, all too often such an accusation is based on innuendo, gossip and yes, ignorance. What they have never learned is that what they know or believe is almost always based upon ‘gossip’, and that they believe it for one and only one reason, because they want to. In such a mindset facts do not at all matter. That is why they keep regurgitating the same things over and over again, they are attempting to convince themselves that they are right, or at least that they are ‘not wrong’.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 8:59 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Alph: “Classof52 is the wonderful writer of all those Letters to the Editor”
I have not written a letter to the editor for many months now. Do you have any notion of what it is you are talking about? (but you may want to check my column next tuesday in the Free Press: The Evolution Enigma)
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 9:11 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
uh gene, nobody actually reads your ‘column’. Well, the birds may look it over since it usually ends up where it belongs, on the bottom of a birdcage where it is treated with the respect it so richly deserves.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 9:27 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52,
I, for one, am looking forward to it.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 9:48 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Leave it to scott to look forward to reading in the bottom of the bird cage.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 12:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: uh gene, nobody actually reads your ‘column’.
Really? Then how do you explain the letters to the editor about my column and all the phone calls I get?
What you meant to say is that those who can’t read words of more than one syllable without getting tongue tied, like yourself little pipsqueak, don’t read it.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 12:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
How much are you going to pay gjblubberboy to copy and paste it to this site so SOMEBODY might see it?
Still trying the third grade childish attempt at sarcasm little moron?
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 12:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: “How much are you going to pay gjblubberboy to copy and paste it to this site so SOMEBODY might see it?”
Cmon WLJ. We know that you will be frothing at the mouth to read this column. You will not be able to stay away, Pipsqueak. It will have a terrible fascination for you which will draw you right in. Like a moth drawn to a flame you cannot resist a local column on the subject about which you are abysmally ignorant but have pretensions of grandeur: Evolution!
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 12:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
poor little third grader in morons clothes.
I have yet to read any of your trollish gibberish you put up at the freep.
Like many others in this valley, I do have minimum standards. A level to which you have yet rise to.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 1:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: “poor little third grader in morons clothes.
I have yet to read any of your trollish gibberish you put up at the freep.
Like many others in this valley, I do have minimum standards. A level to which you have yet rise to.”
To slightly misquote shakespeare: Methinks the Pipsqueak doth protest too much. (Yeah, we all know you secretly read it and weep-especially this next week when I destroy all your favorite, though ignorant, anti-evolution arguments)
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 1:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Whatever you say little boy, now run along outside and play in the sunshine, but try to remember when you get that ‘feeling’ run inside to the bathroom real quick because you know you can’t hold it as well anymore.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 1:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: “Whatever you say little boy, now run along outside and play in the sunshine, but try to remember when you get that ‘feeling’ run inside to the bathroom real quick because you know you can’t hold it as well anymore.”
Nope, I do not have that problem at all. At the age of 74, I am 6 ft, 170 lbs and ride 5 miles a day on my bicycle. Although you are younger than I, I will take you on in any running or bicycling race at any time just to see which of us has to run to the bathroom first. That is if you think you can get out of your wheelchair.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 1:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
C52 - Willis said, “How much are you going to pay gjblubberboy to copy and paste it to this site so SOMEBODY might see it?”
It will be my pleasure to copy and paste any of your columns to this board free of charge as a professional courtesy between well-educated peers.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 2:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Nah, that will be alright, you can leave it on the toilet paper site, nobody here cares.
We much prefer to deal with reality here.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 2:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, that clears up a question.
You finally made it to nearly 75 now? Well congrats OLD man.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 3:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis - You said of C52, “You finally made it to nearly 75 now? Well congrats OLD man.”
Somehow, I think C52 would much rather be a healthy, active OLD man of 75 than what you obviously are - a 60-something house-bound cripple tied to an oxygen machine by a 50 foot plastic tube.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 3:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
typical to the generic brand of intellectual genius of the liberal folks on here.
” Nope, I do not have that problem at all. At the age of 74, I am 6 ft, 170 lbs and ride 5 miles a day on my bicycle. Although you are younger than I, I will take you on in any running or bicycling race at any time just to see which of us has to run to the bathroom first. That is if you think you can get out of your wheelchair. ”
So, you think you can outrun a person hooked to Oxygen 24/7, and spends a goodly amount of time in a wheelchair?
I doubt it moron.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 3:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: “You finally made it to nearly 75 now? Well congrats OLD man.”
Yep! Now about that bicycle race… Let’s see who is really an OLD man.
Don’t tell me you are going to chicken out?
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 3:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I never ‘chicken out’ OLD fool.
But you just keep hanging in there.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 3:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis - Careful, remember that you’re killing what few brain cells you have left if you allow the oxygen saturation level in your blood to fall to below 80 percent. Hang in there yourself, fella!
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 3:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: I never ‘chicken out’ OLD fool.
Well actions speak louder than words. So by avoiding my challenge to see which of us can handle a bicycle race, you are chickening out for all the world to see. So it is apparent who is really the “old fool”.
(yes I know, I know, everybody-this is boring as hell but we cannot permit WLJ to run roughshod over the rest of us-so hang in there with me )
Who wants to see this bicycle race between WLJ and me? All donations to a charity to be named later.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 7:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sorry I had to go for a bit classless OLD fool.
Now, about this race, I would never ‘chicken out’ on you little buddy.
Since I have previously, and on numerous occasions mentioned that i have, in the past, been a victim of identity theft, and am considered ‘high risk’ for a recurrence.
And, each time it has come p, I have mentioned that there would be, on advice of legal counsel, a Non-Disclosure Agreement, along with a Cash Warranty Bond to guarantee the Non-Disclosure Bond.
Since this is for your benefit, and solely for your benefit, you will be responsible for any and all legal expenses involved with the Non-Disclosure Agreement and the setting up of the escrow account in the amount or $1,000,000.00. Or approximately double what I lost in the identity theft issue.
And, since this is a privacy thing, there will be very few allowed to witness this race. In short, limited to those who know me, and those who are also willing to perform all the legal requirements that I have placed on you for my financial security.
Name the date and time little buddy, and I’ll have my attorney get in touch with you.
Posted August 17th, 2008 at 8:50 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh class?
There is a challenge on the table.
Are YOU chickening out on me little buddy?
Are you too afraid to race some nice man on Oxygen, with a wheelchair as you promised?
Why do I hear the sounds of a barnyard in the background?
Posted August 17th, 2008 at 8:54 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Uh, because you live in a pig sty?
Posted August 17th, 2008 at 9:03 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Nope, but a pigsty would be preferable to living in the same county as you and J. Eugene Fox that challenged a disabled person to a bicycle race in a public forum.
Posted August 17th, 2008 at 9:09 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Slow down, Willie, take a couple of deep breaths. Don’t rupture a vein.
Posted August 17th, 2008 at 9:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
It will be OK Duke, just as soon as some people stop pretending that they are the innocent victims of their own stupidity.
The two most likely in need of attitude correction would be those posting under the aliases of dc (aka Duke Cox), and classof52 (aka J. Eugene Fox).
gene for making the challenge then trying to squirm out of it and blame it on everybody else.
And Mr. Cox for backing his unconscionable behavior in this problem of his.
Posted August 17th, 2008 at 9:22 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“It will be OK Duke, just as soon as some people stop pretending that they are the innocent victims of their own stupidity.”
I have a suggestion. Hold your breath until they do.
Posted August 17th, 2008 at 10:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
What are you trying to say here Duk?
That you would much prefer that I die, and thus be out of your hair for good?
How typically liberal of you.
Can we get genes opinion on this issue also?
Posted August 17th, 2008 at 1:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis - You stated, “Nope, but a pigsty would be preferable to living in the same county as you and J. Eugene Fox that challenged a disabled person to a bicycle race in a public forum.”
If your only claim to being a “disabled person” is that you are on supplemental oxygen 24/7, then you’re a “wuss.” Unless you are bedridden and on a O2 flow greater than 9liters/minute with constant flow, you’re not really disabled. Anything other being bedridden is a “manageable inconvenience,” not a disability.
If you are able to leave your abode with a portable oxygen unit, you are fully capable of participating in a bicycle race against C52.
Suck it up, be a man, and accept the challenge!
Posted August 17th, 2008 at 4:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Uh blubberbutt, I did accept the challenge, perhaps it’s your reading skills?
And the precautions are the same ones presented several times earlier, and should come as no surprise to anybody.
I think it’s time for J. Eugene Fox to step up to the plate, suck it up, and be a man.
Posted August 17th, 2008 at 5:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis - Nobody’s buying your “identity theft” excuse. Who would steal the identity of someone who lives in a run-down, pre-1972, single-wide trailer and shoots prairie dogs for food. You’re going to have to provide some solid, verifiable proof before anyone will believe that nonsense.
I have an idea. Why not come to the Friday gathering at Main Street Bagel and present your proof to C52, JohnB, dc, rm and myself? As an added bonus, have AP tag along. After the meeting adjourns you, me and AP can look at each others DD 214’s.
Is it a date?
Posted August 17th, 2008 at 9:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
blubberbutt, that is only your version of what you hope I live in and the circumstances you wish I was in.
Sorry little moron, no such reality.
As to whether or not your ‘believe’ the identity theft issue is of no concern to me.
If you would really care to meet me in person, you know the requirements.
Take care of the details and we’ll work something out.
Posted August 18th, 2008 at 6:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis - Well, at least now everyone on this forum knows that a good-faith effort to get you to come out of the shadow of darkness was made, and summarily rejected by you. Whatever shred of credibility you may have had left has now evaporated.
Good luck in the slime of the sewer.
Posted August 18th, 2008 at 8:12 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“good faith”?
Here’s a good faith effort to satisfy your desires.
I have posted the requirements numerous times, and each time, everybody runs for cover with the same unspoken remark “All I want is your real name for my own purposes, and I’m not going to risk anything to get it, and I really do not give a damn about any consequences to you!”
Take the deal now before the price goes up again. It was at $500,000. But since classless has no credibility, much less Honesty or Integrity, the price doubled.
Poor little crybabies, g have yer mommies change yoou diapers.
Posted August 18th, 2008 at 8:22 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I can’t speak for others, but I wouldn’t give 5 cents to know who the Wimpy Lil’ Jellybelly is.
Posted August 18th, 2008 at 8:26 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Now Duke, is that a nice thing to say?
That sounds like name calling for no reason other than to be rude to another poster who is not engaging you in conversation.
Oh, now I remember, you are one of the trolls who crawl out from under the bridge and hurl taunts and insults when nothing of value exists in their tiny little minds to make an intelligent comment or remark.
Well done little man. Your betters will be so proud of you.
Posted August 18th, 2008 at 8:32 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
No, it is not. I was not trying to be nice. Why should anyone be nice to you? You are, perhaps, the rudest person I have ever encountered. I decided to simply give you back your own medicine. Do you enjoy the taste?
Posted August 18th, 2008 at 8:38 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Quick little moron, how tall am I, how much do I weigh, and is my height to weight ratio within normal parameters?
” dc
Posted August 18th, 2008 at 8:22 am PM This User Report this comment
I can’t speak for others, but I wouldn’t give 5 cents to know who the Wimpy Lil’ Jellybelly is. ”
Your comment is just more childish name calling in hopes of hurting ones feelings, and all this time I thought the liberals were all about making everybody feel good and never saying mean, hurtful things about other people…
Posted August 18th, 2008 at 8:49 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I guess you thought wrong. Anyone, regardless of their political persuasion, would be offended by the relentless insults you hurl at those you don’t like or who disagree with you. You show no respect for anyone else, why should anyone respect you?
I cannot guess what you look like and you are too much of a coward to appear in public. I just enjoy making up insulting names that match your acronym, WLJ. Feel free to insult me as you will. Why should you change a behavior that has become your stock in trade? Almost everyone on this blog has been the target of your asinine vituperation, except, of course, the ladies and a couple of your redneck cohorts.
Posted August 18th, 2008 at 8:55 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Now Duke, you know from the beginning that your remarks are a lie.
I always treated you with courtesy and respect, even apologizing once when I falsely accused you.
And even though, on occasion you tossed in a few zingers I allowed them to slide.
It wasn’t until you came out of the closet and began playing the troll part in support of your hero that you became a target.
” dc
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 6:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Quite right, Class.
My identity is known to all on this blog. I am a public figure. I have in the past, and will once again, offer to meet WLJ at any public forum and debate him/her on any subject that has been discussed here.
I have no particular axe to grind with a_p since our discussions have always been polite. Sometimes I think a_p just enjoys being contrary.
Mr. Johnson, on the other hand, appears to need therapy.
dc
Posted July 29th, 2008 at 10:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Trog,
You are correct in your assertions.
A couple of points: The usual suspects continue to harp about “not drilling”. The fact is that the oil and gas industry companies are drilling as fast as they can. Every old clunker of a rig is pressed into service. They can’t find enough people or train them fast enough.
I have asked them before to tell me where I can go see all the stacked out rigs. Typically, they don’t respond. The reason they can’t produce OCS oil any sooner than several years is that they already have contracts to drill that stretch out for years to come.
It is simple. They are trying to hornswaggle the American people into allowing them to get at the fruit on the top of the tree. They have 68,000,000 acres available to them and millions of barrels available to them in Alaska, outside of ANWR. They want more leases because it increases their assets and gives them more leverage at the bank. The more reserves each company can claim, the more “money in the bank” they have and can get better deals on venture capital, hence, more profit. With ANWR, it is a “thing” with them. It is the principle of ” nobody tells us what to do. We’re Big Oil”.
You will never get a reasonable response from WLJ. He is a fool. Do like I do, ignore him. ”
Sound familiar Duke?
You should have stuck with ignoring me, it was much less stressful.
But you couldn’t do that could you Duke, one of your loser friends was losing and you needed to help him lose.
Posted August 18th, 2008 at 9:03 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Trust me, Willis, you do not stress me in the least.
“Quick little moron”
I did not know that “moron” was a term signifying respect. Thanks for enlightening me.
Posted August 18th, 2008 at 9:18 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ask Wimpy Lil Jellybelly how his pledge to play nice here on this forum is going. That really gets his blood-pressure up, and he becomes quite shrill. It’s at least mildly amusing for a few minutes. The funniest part is that his excuse for not sticking to his word is that someone else broke it first…Which of course is blatantly false, but what do you expect from a Waffling, Lying Jerk?
Posted August 18th, 2008 at 9:28 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
poor little tmonkey.
I never accused you of breaking the pledge first. You never took the pledge, so you were fair game from the beginning.
Now, why not just run over to Utopia set up at great expense by the freep toilet paper and all you little morons can sit around and lick your wounds and offer sympathy to each other?
Which brings to mind the question, why are all you losers continuing to hang out here? I thought you were looking forward to having a nice place to go to and whine amongst friends?
You are boring the grownups here.
Posted August 18th, 2008 at 9:38 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I told you before, Willis. We just visit here to attack you with childish insults. Is there a better reason?
Posted August 18th, 2008 at 9:43 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Feel free to come by and visit any old time duck, but online here MORE than I am constitutes slightly more than a mere ‘visit’.
And no, stick with the childish insults if that’s all you have to offer in the way of civil discussion and discourse.
I’m not sure the Daily Sentinel set this up specifically for you and your like minded associates to have a place to put your childishness on display.
But have at it child.
Posted August 18th, 2008 at 10:02 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thanks, awfully.
Posted August 18th, 2008 at 10:56 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
A short time ago on this forum, there was a post by one of the regular proponents of atheism. A brief overview of the atheist’s speculation in that post was that Christians, if left alone, without atheist resistance and agenda, would establish a theocracy in America and subvert our Democratic form of government to their will. The atheist pointed to examples of Islamic fundamentalist governments, specifically Saudi Arabia and Iran. They warned of the grave danger to human rights and women’s rights that such theocracies present. The atheists presented their agenda as the bulwark and only salvation for our Republic against the imminent danger of an evangelical lead coup-de-gras take over of our democratic government.
In answer to the atheist predictions of theocracy, it was pointed out that Christians have enjoyed majority status in this country continuously since the first pilgrims left footprints at Plymouth Rock. Our nation’s Founding Fathers, the framers of our Constitution, had free reign, and as Christians could have established any form of Government they desired. Those circumstances indicate how illogical the atheist fear-mongering predictions of the imminent establishment of a Christian theocracy are.
But the issue raised by the atheists of what would happen if a group with special interest and an agenda were to come to power in our country is a legitimate one, and should be examined in a deliberate and thoughtful way, and it must be recognized that the scenario presented by the atheists in which the Christians played the role of the bad guys is not the only scenario, it is simply their chosen version. Ask yourself what would happen if atheists were allowed to take over in America? Fortunately, or perhaps I should say unfortunately, history provides us with a model of what life would be like and we need not seek examples to hold up of governments controlled by anything other than atheists. It is not necessary for us to do what the atheists did when they substituted Islamic theocracies as an example of what Christians would do, nor do we need to speculate what would be the result of atheist rule.
China and the Soviet Union are living examples of the repression of freedom of religion that would come with atheist rule in America. As an example of what we could expect, here are a few quotes from an associated press article which appeared in todays, (August 18, 2008) Daily Sentinel, titled “China confiscates Bibles from American Christians”. Beijing- “A group of American Christians had more than 300 Bibles confiscated by Chinese officials when they arrived in China”… “In China, Bibles are printed under the supervision off the Communist government”…. “The officially ATHEISTIC country allows them (Bibles) to be used only in government –sanctioned churches”… “They’re saying that it is illegal to bring Bibles in (China) and that if we wanted to we had to apply ahead of time for permission”. “China faces routine criticism for human rights violations and repression of religious freedom. Religious practice is heavily regulated by the Communist Party with worship allowed only in party controlled churches, temples and mosques, while those gathering outside risk harassment, arrest and terms in labor camps or prison. “ (End of article quotes)
Before American citizens acquiesce to the demands of the atheists and their agenda, or consider giving in to what the atheists describe as small accommodations, it is imperative that we know and understand the true nature of what we are asked to surrender. Think about it?
Posted August 18th, 2008 at 11:26 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
A-P, you keep your foolish mythology out of our government and our schools, and I bet the atheists will be perfectly happy to let you speak in tongues whenever you want.
Posted August 18th, 2008 at 11:42 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis - You said, “If you would really care to meet me in person, you know the requirements.”
The truly delusional aspect of your stated “requirements” for a face-to-face meeting is that, by insisting people pay an admission charge to meet you, you are contending that you’re actually a SOMEBODY.
As a life-long “NEVER HAS HAD,” you don’t even qualify as a “HAS BEEN,” much less a “SOMEBODY.”
Posted August 18th, 2008 at 11:50 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
It’s a good thing you have the Constitution to protect you from just that sort of thing, just like the atheists have it to protect them from the theocracy.
Posted August 18th, 2008 at 12:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
What is noticeably absent from the atheist spin is any complaint from any Christian or pretend offense or any attempt by Christians to prevent the atheists from the free exercise of their individual right to their beliefs whenever and wherever they see fit. Christians are not trying to restrict atheist’s freedom of speech, or religion and that is the difference.