wrote in message
nk.net
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at]
comcast [dot] net wrote in message
...


Mickey tries another flavor of IKYABWAI.

I've always wished this[sic] Robert Morein was impotent.

Why would that be, I wonder?


Why in the world would anyone want him to be able to
reproduce?

He makes an excellent case for a mercy sterilization, if one
has not already been performed.

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:23:17 GMT, wrote:

That's because Liberal are basically stupid liars and scumbags. They never
miss an opportunity to smear and lie about anyone they oppose.

c/Liberal/Neocon/ and you'd be right.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Robert Morein wrote:

"The justification has nothing to do with whether there were WMDs in
Iraq. We
now know that there were not."
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually all we know is that have not found them in Iraq. There is a
very real possibility they may have been smuggled out to another
country or countries.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Far more important than this were Saddam's
intentions, which he published in the 1980's. Saddam admired Hitler and

Stalin, and proclaimed his intention to follow their example, by
establishment of a totalitarian pan-Arab state. With oil revenues, this

state could havve become the second focus of power in the world. Such a

state, modeled on evil, possessed of all the technological resources
that
great wealth could buy, would threaten the entire world with doom.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well said. Nice change.
I'm sorry, but I have to return your compliment unopened.

wrote in message
nk.net...


I'm consistent George, I don't care who is doing the stealing, Eminent
Domain is wrong oither than for emergency situations.


If you don;t like it, then stop driving on
what should have remained other peoples' property.

"George Middius" wrote in message
...



Speaking of blind spots, would you be so kind as to explain how "God"
created
the earth and everything on it in "seven days"? TIA.


he cheated. first he slowed down the earth's rotation.
after he was done, he sped it back up again.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...


In any case since there weren't "days" as we know
them at that point the statement can only be figurative.



So was Darwin, so cut him some slack, also.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"paul packer" wrote in message

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 18:57:50 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


It never occurred to me to wish anything about Mikey's
sex life.

He has one?

He has biological offspring. That presumes some kind of sexual activity.

Do you have any biological offspring?


Turds don't count.

paul packer said:

Speaking of blind spots, would you be so kind as to explain how "God" created
the earth and everything on it in "seven days"? TIA.

I'm flattered you think I might know the answer to that, George.
Perhaps you have a God complex on my behalf, sort of a proxy complex?

Don't be disingenuous. Any halfwit knows the answer.

But to address your question, I've never imagined the Bible to be a
literal document. In any case since there weren't "days" as we know
them at that point the statement can only be figurative.

I've heard that dodge before. It's eminently reasonable of you to cast
the entire bible thing as a clutch of parables.

Now let's see... Adam and Eve, alone in Eden, the beginnings of
humankind. They procreated and begat some sons. And lo, those sons went
off and married some wenches. Uh ... if Adam and Eve were the first
humans, where did the women their sons married come from?

BTW, don't you love how Arnii Kroo**** babbles on incessantly about
"science" but goes totally numb when it comes to the bible?

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 08:02:52 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:
paul packer said:

Speaking of blind spots, would you be so kind as to explain how "God" created
the earth and everything on it in "seven days"? TIA.

I'm flattered you think I might know the answer to that, George.
Perhaps you have a God complex on my behalf, sort of a proxy complex?

Don't be disingenuous. Any halfwit knows the answer.

Yes, it's the intelligent people who are stumped.

But to address your question, I've never imagined the Bible to be a
literal document. In any case since there weren't "days" as we know
them at that point the statement can only be figurative.

I've heard that dodge before. It's eminently reasonable of you to cast
the entire bible thing as a clutch of parables.

I didn't do that, and even if I did it wouldn't necessarily be
reasonable. In any case parables are simply illustrative earthly
examples of spiritual truths, and not the worthless myths you seem to
imagine them.

Not that I've ever tried it, but I would imagine that attempting to
elucidate spiritual truths that exist beyond time and space to minds
very much within time and space would be somewhat tricky. Luckily I'm
a spiritual ignoramus, so I don't have to do that.

Now let's see... Adam and Eve, alone in Eden, the beginnings of
humankind. They procreated and begat some sons. And lo, those sons went
off and married some wenches. Uh ... if Adam and Eve were the first
humans, where did the women their sons married come from?

George, that one's got a longer beard than Moses. The Adam and Even
story illustrates a spiritual truth, not a literal, physical one. As
indeed does much of the Old Testament.

BTW, don't you love how Arnii Kroo**** babbles on incessantly about
"science" but goes totally numb when it comes to the bible?

Arnie just hasn't found a way yet of proving with ABX that there's no
perceptible difference between religion and science. :-)

rev, paulie said:

I've heard that dodge before. It's eminently reasonable of you to cast
the entire bible thing as a clutch of parables.

I didn't do that, and even if I did it wouldn't necessarily be
reasonable. In any case parables are simply illustrative earthly
examples of spiritual truths, and not the worthless myths you seem to
imagine them.

Worthlessness is in the hands of the manipulator. Clearly they have value to
self-aggrandizing potentates of organized christianity and their cynical
counterparts in mundane politics. For centuries, these individuals have
exploited the dependency of the gullible masses on the "holiness" shtick.

Now let's see... Adam and Eve, alone in Eden, the beginnings of
humankind. They procreated and begat some sons. And lo, those sons went
off and married some wenches. Uh ... if Adam and Eve were the first
humans, where did the women their sons married come from?

George, that one's got a longer beard than Moses. The Adam and Even
story illustrates a spiritual truth, not a literal, physical one. As
indeed does much of the Old Testament.

Oh, so it's only the "new testament" that's literally true? ;-)

BTW, don't you love how Arnii Kroo**** babbles on incessantly about
"science" but goes totally numb when it comes to the bible?

Arnie just hasn't found a way yet of proving with ABX that there's no
perceptible difference between religion and science. :-)

Only a 'borg would think that's a subtle difference anyway. :-)

wrote in message


Arnie just hasn't found a way yet of proving with ABX
that there's no perceptible difference between religion
and science. :-)

Packer, this is just another example of how your beliefs are
about 180 degrees away from reality.

(1) Yes, I believe in God.

(2) I believe that all religiosity is varying degrees of an
abomination before God. It's only because of His grace that
he hasn't scourged the earth of all religions and religous
leaders.

(3) I think that all correct beliefs about God and all
correct science either coincide or are complementary. Both
science and monothestic spiritual beliefs relate to the same
basic entity.

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 09:16:37 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

wrote in message


Arnie just hasn't found a way yet of proving with ABX
that there's no perceptible difference between religion
and science. :-)

Packer, this is just another example of how your beliefs are
about 180 degrees away from reality.

(1) Yes, I believe in God.

(2) I believe that all religiosity is varying degrees of an
abomination before God. It's only because of His grace that
he hasn't scourged the earth of all religions and religous
leaders.

I believe that what you *actually* meant to say was "organized and
instituionalized religiousity", unless you consider a personal belief
in god an abomoniation too, because that's surely "religiosity".

(3) I think that all correct beliefs about God and all
correct science either coincide or are complementary. Both
science and monothestic spiritual beliefs relate to the same
basic entity.

Well, what makes this statement suspect hinges on the phrase "correct
beliefs about God". Even the phrase "all correct science" is suspect
because we don't have a handle on "all science" quite yet.

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 11:23:40 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

, unless you consider a personal belief
in god an abomoniation too

....or abomination even...

dave weil said:

, unless you consider a personal belief
in god an abomoniation too

...or abomination even...

The correct spelling is K-r-o-o-g-e-r.



..
..

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 08:32:41 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



rev, paulie said:

I've heard that dodge before. It's eminently reasonable of you to cast
the entire bible thing as a clutch of parables.

I didn't do that, and even if I did it wouldn't necessarily be
reasonable. In any case parables are simply illustrative earthly
examples of spiritual truths, and not the worthless myths you seem to
imagine them.

Worthlessness is in the hands of the manipulator. Clearly they have value to
self-aggrandizing potentates of organized christianity and their cynical
counterparts in mundane politics. For centuries, these individuals have
exploited the dependency of the gullible masses on the "holiness" shtick.

Exactly. Which is why I have nothing to do with organised religion. It
would seem Arny and I are one on that.

Now let's see... Adam and Eve, alone in Eden, the beginnings of
humankind. They procreated and begat some sons. And lo, those sons went
off and married some wenches. Uh ... if Adam and Eve were the first
humans, where did the women their sons married come from?

George, that one's got a longer beard than Moses. The Adam and Even
story illustrates a spiritual truth, not a literal, physical one. As
indeed does much of the Old Testament.

Oh, so it's only the "new testament" that's literally true? ;-)

The New Testament has a more grounded historical context, yes, though
Christ obviously (and inevitably) used parables to teach. But as for
truth, are you saying that a physical truth carries more weight than a
spiritual one? If as the Hindus tell us this creation is "Maya",
illusion, then a physical truth is no truth at all but a lie, and the
only reality is the spiritual world. Now, let's see you pull the Hindu
religion apart, George.

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 00:21:27 GMT, (paul packer)
wrote:

French Government is stupid.
America is right.
Arabs need democracy so the the stupid ancient extremists can go away.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
wrote in message


Arnie just hasn't found a way yet of proving with ABX
that there's no perceptible difference between religion
and science. :-)

Packer, this is just another example of how your beliefs are about 180
degrees away from reality.

(1) Yes, I believe in God.

(2) I believe that all religiosity is varying degrees of an abomination
before God. It's only because of His grace that he hasn't scourged the
earth of all religions and religous leaders.

(3) I think that all correct beliefs about God and all correct science
either coincide or are complementary. Both science and monothestic
spiritual beliefs relate to the same basic entity.


The Hive = God

paul packer said:

Oh, so it's only the "new testament" that's literally true? ;-)

The New Testament has a more grounded historical context, yes, though
Christ obviously (and inevitably) used parables to teach.

Parables again? Aren't those what Arnii and Mickey call "lies"? ;-)

But as for truth, are you saying that a physical truth carries
more weight than a spiritual one?

I guess that would depend on the context. One person's physical evidence is
another person's abnegation of spiritual truth.

If as the Hindus tell us this creation is "Maya",
illusion, then a physical truth is no truth at all but a lie, and the
only reality is the spiritual world. Now, let's see you pull the Hindu
religion apart, George.

Sorry, I'm ignorant of Hinduism. I confine my derogations to christianity. I've
seen the horrors of the major christian sects first-hand. The degenerate
catholic priests, the crusading baptists, the intolerant mormons -- they're all
impediments to a truly free society. At least in the USA.

In this country, our low-IQ right wing whackos have taken to complaining about
"moderate Muslims" not policing the fringe elements of their societies even as
these same right wingers try to subsume social freedoms here. And they don't see
anything wrong with their intolerance and fascism because they "know" that "god"
is with them.

Anyway, I respect your decision to distance yourself from organized
christianity, although I doubt those folks are as pernicious in Oz as they are
here. Far as I know, you don't have a Kansas in Oz. ;-)



..
..

On 18 Nov 2005 07:04:06 -0800, George Middius
wrote:


Sorry, I'm ignorant of Hinduism. I confine my derogations to christianity. I've
seen the horrors of the major christian sects first-hand. The degenerate
catholic priests, the crusading baptists, the intolerant mormons -- they're all
impediments to a truly free society. At least in the USA.


Have you ever thought of the Religious Right as a counter-balance?
Don't forget, one man's "social freedom" is another man's outrageous
lapse of standards. Fact is, there's as much intolerance and desire to
usurp personal choice on the liberal side. A right-wing Bible thumper
may wish to limit what you regard as a social freedom, but when that
same Bible thumper goes to the supermarket he has to listen to music
he probably finds offensive (well, I know I do). When he switches on
his TV he's confronted with offensive programs and probably despairs
(as I do) for something decent to watch. His local cinema is full of
offensive movies, mainly only suitable for teenagers (but in reality
not suitable for anybody). The pendulum has swung so far I sometimes
wonder how many people realize it, how many look back to see how
standards have declined in the last 50 years. I have to smile when I
see Americans despairing as to why the Muslem world hates the US so
much. Yet putting aside the obvious military "adventures", you only
have to ask any practising Christian what he/she finds offensive in US
society to understand what Muslems find offensive. And fundamentalist
Muslems are many times more strict than fundamentalist Christians!
Think about it.

Now I know someone is going to say, as has been said here before, "But
they wouldn't blow themselves and us up just because Hollywood movies
are full of sex, swearing and violence!" Well, they would, and anyone
who understands that mind-set understands why. The US is not branded
"The Great Satan" for purely military reasons. The very phrase has a
religious and moralistic connotation.

Anyway, I respect your decision to distance yourself from organized
christianity, although I doubt those folks are as pernicious in Oz as they are
here. Far as I know, you don't have a Kansas in Oz. ;-)

Unfortunately religious whackos are everywhere. We had one here in
Sydney who called himself "The Little Pebble", a Catholic phony who
gathered a considerable flock until charges were laid about sexual
activity and social security fraud. But he's just one of hundreds.

paul packer said:

I confine my derogations to christianity. I've
seen the horrors of the major christian sects first-hand. The degenerate
catholic priests, the crusading baptists, the intolerant mormons -- they're all
impediments to a truly free society. At least in the USA.

Have you ever thought of the Religious Right as a counter-balance?

No, because everything they advocate is unmitigated evil.

offensive [TV] programs and probably despairs
[snip]
local cinema is full of offensive movies, mainly only suitable for teenagers (but in reality
not suitable for anybody).

To my mind, cultural expression you dislike is the worst rationalization for
trying to control other people's private behavior.

The pendulum has swung so far I sometimes
wonder how many people realize it, how many look back to see how
standards have declined in the last 50 years.

My people are much better off than they were 50 years ago. We almost have full
equality, at least in the USA. It's only the christian zealot ****wads who
still hate us and campaign to have us persecuted, corralled, and/or
exterminated.

I have to smile when I
see Americans despairing as to why the Muslem world hates the US so
much. Yet putting aside the obvious military "adventures", you only
have to ask any practising Christian what he/she finds offensive in US
society to understand what Muslems find offensive.

I believe that notion is utterly bogus. Muslims in their own countries have
very little idea of American culture. They only learn what it's really like
when they travel to our country. Also, by 'military "adventures"', are you
including our unwavering support of Israel? Because as I understand it, that
alliance alone is responsible for motivating most of the terrorists.

The larger part of your argument is simply foolish. So what if the backward
Muslims hate American culture? If that were the true cause of their hatred,
they would hate the cultures of all the other first-world countries just as
much. Clearly the animosity to America lies elsewhere. Are you aware of how
ubiquitous the American military presence is in the Middle East? It's a lot
easier to believe that our soldiers in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel,
Yemen, etc. are seen as a symbol of Western oppression than to buy into your
alienation-through-movies-they-never-show-in-Palestine crap.

Now I know someone is going to say, as has been said here before, "But
they wouldn't blow themselves and us up just because Hollywood movies
are full of sex, swearing and violence!" Well, they would, and anyone
who understands that mind-set understands why. The US is not branded
"The Great Satan" for purely military reasons. The very phrase has a
religious and moralistic connotation.

Crap. Crap, crap, crap. You're just venting because you're an uptight old
fogey and a prude.

I don't know what kind of films and TV shows dominate the mass media in Oz,
but I have as full a schedule of entertainment as I want that's completely
devoid of gratuitous violence and sex. Maybe we have more choices than you do,
but in this country, the christian zealot ****wads are the only ones who try
to shut down shows they don't like rather than just turning the dial or going
to the movie showing in the next room over.

Anyway, I respect your decision to distance yourself from organized
christianity, although I doubt those folks are as pernicious in Oz as they are
here. Far as I know, you don't have a Kansas in Oz. ;-)

Unfortunately religious whackos are everywhere. We had one here in
Sydney who called himself "The Little Pebble", a Catholic phony who
gathered a considerable flock until charges were laid about sexual
activity and social security fraud. But he's just one of hundreds.

You should send him a note of moral support.

George "**** Fly" Middius wrote :

My people are much better off than they were 50 years ago. We almost have full
equality, at least in the USA.

This is also my point of view.
So the question is why you and your "people" have caused the defeat of
the democrat candidate, eh George ?

It's only the christian zealot ****wads who
still hate us and campaign to have us persecuted, corralled, and/or
exterminated.


Blah, blah, blah.
Everydays you are proving on RAO that you could be more stupidly
dogmatic than most close-minded of the christian zealots.
What's your *real* problem George ?

George "Gospel" Middius a écrit :

My people are much better off than they were 50 years ago...

You really have the charism of a leader, George.
Here you sound like Moses.
Come on George :
"Oppressed so hard they could not stand
let my peole go..."

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 12:01:51 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:

Have you ever thought of the Religious Right as a counter-balance?

No, because everything they advocate is unmitigated evil.

Hmm...it's good that you've listened and managed to separate the best
and worst of what they have to say.

offensive [TV] programs and probably despairs
[snip]
local cinema is full of offensive movies, mainly only suitable for teenagers (but in reality
not suitable for anybody).

To my mind, cultural expression you dislike is the worst rationalization for
trying to control other people's private behavior.

I gather you're telling me you're gay, George, or am I supposed to
have known that already? Not that I give a fig, mind. It's public
behaviour, not private, that worries me.

The pendulum has swung so far I sometimes
wonder how many people realize it, how many look back to see how
standards have declined in the last 50 years.

My people are much better off than they were 50 years ago. We almost have full
equality, at least in the USA. It's only the christian zealot ****wads who
still hate us and campaign to have us persecuted, corralled, and/or
exterminated.

See above. In any case I doubt even the most militant zealots can
quite be aligned with the Nazi Party circa 1942.

I have to smile when I
see Americans despairing as to why the Muslem world hates the US so
much. Yet putting aside the obvious military "adventures", you only
have to ask any practising Christian what he/she finds offensive in US
society to understand what Muslems find offensive.

I believe that notion is utterly bogus. Muslims in their own countries have
very little idea of American culture.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Are you aware that people in isolated Fijian
villages watch US TV? Muslims are fully aware of everything that
appears on US TV, just as the rest of the world is. And their leaders
know how to exploit it. US popular culture is a sewer seeping right
out to all four corners, and it's all most people know of the US.
Frightening thought.

They only learn what it's really like
when they travel to our country.

Probably. But how many do? And would a fundamentalist Muslim be that
impressed with the reality anyway?

Also, by 'military "adventures"', are you
including our unwavering support of Israel?

Nope. Not unless US has recently invaded palestinian territory and it
hasn't been on the news.

Because as I understand it, that
alliance alone is responsible for motivating most of the terrorists.

In those territories maybe, not world-wide. Certainly not in
Indonesia, say.

The larger part of your argument is simply foolish. So what if the backward
Muslims hate American culture? If that were the true cause of their hatred,
they would hate the cultures of all the other first-world countries just as
much.

They do. They hate the "West". What do you think the attacks in London
and Bali were all about?

Clearly the animosity to America lies elsewhere. Are you aware of how
ubiquitous the American military presence is in the Middle East? It's a lot
easier to believe that our soldiers in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel,
Yemen, etc. are seen as a symbol of Western oppression than to buy into your
alienation-through-movies-they-never-show-in-Palestine crap.

Why does it have to be either--or? All of it is a burr under the
Muslim saddle.

Now I know someone is going to say, as has been said here before, "But
they wouldn't blow themselves and us up just because Hollywood movies
are full of sex, swearing and violence!" Well, they would, and anyone
who understands that mind-set understands why. The US is not branded
"The Great Satan" for purely military reasons. The very phrase has a
religious and moralistic connotation.

Crap. Crap, crap, crap. You're just venting because you're an uptight old
fogey and a prude.

You haven't answered my proposition. The phrase "The Great Satan" has
a religious and moralistic connotation. It's clear to me that you have
very little idea how fundamentalists of any persuasion think. And not
just fundamentalists--there are plenty of people of a much more
liberal persuasion who are fed up with disintegrating standards. As an
"uptight old fogey and a prude" I know whereof I speak.

I don't know what kind of films and TV shows dominate the mass media in Oz,
but I have as full a schedule of entertainment as I want that's completely
devoid of gratuitous violence and sex.

Yes, and more choices than those TV watchers in the middle-east who
don't enjoy cable etc. We're talking strictly free-to-air here.

Maybe we have more choices than you do,
but in this country, the christian zealot ****wads are the only ones who try
to shut down shows they don't like rather than just turning the dial or going
to the movie showing in the next room over.

No man is an island. In this era of mass communication, ignoring
something unfortunately doesn't cause it to go away; it causes it to
proliferate. Hence what used to be relatively harmless Musak at my
local mall is now something approaching heavy metal at double volume.
A similar analogy can be drawn for most aspects of "popular"
entertainment.

Anyway, I respect your decision to distance yourself from organized
christianity, although I doubt those folks are as pernicious in Oz as they are
here. Far as I know, you don't have a Kansas in Oz. ;-)

Unfortunately religious whackos are everywhere. We had one here in
Sydney who called himself "The Little Pebble", a Catholic phony who
gathered a considerable flock until charges were laid about sexual
activity and social security fraud. But he's just one of hundreds.

You should send him a note of moral support.

Gratuitous insult noted.

paul packer said:

Have you ever thought of the Religious Right as a counter-balance?

No, because everything they advocate is unmitigated evil.

Hmm...it's good that you've listened and managed to separate the best
and worst of what they have to say.

The Nazis weren't all bad either. Somehow they got caught up in a maelstrom
of evil, though, when they got carried away with the "purity" stuff.

My people are much better off than they were 50 years ago. We almost have full
equality, at least in the USA. It's only the christian zealot ****wads who
still hate us and campaign to have us persecuted, corralled, and/or
exterminated.

See above. In any case I doubt even the most militant zealots can
quite be aligned with the Nazi Party circa 1942.

You're the one who said "50 years ago". By my count, 1942 was 64 years ago.
The western hemisphere was largely peaceable 50 years ago, other than the
Cold War. So we're not talking about Nazis, although I admit that comparing
them to the religious zealot ****wads is apt, at least as far as the ones
in the USA.

I believe that notion is utterly bogus. Muslims in their own countries have
very little idea of American culture.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

They only learn what it's really like
when they travel to our country.

Probably.

I can see you've made up your mind about this notion.

And would a fundamentalist Muslim be that
impressed with the reality anyway?

I dunno. Are you suggesting the West (or the USA) has an affirmative
obligation to educate every last non-American of what our lives are really
like? Even the trashiest of our entertainment exports have some basis in
reality. The mindless violence genre is rooted in the Western, which is
rooted in the pioneer spirit of the 17th and 18th centuries. These are
powerful undercurrents for Americans, but to foreigners, they're probably
cartoonish.

As far as the cavalcade of sex, it's partly commercial and partly
sociological. You may not see the significance of increasing amounts of sex
on American TV shows because your culture has different roots from ours.

Also, by 'military "adventures"', are you
including our unwavering support of Israel?

Nope. Not unless US has recently invaded palestinian territory and it
hasn't been on the news.

Because as I understand it, that
alliance alone is responsible for motivating most of the terrorists.

In those territories maybe, not world-wide. Certainly not in
Indonesia, say.

I disagree. The occupation of Palestine by Israel (which is widely seen as
America's client by Arabs, as I'm sure you know) has been recast as a
religious war of Christianity vs. Islam.

The larger part of your argument is simply foolish. So what if the backward
Muslims hate American culture? If that were the true cause of their hatred,
they would hate the cultures of all the other first-world countries just as
much.

They do. They hate the "West". What do you think the attacks in London
and Bali were all about?

So you agree that the root cause of the anti-American sentiment is not our
culture. Good.

Clearly the animosity to America lies elsewhere. Are you aware of how
ubiquitous the American military presence is in the Middle East? It's a lot
easier to believe that our soldiers in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel,
Yemen, etc. are seen as a symbol of Western oppression than to buy into your
alienation-through-movies-they-never-show-in-Palestine crap.

Why does it have to be either--or? All of it is a burr under the
Muslim saddle.

That's just dumb, paulie. You're still venting. You're claiming
entertainment is the root cause of terrorism. Stupid.

Now I know someone is going to say, as has been said here before, "But
they wouldn't blow themselves and us up just because Hollywood movies
are full of sex, swearing and violence!" Well, they would, and anyone
who understands that mind-set understands why.

Crap. Crap, crap, crap. You're just venting because you're an uptight old
fogey and a prude.

The US is not branded "The Great Satan" for purely military
reasons. The very phrase has a religious and moralistic connotation.

You haven't answered my proposition.

I answered the first load of crap. Your segue into this was gratuitous.

The phrase "The Great Satan" has
a religious and moralistic connotation.

Yes, of course it does. And mammals breath oxygen.

It's clear to me that you have
very little idea how fundamentalists of any persuasion think. And not
just fundamentalists--there are plenty of people of a much more
liberal persuasion who are fed up with disintegrating standards. As an
"uptight old fogey and a prude" I know whereof I speak.

It's still dumb to impute terrorism to relaxed standards of "decency". At
worst, it's a flashpoint. The underlying causes are myriad and much more
profound.

I don't know what kind of films and TV shows dominate the mass media in Oz,
but I have as full a schedule of entertainment as I want that's completely
devoid of gratuitous violence and sex.

Yes, and more choices than those TV watchers in the middle-east who
don't enjoy cable etc. We're talking strictly free-to-air here.

Who's beaming the signals into their countries? Not CBS and NBC. Who's
translating the dialog? Who's selling the commercials on these broadcasts?


Maybe we have more choices than you do,
but in this country, the christian zealot ****wads are the only ones who try
to shut down shows they don't like rather than just turning the dial or going
to the movie showing in the next room over.

No man is an island. In this era of mass communication, ignoring
something unfortunately doesn't cause it to go away; it causes it to
proliferate. Hence what used to be relatively harmless Musak at my
local mall is now something approaching heavy metal at double volume.
A similar analogy can be drawn for most aspects of "popular"
entertainment.

Rant on, old prude.

You should send him a note of moral support.

Gratuitous insult noted.

'borgspeak rejected.

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:23:17 GMT, wrote:

That's because Liberal are basically stupid liars and scumbags. They
never
miss an opportunity to smear and lie about anyone they oppose.

c/Liberal/Neocon/ and you'd be right.

Why not go to factcheck.org and see how the tally runs? The most outrageous
lies are always from liberals. Not that the GOP doesn't get a few licks in
now and then, but over all it the left that stretches the trut most often.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message news


paul packer said:

Apart from not being able to put two sensible words together, he
has no idea how to co-opt available resources or to get people
on-side, which is often the same thing. I feel sorry for the most
powerful nation on earth being saddled with such a leader. What you
could do with a real statesman!

Funny you should say that. JFK was such a man, and look what happened to
him. After that, attempts were made to assassinate LBJ, Nixon, Ford,
Carter, Reagan, and (probably) GWBush. We may never again see a
President of FDR's caliber.

Thankfully. Who needs another President who will threaten the Supreme
Court, abandon the gold standard, set up the welfare state, and prolong a
depression.

wrote:
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote

Thankfully. Who needs another President who will threaten the Supreme
Court, abandon the gold standard, set up the welfare state, and prolong a
depression.

Yep. One who says the "jury is still out" on evolution, is ready to
launch a constitutional amendment effort to bar homosexual marriage or
is ready to allegedly bomb a news network he deems critical is much better.

He's the president. Doesn't he have other worries - like running the
country?

Or is the job so unchallenging that he also has to be custodian of our
morality?

wrote in message
ink.net...

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:23:17 GMT, wrote:

That's because Liberal are basically stupid liars and scumbags. They
never
miss an opportunity to smear and lie about anyone they oppose.

c/Liberal/Neocon/ and you'd be right.

Why not go to factcheck.org and see how the tally runs? The most
outrageous lies are always from liberals. Not that the GOP doesn't get a
few licks in now and then, but over all it the left that stretches the
trut most often.




No matter the commentator, as soon as I hear
"The truth of the matter is...........", I know I am in for a super
big lie!

wrote in message
ink.net...

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote in message news


paul packer said:

Apart from not being able to put two sensible words together, he
has no idea how to co-opt available resources or to get people
on-side, which is often the same thing. I feel sorry for the most
powerful nation on earth being saddled with such a leader. What you
could do with a real statesman!

Funny you should say that. JFK was such a man, and look what happened to
him. After that, attempts were made to assassinate LBJ, Nixon, Ford,
Carter, Reagan, and (probably) GWBush. We may never again see a
President of FDR's caliber.

Thankfully. Who needs another President who will threaten the Supreme
Court, abandon the gold standard, set up the welfare state, and prolong a
depression.

wrote in message
ink.net...

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote in message news


paul packer said:

Apart from not being able to put two sensible words together, he
has no idea how to co-opt available resources or to get people
on-side, which is often the same thing. I feel sorry for the most
powerful nation on earth being saddled with such a leader. What you
could do with a real statesman!

Funny you should say that. JFK was such a man, and look what happened to
him. After that, attempts were made to assassinate LBJ, Nixon, Ford,
Carter, Reagan, and (probably) GWBush. We may never again see a
President of FDR's caliber.

Thankfully. Who needs another President who will threaten the Supreme
Court, abandon the gold standard, set up the welfare state, and prolong a
depression.


My God!!! The ******* even used eminent domain.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
: On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 08:32:41 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
: [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:
:
:
:
: rev, paulie said:
: Oh, so it's only the "new testament" that's literally true? ;-)
:
: The New Testament has a more grounded historical context, yes, though
: Christ obviously (and inevitably) used parables to teach. But as for
: truth, are you saying that a physical truth carries more weight than a
: spiritual one? If as the Hindus tell us this creation is "Maya",
: illusion, then a physical truth is no truth at all but a lie, and the
: only reality is the spiritual world. Now, let's see you pull the Hindu
: religion apart, George.
:
the problem is, when translating from object to target language,
meaning (or connotations, associations) can be lost or added.
physical reality is not denied, rather "on it's eternal journey, the
immortal soul may find itself in a position to deal with physical
realities from time to time - these are likened to dream states
of the soul" or something to that effect :-)

Ruru