I went to a website the other day titled "Liberal Utopia", and in the synopsis the author says he wants to show what a hell this country would be if the "liberals" got their way. Well, he didn't do that; he basically sucked Bush off for a while and then took the all too predictable stances on Schiavo, ANWR, SS, guns and all the other issues that Jesus would have sided with two thousand years ago. After spending my three minutes on his page I soon found myself reading CNN, updating my blog, looking at porn , jamming darts into my eyes or something else a little more productive. I soon started contemplating what the world would be like if the liberals had their way.
Although some may, I have never really considered myself a "bleeding heart lefty liberal", other than maybe a few social issues such as tolerance and equality, but then I don't really consider those causes to be liberal, just logical. At this point I started looking at what "liberal" causes have done for this guy, and everyone else in this country, and realized that without these liberal causes, this country would be hell.
Here are all the crazy ideas we can blame on those hippie/commie liberals:
The freedom to write this blog
40 hour work weeks
The weekend
Overtime pay
Holidays and Holiday pay
Child welfare laws
Child labor laws
Homeless shelters
Clean air
Clean water
National Parks
Forest Preserves
Unemployment benefits
Social Security
Drug treatment centers
Tenant rights
Historical preservation societies
Free Libraries
Campaign laws
After school programs
Antitrust laws
Desegregation
Equal opportunity
And most importantly the 1st, 4th, 5th,6th,7th,8th,9th,13th,14th,15th,16th,19th,21st and 24th amendments and everything they include such as the abolition of slavery and women’s rights, just to name a few.
Ya Ya, I'll give credit where credit is due; conservatives are responsible for 2nd and 18th amendments.
Hmm, how valid is that 18th amendment now?
Constitutial Amendments
Please let me know if I have left any out.
Friday, April 01, 2005
Thursday, March 31, 2005
WTF??
I'm not trying to act notorious or anything but what the hell is this all about?
Trust me, click this link.
http://www.toadthoughts.blogpsot.com/
What kind of crazy nut bag cult is this? And more importantly, why is their address almost identical to mine?
Did you see all the crazy shit about the end of the world? It's coming! Run, Run, Repent!
I feel this is no coincidence.
Trust me, click this link.
http://www.toadthoughts.blogpsot.com/
What kind of crazy nut bag cult is this? And more importantly, why is their address almost identical to mine?
Did you see all the crazy shit about the end of the world? It's coming! Run, Run, Repent!
I feel this is no coincidence.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
More Headlines / More Proof
From CNN: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 Posted: 1:19 PM EST
DENVER, Colorado (AP) -- Ruling that juries cannot turn to the Bible for advice during deliberations, a divided Colorado Supreme Court threw out the death penalty for a convicted murderer because jurors discussed Bible verses.
Ha ha, that just shows you how stupid it is to try to bring the Bible into our laws. If our countries laws were based on the Bible, this would have been allowed.
Focus on the Family, (AKA Sponge Bob is Gay) had this to say about not being able to kill a man:
"Today's ruling further confirms that the judicial branch of our government is nearly bereft of any moral foundation."
What have I been saying about hate groups such as Focus on the Family? http://toadthoughts.blogspot.com/2004/12/bomb-throwing-hate-peddlers.html
What the hell does this case have to do with families? Nothing, it's a disguise they use to push their intolerant, obsolete, archaic conservative agenda.
If it weren't for the Bible thumpers this guy could have been on a slab by now, instead he will probably get released in 20 years and go kill again.
DENVER, Colorado (AP) -- Ruling that juries cannot turn to the Bible for advice during deliberations, a divided Colorado Supreme Court threw out the death penalty for a convicted murderer because jurors discussed Bible verses.
Ha ha, that just shows you how stupid it is to try to bring the Bible into our laws. If our countries laws were based on the Bible, this would have been allowed.
Focus on the Family, (AKA Sponge Bob is Gay) had this to say about not being able to kill a man:
"Today's ruling further confirms that the judicial branch of our government is nearly bereft of any moral foundation."
What have I been saying about hate groups such as Focus on the Family? http://toadthoughts.blogspot.com/2004/12/bomb-throwing-hate-peddlers.html
What the hell does this case have to do with families? Nothing, it's a disguise they use to push their intolerant, obsolete, archaic conservative agenda.
If it weren't for the Bible thumpers this guy could have been on a slab by now, instead he will probably get released in 20 years and go kill again.
You Reap What You Sow Fatty!
From Fox News 3/29/05:
Falwell, 71, was admitted to Lynchburg General Hospital shortly before midnight Monday suffering from "respiratory arrest," the hospital said in a statement, meaning his breathing had slowed or stopped.
From the mouth of Jerry Falwell:
"AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharoah's chariotters."
"God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve."
"And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, "You helped this happen."
It's almost like he is saying you reap what you sow, and that if you sin enough, such as being a fat glutton, then you will have to pay for it in the end, and you deserve what you get.
So are people supposed to feel sorry for someone who leads such a risky lifestyle?
If only he would have treated his body like a temple instead of a garbage disposal, he may still be healthy and would have one day gone to heaven.
Falwell, 71, was admitted to Lynchburg General Hospital shortly before midnight Monday suffering from "respiratory arrest," the hospital said in a statement, meaning his breathing had slowed or stopped.
From the mouth of Jerry Falwell:
"AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharoah's chariotters."
"God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve."
"And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, "You helped this happen."
It's almost like he is saying you reap what you sow, and that if you sin enough, such as being a fat glutton, then you will have to pay for it in the end, and you deserve what you get.
So are people supposed to feel sorry for someone who leads such a risky lifestyle?
If only he would have treated his body like a temple instead of a garbage disposal, he may still be healthy and would have one day gone to heaven.
Monday, March 28, 2005
New Indonesian Earthquake
Monday, March 28, 2005 Posted: 1:36 PM EST (1836 GMT)
From:
(CNN) -- Officials in Thailand and Sri Lanka report that residents are evacuating coastal regions in the Indian Ocean after an earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of at least 8.2 struck off the coast of Indonesia Monday.
Uh oh, God's mad, Sweden must have made another law protecting homosexuals.
http://www.godhatesfags.com
http://www.georgewbush.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t13098.html
http://How Religion Warps You
From:
(CNN) -- Officials in Thailand and Sri Lanka report that residents are evacuating coastal regions in the Indian Ocean after an earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of at least 8.2 struck off the coast of Indonesia Monday.
Uh oh, God's mad, Sweden must have made another law protecting homosexuals.
http://www.godhatesfags.com
http://www.georgewbush.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t13098.html
http://How Religion Warps You
Monday, March 21, 2005
Taste of Their Own Medicine
According to The Drudge Report, PLAYGIRL editor-in-chief Michele Zipp was fired when it was revealed that she voted Republican in 2004.
She was quoted saying:"I just wanted to let you know of the fear the liberal left has about a woman with power possessing Republican views."
Now all the conservative bloggers are screaming about intolerance and how unfair it is that someone would be fired for their conservative beliefs.
Ok so, I guess they don't think it's fair that a company sticks its nose in people's private lives right? Well now you know how we feel! Maybe since it's the Republicans who have gone on a censoring rampage and now want censor cable TV, satellite radio and PORN MAGAZINES, that Playgirl thought it might be a conflict of interest to have one editing the content of their magazine!
So, doesn't it stand to reason that they would think it would be wrong to fire someone who worked at Pro-life Action, Generation Life or some other fetus hugging organization if it was revealed that one of its employees was pro-choice and had an abortion
I guess it also means it would be wrong for the Boy Scouts to fire Atheist and homosexuals right? I would also assume that it is wrong to fire an Atheist or Jew who worked for one of those "faith" based organizations, all of which are Christian and receive federal money.
I am not sure the conservatives really want to open this can of worms. Talk about the pot and the kettle.
She was quoted saying:"I just wanted to let you know of the fear the liberal left has about a woman with power possessing Republican views."
Now all the conservative bloggers are screaming about intolerance and how unfair it is that someone would be fired for their conservative beliefs.
Ok so, I guess they don't think it's fair that a company sticks its nose in people's private lives right? Well now you know how we feel! Maybe since it's the Republicans who have gone on a censoring rampage and now want censor cable TV, satellite radio and PORN MAGAZINES, that Playgirl thought it might be a conflict of interest to have one editing the content of their magazine!
So, doesn't it stand to reason that they would think it would be wrong to fire someone who worked at Pro-life Action, Generation Life or some other fetus hugging organization if it was revealed that one of its employees was pro-choice and had an abortion
I guess it also means it would be wrong for the Boy Scouts to fire Atheist and homosexuals right? I would also assume that it is wrong to fire an Atheist or Jew who worked for one of those "faith" based organizations, all of which are Christian and receive federal money.
I am not sure the conservatives really want to open this can of worms. Talk about the pot and the kettle.
Sunday, March 20, 2005
Castration, Incarceration or Incineration
The title of this post is the only ways to deal with child molesters.
Why aren't drunk drivers, murderers, drug dealers, con artists, and shop lifters made to register with local authorities once they are released from prison but child molesters are?
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that police know that sex offenders will strike again and they want to keep track of them when there are abductions and attacks such as the case in Florida with Jessica Lunsford. It is no coincidence that the guy who raped and killed Jessica Lunsford was on the national sex offenders list, and it's no coincidence that the list is the first place police look in these types of cases.
My point is this; if everyone knows these assholes are going to strike again, why let them out of jail? Obviously putting them on a list does not stop them from committing these crimes, it only helps us catch them when kids come up missing. Great, a lot of good that did for Jessica.
If we know these types of offenders are typically repeat offenders, then why not nip it in the bud, or I guess, nip their balls in the bud. A sex offenders list does not protect anybody!
These types of people should either be put in jail for the rest of their life, castrated or shot.
John Evander Couey's long criminal record includes indecent exposure, burglary in which a girl was fondled in her house, carrying a concealed weapon, and the charge that got him on the sex offenders list of fondling a child under the age of 16. This guy is obviously a sicko and always has been. Can anyone give me one reason why he was living freely among us? What possible benefit was he providing society?
Here's a good policy; let the guys who kill kids out of prison but make mandatory sentences for people who do drugs. After all, we must clear our prisons of child rapists and murderers so we have room for those dangerous guys that have over 100 marijuana plants.
Why aren't drunk drivers, murderers, drug dealers, con artists, and shop lifters made to register with local authorities once they are released from prison but child molesters are?
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that police know that sex offenders will strike again and they want to keep track of them when there are abductions and attacks such as the case in Florida with Jessica Lunsford. It is no coincidence that the guy who raped and killed Jessica Lunsford was on the national sex offenders list, and it's no coincidence that the list is the first place police look in these types of cases.
My point is this; if everyone knows these assholes are going to strike again, why let them out of jail? Obviously putting them on a list does not stop them from committing these crimes, it only helps us catch them when kids come up missing. Great, a lot of good that did for Jessica.
If we know these types of offenders are typically repeat offenders, then why not nip it in the bud, or I guess, nip their balls in the bud. A sex offenders list does not protect anybody!
These types of people should either be put in jail for the rest of their life, castrated or shot.
John Evander Couey's long criminal record includes indecent exposure, burglary in which a girl was fondled in her house, carrying a concealed weapon, and the charge that got him on the sex offenders list of fondling a child under the age of 16. This guy is obviously a sicko and always has been. Can anyone give me one reason why he was living freely among us? What possible benefit was he providing society?
Here's a good policy; let the guys who kill kids out of prison but make mandatory sentences for people who do drugs. After all, we must clear our prisons of child rapists and murderers so we have room for those dangerous guys that have over 100 marijuana plants.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
The Conversation I Had With This Idiot
The following is a conversation I had on some conservative guys blog. There is his original post that you will read first, and then our comments back and forth. The reason I thought it was entertaining was because he kept telling me that I needed to do my research and that I was uneducated and didn't know what I was talking about. My responses are in red.
From: Conservativerebel.net (oxymoron)
Eskimos Want ANWR Drilling
"Poll: Eskimos Back ANWR DrillingNewsMaxThe last time they were surveyed, Americans most directly affected by a Bush administration proposal to drill for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge overwhelmingly backed the plan. Seventy-five percent of Alaskans told a February 2000 Dittman research survey that they wanted to open up the refuge for drilling, with only 23 percent opposed. A 1995 Dittman survey yielded similar results, with 75 percent of Alaskans saying they backed ANWR drilling, and just 19 percent opposed. In the Inupiat Eskimo villages near ANWR, support is even higher. A January 2000 survey in the village of Kaktovik found that 78 percent of residents back more energy exploration in their own backyard. Only 9 percent were opposed. In 1995, the Alaska Federation of Natives, which represents 80,000 Eskimos, adopted a resolution supporting ANWR drilling, calling it a "critically important economic opportunity for Alaska natives..."
If the environment was REALLY in danger of being ruined by drilling in ANWR, don't you think the eskimos, people that have lived in the area for hundreds of years, would be opposed to it? It's just the exact opposite. "
What did the wildlife say about it when polled? After all it’s their refuge; its not the Arctic National Eskimo Refuge. Posted by john March 15, 2005 2:01 PM
And explain to me exactly how it damages the environment. Purdue Bay is a great example, point out to me how our drilling in Purdue Bay has caused any significant problems. The Caribou in the area have quadrupled in population, so don't use that old talking point, either. Posted by Ron Rutherford March 15, 2005 2:03 PM
Exxon Valdez Posted by John March 15, 2005 2:12 PM
I'm still waiting for you to try and prove a point... How did we ruin the environment at Purdue Bay by drilling there? Give me specific examples. Posted by Ron Rutherford March 15, 2005 2:27 PM
That really isn’t the point, it could be, but in this specific instance it is already a National Refuge. Its legally protected by law from such a thing. I know Republicans love changing laws like redefining marriage and the 1st amendment but where does it stop. And if you can change those laws, maybe we should change the freedom of religion and the gun laws. Fair is fair right? Posted by John March 15, 2005 2:30 PM
Uh, the point isn't whether we're going to damage the environment or not if we drill? Then why the fuck do you care if we drill?Your refusal to point out in any way how we damaged the area proves that you have no argument. Posted by Ron Rutherford March 15, 2005 2:48 PM
Its federally protected land you idiot, just like the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone, are we going to drill for oil there too? And yes there can be all kinds of environmental impacts such as oil spill, or the melting of snow and ice due to a pipeline and the possible displacement of animals or disruption in their migratory patterns due to having a huge oil field in their habitat. Posted by John March 15, 2005 2:51 PM
John, I know it's tought, but think real hard on this one...The porcupine caribou population has quadrupled since we began drilling in Purdue Bay. Your whining about their habitat has been widely disproven, if you want to continue making old, washed up points, I'm fine with that.We should work to replace our dependance on foreign oil. I'm sure you complain about how we get so much oil from the Saudis, but then refuse to let us get oil on our own land. You can't have it both ways. Posted by Ron Rutherford March 16, 2005 6:54 AM
Ask the sea lions and foul about their populations in Valdez.The amount of oil that we could get out of the ANWR is minimal compared to our needs and what we currently import, especially compared to the cost of drilling up there.We need to reduce dependence on oil, not just foreign oil. Posted by john March 16, 2005 7:49 AM
Yeah, let me go to talk to the sea lions....The amount we can get from ANWR is estimated at 9-11 billion barrels of oil. That's enough to replace our imports of Saudi oil for 30 years, according to the US Geographical Survey. That's far from minimal, it would create a butt load of news jobs, and would put billions of dollars towards helping reduce our trade defecit. It's clear trying to argue with you that you don't do much research on anything. You just assume you know it all and then go try and debate someone, and in the end you only look foolish. Like I said before, go get an education and then come back and try and debate me. Posted by Ron Rutherford March 16, 2005 10:58 AM
What am I not educated about, at least I know that the land up there has been under federal protection since 1960. You can talk about environmental impacts and guesstimated numbers about how much oil is up there but none of it matters because it is federally protected land. With your rationale we should open up Yellowstone, Yosemite and Sequoia National Forest to logging. Why not open up mount Rushmore to a limestone company, while were at it we might as well build a Wal-Mart in the Grand Canyon, and Mammoth Cave might be a great place to put all of our garbage. Those are all great ideas. You are clearly one of the more enlightened thinkers of our time. By the way, we consume over 7 billion barrels of oil in this country per year. So great, we will have our own oil for a year and a half. That should solve all of our problems in the year 2017 when they finally start pumping out that oil. Posted by john March 16, 2005 11:05 AM
When did I say ANWR would solve all our problems? It won't. But it certainly helps out a lot, and that's why the Senate is going to give the O.K. for drilling later today.You lose. Posted by Ron Rutherford March 16, 2005 11:05 AM
By the way where is Purdue Bay, who’s the mayor of that town? Gene Keady? Isn't that in Lafayette,IN? Maybe you meant Prudhoe Bay? Don't talk to me about getting an education and doing my research, clearly you are the one who doesn't know what you are talking about. Posted by John
From: Conservativerebel.net (oxymoron)
Eskimos Want ANWR Drilling
"Poll: Eskimos Back ANWR DrillingNewsMaxThe last time they were surveyed, Americans most directly affected by a Bush administration proposal to drill for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge overwhelmingly backed the plan. Seventy-five percent of Alaskans told a February 2000 Dittman research survey that they wanted to open up the refuge for drilling, with only 23 percent opposed. A 1995 Dittman survey yielded similar results, with 75 percent of Alaskans saying they backed ANWR drilling, and just 19 percent opposed. In the Inupiat Eskimo villages near ANWR, support is even higher. A January 2000 survey in the village of Kaktovik found that 78 percent of residents back more energy exploration in their own backyard. Only 9 percent were opposed. In 1995, the Alaska Federation of Natives, which represents 80,000 Eskimos, adopted a resolution supporting ANWR drilling, calling it a "critically important economic opportunity for Alaska natives..."
If the environment was REALLY in danger of being ruined by drilling in ANWR, don't you think the eskimos, people that have lived in the area for hundreds of years, would be opposed to it? It's just the exact opposite. "
What did the wildlife say about it when polled? After all it’s their refuge; its not the Arctic National Eskimo Refuge. Posted by john March 15, 2005 2:01 PM
And explain to me exactly how it damages the environment. Purdue Bay is a great example, point out to me how our drilling in Purdue Bay has caused any significant problems. The Caribou in the area have quadrupled in population, so don't use that old talking point, either. Posted by Ron Rutherford March 15, 2005 2:03 PM
Exxon Valdez Posted by John March 15, 2005 2:12 PM
I'm still waiting for you to try and prove a point... How did we ruin the environment at Purdue Bay by drilling there? Give me specific examples. Posted by Ron Rutherford March 15, 2005 2:27 PM
That really isn’t the point, it could be, but in this specific instance it is already a National Refuge. Its legally protected by law from such a thing. I know Republicans love changing laws like redefining marriage and the 1st amendment but where does it stop. And if you can change those laws, maybe we should change the freedom of religion and the gun laws. Fair is fair right? Posted by John March 15, 2005 2:30 PM
Uh, the point isn't whether we're going to damage the environment or not if we drill? Then why the fuck do you care if we drill?Your refusal to point out in any way how we damaged the area proves that you have no argument. Posted by Ron Rutherford March 15, 2005 2:48 PM
Its federally protected land you idiot, just like the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone, are we going to drill for oil there too? And yes there can be all kinds of environmental impacts such as oil spill, or the melting of snow and ice due to a pipeline and the possible displacement of animals or disruption in their migratory patterns due to having a huge oil field in their habitat. Posted by John March 15, 2005 2:51 PM
John, I know it's tought, but think real hard on this one...The porcupine caribou population has quadrupled since we began drilling in Purdue Bay. Your whining about their habitat has been widely disproven, if you want to continue making old, washed up points, I'm fine with that.We should work to replace our dependance on foreign oil. I'm sure you complain about how we get so much oil from the Saudis, but then refuse to let us get oil on our own land. You can't have it both ways. Posted by Ron Rutherford March 16, 2005 6:54 AM
Ask the sea lions and foul about their populations in Valdez.The amount of oil that we could get out of the ANWR is minimal compared to our needs and what we currently import, especially compared to the cost of drilling up there.We need to reduce dependence on oil, not just foreign oil. Posted by john March 16, 2005 7:49 AM
Yeah, let me go to talk to the sea lions....The amount we can get from ANWR is estimated at 9-11 billion barrels of oil. That's enough to replace our imports of Saudi oil for 30 years, according to the US Geographical Survey. That's far from minimal, it would create a butt load of news jobs, and would put billions of dollars towards helping reduce our trade defecit. It's clear trying to argue with you that you don't do much research on anything. You just assume you know it all and then go try and debate someone, and in the end you only look foolish. Like I said before, go get an education and then come back and try and debate me. Posted by Ron Rutherford March 16, 2005 10:58 AM
What am I not educated about, at least I know that the land up there has been under federal protection since 1960. You can talk about environmental impacts and guesstimated numbers about how much oil is up there but none of it matters because it is federally protected land. With your rationale we should open up Yellowstone, Yosemite and Sequoia National Forest to logging. Why not open up mount Rushmore to a limestone company, while were at it we might as well build a Wal-Mart in the Grand Canyon, and Mammoth Cave might be a great place to put all of our garbage. Those are all great ideas. You are clearly one of the more enlightened thinkers of our time. By the way, we consume over 7 billion barrels of oil in this country per year. So great, we will have our own oil for a year and a half. That should solve all of our problems in the year 2017 when they finally start pumping out that oil. Posted by john March 16, 2005 11:05 AM
When did I say ANWR would solve all our problems? It won't. But it certainly helps out a lot, and that's why the Senate is going to give the O.K. for drilling later today.You lose. Posted by Ron Rutherford March 16, 2005 11:05 AM
By the way where is Purdue Bay, who’s the mayor of that town? Gene Keady? Isn't that in Lafayette,IN? Maybe you meant Prudhoe Bay? Don't talk to me about getting an education and doing my research, clearly you are the one who doesn't know what you are talking about. Posted by John
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Why Ted Stevens is an Idiot and Needs to Retire
Ok, I know, I am a little behind the times here, but I still have to talk about what R Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska is up to. He mentioned recently that premium cable channels and other pay services such as satellite radio should be bound to the same decency guidelines and fines as broadcast TV and radio. Here are his exact words:
"Cable is a much greater violator in the indecency area," "I think we have the same power to deal with cable as over-the-air broadcasters. "
"There has to be some standard of decency"
There are several problems with these quotes, which must have come at the end of a drunken bender and were just rambled hap-hazardly as an attempt to win approval from some demographic in Alaska. Obviously he didn't think this through to a conclusion; here is what is wrong with these statements.
A. I haven't seen anything on cable that I considered indecent. Well, except for that scene on Queer as Folk where that guy licked that other guy’s ass, but I didn't actually see that, I just heard about it. So do I watch Queer as Folk? No, and if you don't like seeing some guys ass being licked I recommend you don't watch it either, however some people do want to see that and they are free to do so in my book. I don't watch or listen to Rush Limbaugh and the 700 Club because I know they will offend me. So to respond to the "violator of indecency" comment, cable isn't a greater violator of indecency, not in my eyes anyway.
B. No, you don't have the same power to deal with cable as over the air broadcasters because it's not free to anyone who wants to watch it. How many 10 year olds pay for cable television or have an account with XM radio so they can get it in their room?
C. "There has to be some standard blah blah..." No, there doesn't, because an 88 year old lady might find ankles offensive where as Larry Flint might only find beastiality offensive. They are both Americans, they both pay taxes, so why should one have precedent over the other when it comes to defining decency?
D. Ok I know what you are going to say, yes the FCC does have jurisdiction over cable and satellite services, but they also have jurisdiction over cell phones, pagers, 2 way radios etc. Their primary responsibility is policing billing practices and administering licenses, not censoring. So if you give them the power to apply decency standards to pay TV / satellite services, they have the power to police what is said over cell phones and 2 way radios, and I think we can all agree that is ridiculous.
E. The main point is, where does it stop? If I pay to have "indecent" cable in my house, and they are now saying they can censor that, then why can't they just say I can't buy DVD porn to watch in my house, or have Playboy magazine delivered to my house? I pay for both of them,(well I don't but I'm making a point) they are only for personal, private use, inside my home, I am not buying either for the children, in fact, I have no children, so why would anyone else care what I watch in my own home?
While we are on the subject of children, I have a few more things to say. If you don't want your kids watching shows about sex and violence, then don't let them watch the evening news, I mean, don't let them watch such programs. There are ratings on everything now, if you are a responsible parent, you can find out what is appropriate for them. You can also opt to not buy these premium channels on cable and you can choose not to let them have cable in their rooms and you can choose to monitor what they watch, or you can, God forbid, not have cable or TV in your house at all. Buy them a book, take them to a library, buy them a musical instrument, talk to them, there are other things to do other than watch TV.
It is no coincidence that this comes at a time where Howard Stern is about to change over to a pay satellite service and will be allowed to talk as much shit about Republicans as he wants. It is no coincidence that his criticism of Chairman Powell has something to do with this.
Although Powell, the son of Colin Powell is now retiring, they will probably replace him with someone else who has no qualifications to run such an agency. The FCC is another complete subject in itself so I won't go into that right now.
It only takes one complaint from a viewer to generate the outrageous fines that the FCC is handing out. I say turn the tables on them. The next time you see Pat Robertson talk about violent Bible stories, or eternal hell fire, call the FCC and make a complaint that his show is too hateful and violent. Maybe I am offended by all these religious shows. If I am offended by those, why can't those be taken off the air. Again, it goes back to what I have been saying all along, these kinds of people want free speech for Christians only, they don't care about the rest of us.
Why should they be the ones that get their way? What is offensive to them is not offensive to me, and vice versa, it's all or nothing, if they get the dirty movies, we get the religious hate monger shows! Although, I would opt for no such censorship.
"Cable is a much greater violator in the indecency area," "I think we have the same power to deal with cable as over-the-air broadcasters. "
"There has to be some standard of decency"
There are several problems with these quotes, which must have come at the end of a drunken bender and were just rambled hap-hazardly as an attempt to win approval from some demographic in Alaska. Obviously he didn't think this through to a conclusion; here is what is wrong with these statements.
A. I haven't seen anything on cable that I considered indecent. Well, except for that scene on Queer as Folk where that guy licked that other guy’s ass, but I didn't actually see that, I just heard about it. So do I watch Queer as Folk? No, and if you don't like seeing some guys ass being licked I recommend you don't watch it either, however some people do want to see that and they are free to do so in my book. I don't watch or listen to Rush Limbaugh and the 700 Club because I know they will offend me. So to respond to the "violator of indecency" comment, cable isn't a greater violator of indecency, not in my eyes anyway.
B. No, you don't have the same power to deal with cable as over the air broadcasters because it's not free to anyone who wants to watch it. How many 10 year olds pay for cable television or have an account with XM radio so they can get it in their room?
C. "There has to be some standard blah blah..." No, there doesn't, because an 88 year old lady might find ankles offensive where as Larry Flint might only find beastiality offensive. They are both Americans, they both pay taxes, so why should one have precedent over the other when it comes to defining decency?
D. Ok I know what you are going to say, yes the FCC does have jurisdiction over cable and satellite services, but they also have jurisdiction over cell phones, pagers, 2 way radios etc. Their primary responsibility is policing billing practices and administering licenses, not censoring. So if you give them the power to apply decency standards to pay TV / satellite services, they have the power to police what is said over cell phones and 2 way radios, and I think we can all agree that is ridiculous.
E. The main point is, where does it stop? If I pay to have "indecent" cable in my house, and they are now saying they can censor that, then why can't they just say I can't buy DVD porn to watch in my house, or have Playboy magazine delivered to my house? I pay for both of them,(well I don't but I'm making a point) they are only for personal, private use, inside my home, I am not buying either for the children, in fact, I have no children, so why would anyone else care what I watch in my own home?
While we are on the subject of children, I have a few more things to say. If you don't want your kids watching shows about sex and violence, then don't let them watch the evening news, I mean, don't let them watch such programs. There are ratings on everything now, if you are a responsible parent, you can find out what is appropriate for them. You can also opt to not buy these premium channels on cable and you can choose not to let them have cable in their rooms and you can choose to monitor what they watch, or you can, God forbid, not have cable or TV in your house at all. Buy them a book, take them to a library, buy them a musical instrument, talk to them, there are other things to do other than watch TV.
It is no coincidence that this comes at a time where Howard Stern is about to change over to a pay satellite service and will be allowed to talk as much shit about Republicans as he wants. It is no coincidence that his criticism of Chairman Powell has something to do with this.
Although Powell, the son of Colin Powell is now retiring, they will probably replace him with someone else who has no qualifications to run such an agency. The FCC is another complete subject in itself so I won't go into that right now.
It only takes one complaint from a viewer to generate the outrageous fines that the FCC is handing out. I say turn the tables on them. The next time you see Pat Robertson talk about violent Bible stories, or eternal hell fire, call the FCC and make a complaint that his show is too hateful and violent. Maybe I am offended by all these religious shows. If I am offended by those, why can't those be taken off the air. Again, it goes back to what I have been saying all along, these kinds of people want free speech for Christians only, they don't care about the rest of us.
Why should they be the ones that get their way? What is offensive to them is not offensive to me, and vice versa, it's all or nothing, if they get the dirty movies, we get the religious hate monger shows! Although, I would opt for no such censorship.
Friday, March 04, 2005
Separation of Church and State Confirmed
Treaty of Tripoli Article 11:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Ratified by the senate and 2nd president John Adams in 1797.
According to Article 6 of the US Constitution:
Clause 2: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. "
Also in Article 6 it states "no religious test shall ever be required as qualification to office, or public trust under the US."
The later is't proving that religion should be kept out of government all together but it's another rare instance that religion is discussed and still no mention of the word God, or anything that would lead someone to believe that Christianity belonged in our Government.
Why would mostly Christian men, although some were Deists, want to keep religion out of our government? It would be safe to say that based on their experiences, and the political climate in the world at the time, they could see that by establishing a state religion people would be forced, against their will, to adhere to laws of a religion for which they did not follow. They could also see that allowing entities such as the Vatican to control the government and eliminating their adversaries through legal means, was very dangerous. They also saw what happened to places such as South America where the Spanish in their quest for Gold could go to the head of the Church and act as if they were missionaries in order to justify their enslavement and elimination of native, non-Christian people. I am sure they also realized how many wars were fought over religion, and that proclaiming the US as a "Christian Nation" would make us a target for other theocratic nations of different faiths. Hence, the Treaty of Tripoli.
Remember, in 1954 the phrase"under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance.
Also in the 50s, during the red scare, the phrase "In God We Trust" was added to our currency.
Here is what our money looked like prior to that:
5 Dollar Bill 1914
20 Dollar Bill 1929
1 Dollar Bill 1935
Notice the lack of "In God We Trust".
“Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” Thomas Jefferson 1802
To hear what James Madison, the fourth President and the "Father of the Constitution" thought about it, follow this link:
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/madison_m&r_1785.html
The US Constitution is the law of the land. If anyone can find any reference to God in this document, or you can show me a clause that would prove the founding fathers really meant for our country to be governed by religion, speak now or forever hold your peace. And if you think religion was meant to be involved, how did you come to that conclusion, and which religion should it be? Yours?
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Ratified by the senate and 2nd president John Adams in 1797.
According to Article 6 of the US Constitution:
Clause 2: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. "
Also in Article 6 it states "no religious test shall ever be required as qualification to office, or public trust under the US."
The later is't proving that religion should be kept out of government all together but it's another rare instance that religion is discussed and still no mention of the word God, or anything that would lead someone to believe that Christianity belonged in our Government.
Why would mostly Christian men, although some were Deists, want to keep religion out of our government? It would be safe to say that based on their experiences, and the political climate in the world at the time, they could see that by establishing a state religion people would be forced, against their will, to adhere to laws of a religion for which they did not follow. They could also see that allowing entities such as the Vatican to control the government and eliminating their adversaries through legal means, was very dangerous. They also saw what happened to places such as South America where the Spanish in their quest for Gold could go to the head of the Church and act as if they were missionaries in order to justify their enslavement and elimination of native, non-Christian people. I am sure they also realized how many wars were fought over religion, and that proclaiming the US as a "Christian Nation" would make us a target for other theocratic nations of different faiths. Hence, the Treaty of Tripoli.
Remember, in 1954 the phrase"under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance.
Also in the 50s, during the red scare, the phrase "In God We Trust" was added to our currency.
Here is what our money looked like prior to that:
5 Dollar Bill 1914
20 Dollar Bill 1929
1 Dollar Bill 1935
Notice the lack of "In God We Trust".
“Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” Thomas Jefferson 1802
To hear what James Madison, the fourth President and the "Father of the Constitution" thought about it, follow this link:
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/madison_m&r_1785.html
The US Constitution is the law of the land. If anyone can find any reference to God in this document, or you can show me a clause that would prove the founding fathers really meant for our country to be governed by religion, speak now or forever hold your peace. And if you think religion was meant to be involved, how did you come to that conclusion, and which religion should it be? Yours?
Thursday, February 24, 2005
They're All Going to Hell!
Matthew 19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I say to you, It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
I guess this means all those guys like Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggert, George Bush, Joyce Meyers, Robert Tilton and Jerry Falwell are all going to hell unless one of them can figure out how to shove a camel through the eye of a needle. But I guess Jerry Falwell is already going to hell because he is a disgusting fat body and the Bible treats gluttony as a sin. Or is that another part of the Bible that people ignore and interpret to fit within their own lifestyles?
I guess this means all those guys like Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggert, George Bush, Joyce Meyers, Robert Tilton and Jerry Falwell are all going to hell unless one of them can figure out how to shove a camel through the eye of a needle. But I guess Jerry Falwell is already going to hell because he is a disgusting fat body and the Bible treats gluttony as a sin. Or is that another part of the Bible that people ignore and interpret to fit within their own lifestyles?
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Fanning the Flames of Biblical Homo Erotica
I figure this is as good of a time as any to bring up this topic. We all know there is nothing in the Bible condemning same sex marriages. However, there are some references to how homosexual activity was frowned upon to some degree. But, did you know that there were instances where it was not frowned upon?
Maybe you Bible scholars can help me with this one but it sure seems that David, of David and Goliath fame, was a lover of Jonathon, who was Saul's, the King of Israel's, son.
Here are some versus that have brought me to that conclusion:
1 Samuel 18:3: Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
18:4: And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
No explanation needed here, make of it what you will.
1 Samuel 18:21: Saul thought, "Let me give her to him, that she may be a snare for him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him." Therefore Saul said to David a second time, "You shall now be my son-in-law."
The story behind this one is when Saul was offering David one of his Daughters; the theory about the second time you will be my son-in-law, is that David was already a son-in-law of Saul through Jonathan. Albeit there are multiple translations, and they can all be interpreted differently, as with the rest of the Bible.
2 Samuel 1:26: I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathon: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.
This one is David grieving over Jonathon being killed in battle, stating that he loved Jonathon more than women.
I'm not saying they were definitely ass banging each other, but it sure seems that way doesn't it?
Can anyone explain this one?
Speaking of interpretations, if you don't feel "thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women" is a reference to homosexuality, then why would you think "If a man also lie with mankind" is, such as in Leviticus 20:13? Leviticus 20:13 is typically the verse people use to prove God hates gay people, even though "lie with" could be interpreted in various ways. Does it mean I can't go camping with the guys anymore and share the same tent?
Why would one be taken literally and the other not?
In case you were wondering about Leviticus 20:13, this is what it says:
20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Of course this is also the chapter where God says you can stone your children, you can't have sex with your wife during her "flow", that you are not allowed to trim your beard, and explains the need to eat kosher.
Maybe you Bible scholars can help me with this one but it sure seems that David, of David and Goliath fame, was a lover of Jonathon, who was Saul's, the King of Israel's, son.
Here are some versus that have brought me to that conclusion:
1 Samuel 18:3: Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
18:4: And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
No explanation needed here, make of it what you will.
1 Samuel 18:21: Saul thought, "Let me give her to him, that she may be a snare for him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him." Therefore Saul said to David a second time, "You shall now be my son-in-law."
The story behind this one is when Saul was offering David one of his Daughters; the theory about the second time you will be my son-in-law, is that David was already a son-in-law of Saul through Jonathan. Albeit there are multiple translations, and they can all be interpreted differently, as with the rest of the Bible.
2 Samuel 1:26: I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathon: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.
This one is David grieving over Jonathon being killed in battle, stating that he loved Jonathon more than women.
I'm not saying they were definitely ass banging each other, but it sure seems that way doesn't it?
Can anyone explain this one?
Speaking of interpretations, if you don't feel "thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women" is a reference to homosexuality, then why would you think "If a man also lie with mankind" is, such as in Leviticus 20:13? Leviticus 20:13 is typically the verse people use to prove God hates gay people, even though "lie with" could be interpreted in various ways. Does it mean I can't go camping with the guys anymore and share the same tent?
Why would one be taken literally and the other not?
In case you were wondering about Leviticus 20:13, this is what it says:
20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Of course this is also the chapter where God says you can stone your children, you can't have sex with your wife during her "flow", that you are not allowed to trim your beard, and explains the need to eat kosher.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Interesting Headlines 2
From CNN:
Tuesday, February 15, 2005 Posted: 8:17 AM EST (1317 GMT)
ANNAPOLIS, Maryland (AP) -- The daughter of conservative Republican Alan Keyes referred to herself Monday as a "liberal queer" and urged support for gay and lesbian young people who have been deserted by their families.
Ha ha, you've got to love irony. This just goes to show you that if you preach and preach your bullshit long enough, and shove enough of it down someones throat their whole life, that it will eventually backfire on you. Let this be a lesson for all you conservatives out there who obsessively talk about homosexuality to their kids all day.
Heres what Alan Keyes said about Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter in an interview:
Mike Signorile: "So Mary Cheney is a selfish hedonist, is that it?"
Alan Keyes: "Of course she is. That goes by definition. Of course she is."
Alan Keyes thinks the only reason to get married is to procreate, and that love and sex have nothing to do with it at all. I guess all the married people out there without kids are just walking perverted ids according to this theory.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005 Posted: 8:17 AM EST (1317 GMT)
ANNAPOLIS, Maryland (AP) -- The daughter of conservative Republican Alan Keyes referred to herself Monday as a "liberal queer" and urged support for gay and lesbian young people who have been deserted by their families.
Ha ha, you've got to love irony. This just goes to show you that if you preach and preach your bullshit long enough, and shove enough of it down someones throat their whole life, that it will eventually backfire on you. Let this be a lesson for all you conservatives out there who obsessively talk about homosexuality to their kids all day.
Heres what Alan Keyes said about Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter in an interview:
Mike Signorile: "So Mary Cheney is a selfish hedonist, is that it?"
Alan Keyes: "Of course she is. That goes by definition. Of course she is."
Alan Keyes thinks the only reason to get married is to procreate, and that love and sex have nothing to do with it at all. I guess all the married people out there without kids are just walking perverted ids according to this theory.
Interesting Headlines
From CNN:
Tuesday, February 15, 2005 Posted: 11:36 AM EST (1636 GMT)
BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- Defrocked priest Paul Shanley, a central figure in the Boston Archdiocese clergy sex abuse scandal, was sentenced Tuesday to 12 to 15 years in prison for raping a boy repeatedly in the 1980s.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005 Posted: 11:36 AM EST (1636 GMT)
BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- Defrocked priest Paul Shanley, a central figure in the Boston Archdiocese clergy sex abuse scandal, was sentenced Tuesday to 12 to 15 years in prison for raping a boy repeatedly in the 1980s.
Good, the only problem is that there are actually people, his lawyer included, that think he shouldn't have to go to jail. The article went on to say that some inmate advocates think that if he goes to jail, it will basically be a death sentence like when former priest John Geoghan was killed by an inmate trying to "save the children." Exactly, that's the point what goes around comes around.
"He's so high-profile that that puts a big target on his back," said James Pingeon, a lawyer at Massachusetts Correctional Legal Services, a group that provides civil legal services to inmates. "We feel concerned. Obviously, he's a vulnerable person because of his notoriety and his age." Good, now he will know what all the boys he ass raped felt.
Monday, February 14, 2005
Tax Exempt Political Campaigning
It is currently illegal for a tax exempt organization to endorse a candidate for a national election. That sounds completely reasonable right? You wouldn't want the Red Cross the Salvation Army or your kid’s school, the Boys and Girls club, or your mother’s old-age home to tell them, or you, who they think you should vote for would you?
Neither would I, but apparently it's ok for your church to endorse a candidate and tell you who to vote for. Republican Congressman from NC Walter Jones has introduced a bill that would allow only churches the right to do such a thing and keep their tax exempt status. The bill is called the "House of Worship Free Speech Act" HR 235 IH. It brings what I was saying in my previous post, "free speech for Christians only" into new light doesn't it?
Does this make any sense other than it keeping fundamentalist Bible thumping southern republicans in office? This is about as hypocritical as you get, what he is saying is "lets let a conservative institution accept donations, campaign for me, and not pay any taxes, but we still won't let organizations like the Red Cross and other charities do the same, because they probably wouldn't vote for me or my colleagues."
I really have no problem with churches endorsing candidates for office, but I also have no problem making them pay taxes on the money they collect. Look at someone like Pat Robertson whose net worth is 200 million plus, where do you think that money came from? Contributions that were not taxed!
Call your Congressman and tell them you will track them down and hog tie them if they support the House of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act HR 235 IH.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c109d19ALF::
Neither would I, but apparently it's ok for your church to endorse a candidate and tell you who to vote for. Republican Congressman from NC Walter Jones has introduced a bill that would allow only churches the right to do such a thing and keep their tax exempt status. The bill is called the "House of Worship Free Speech Act" HR 235 IH. It brings what I was saying in my previous post, "free speech for Christians only" into new light doesn't it?
Does this make any sense other than it keeping fundamentalist Bible thumping southern republicans in office? This is about as hypocritical as you get, what he is saying is "lets let a conservative institution accept donations, campaign for me, and not pay any taxes, but we still won't let organizations like the Red Cross and other charities do the same, because they probably wouldn't vote for me or my colleagues."
I really have no problem with churches endorsing candidates for office, but I also have no problem making them pay taxes on the money they collect. Look at someone like Pat Robertson whose net worth is 200 million plus, where do you think that money came from? Contributions that were not taxed!
Call your Congressman and tell them you will track them down and hog tie them if they support the House of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act HR 235 IH.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c109d19ALF::
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)