Liberty U. student arrested over ‘napalm-like’ bombs.
By on May 22nd, 2007 at 11:49 pm
Liberty U. student arrested over ‘napalm-like’ bombs.
“A small group of protesters gathered near the funeral services to criticize [Jerry Falwell,] the man who mobilized Christian evangelicals and made them a major force in American politics — often by playing on social prejudices. … Campbell County authorities arrested a Liberty University student for having several homemade bombs in his car. The student, 19-year-old Mark D. Uhl of Amissville, Va., reportedly told authorities that he was making the bombs to stop protesters from disrupting the funeral service. The devices were made of a combination of gasoline and detergent.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Those kids are learning some interesting shit at old Liberty U.
**eyes rolling**
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:53 pmIt must be easier to justify things when you are a mindless droan.
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:54 pmThey’s some awfully Christian folk down there. Of course I would rather have fundies bombing fundies rather than average people.
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:56 pmFantastic…this moron was going to “stop protesters” with homemade bombs.
Thanks ever so much, Falwell…your legacy lives on.
I wonder if this genius is going to be charged with terrorism. If it was a liberal who had made bombs, he’d be in Gitmo by now.
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:58 pmI wonder if Fred Phelps and his crew of psychos are going to attend Falwell’s funeral?
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:59 pmAt some point, Liberty U. might want to franchise this part of the “curriculum” for $2,500 – and a few DVDs.
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:59 pmHey Zooey, Phelps’ daughter WAS at the service protesting.
Know who wasn’t there –? Any high-ranking Republican politician like Ghoul-iani, Mitt, or even Chimpy.
Guess they all had more pressing things to do than be seen with this “great statesman”.
Hey Jerry Baby — what have you done for me lately –?
.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:03 amtest
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:04 amThe funeral already took place.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:04 amZoo, Falwell’s funeral was today and they did attend. “Christian Bikers”, who often block them did their job as well. I don’t believe in god but god bless those bikers. To picket a funeral is sick. I don’t care whose it is.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:05 amStrange, actual bomb ingredients disclosed by a major news network. What is going on here?
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:05 amWho would Jesus bomb ?
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:05 amBy the way, the Phelps family brought a whole 6 people to protest. Powerful folk.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:05 amYou passed the test HLC.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:06 amKnow who wasn’t there –? Any high-ranking Republican politician like Ghoul-iani, Mitt, or even Chimpy.
Comment by Hannity is Lou Costello
Heh. Imagine that….
What was the lovely former Mizz Phelps’ protest? What was her perception of Falwell’s great sin?
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:08 amAh yes, those wonderful “Family Values” come to the forefront again.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:08 amA religious nut with bombs falls under the administrations terms of terrorism. This was an evangelical terrorist plot against Americans. If they are the new threat,give me a gun. Im more than ready to rid this country of this terrorist plague.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:08 amZoo, Falwell’s funeral was today and they did attend. “Christian Bikersâ€, who often block them did their job as well. I don’t believe in god but god bless those bikers. To picket a funeral is sick. I don’t care whose it is.
Comment by JPark
I agree, protesting any funeral is sick. I had no respect for Falwell, but his family should be left in peace to bury their dead.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:09 amAren’t we supposed to do a pre-emptive strike on any nation harboring terrorists?
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:13 amAnother terrorist driven by religious motives. Thats new.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:13 amZoo, these crazies would get exactly what they wanted with me. If they protested a funeral of one of my loved ones, blood would flow. Sick bastards.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:16 amFools on the Hill. If that were true we would have to attack ourselves. Unless, of course, Cuban terrorists are exempt.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:16 amAnd now for some perspective:
“Falwell was a perfected Christian. He exuded Christian love for all men.”
Ann Coulter, May 16, 2007.
“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.”
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:18 amJerry Falwell, on blame for 9/11, September 13, 2001.
“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.â€
Jerry Falwell, on blame for 9/11, September 13, 2001.
Thanks, Angry One.
Worth repeating…..and repeating.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:22 amproudleftists:
Read the Book of Revelation for the answer to “Who would Jesus bomb?”
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:27 amDoesn’t mixing gasoline and detergent produce a substance simlar to napalm?
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:27 amUm, Jake, do you have a problem with the difference between Jesus in the rest of the New Testament and Jesus in the Book of Revelations? John was a crazy MF.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:31 amYes, republic, it does. Funny that they say it wouldn’t have done much damage because it was “slow burn”.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:32 amHonorable American Senators and Congresspeople, Greetings:
You may or may not be aware that a poll was conducted by MSNBC on May 21st 2007, asking all Americans if Bush’s actions warrant Impeachment. Of nearly one half-million responses fully 89% of We The American People answered Yes, Impeachment Is Warranted. By this reckoning somewhere between 85% and 90% of Americans now fully understand and agree with what many of us realized and warned of well before the theft of both our 2000 and ‘04 Presidential Elections: that Cheney and Bush do not represent American values or ideals, that they do not uphold either our American Constitution nor any rule of law which does not redound to what Cheney and Bush percieve to be their own interests and that of the multinational oil, weapons, nuclear, prison, media and other conglomerates to whom Cheney and Bush owe their true allegiance, in direct violation of their solemn Oaths, and that neither Cheney or Bush nor their supporters or enablers have, can, intend to, or will do anything other than continue to divide, prey upon and sunder the very fabric of our beloved Nation, a nation which despite many blunders, more than any other has nevertheless continually endevoured to advance the cause of national and human Freedom for well over 225 years; our beloved American nation, which repudiated our own genocide of the aboriginal Native Americans, abolished our own enslavement of African Americans, upheld equal suffrage for Women, defeated the nazi menace, determined to eliminate segregation, racism and illegal discrimination of all kinds, and determined to protect and nurture our infinitely precious natural heritage.
It is instructive to note that the GOP, shouting loudest and most self-righteously about “values” and “law”, have themselves done more to violate our national and international peace, safety, security and freedom than anyone else in recent memory. In virtually every American state one or more, and in some states many Republican “lawmakers” are currently under investigation or indictment, or have already been tried or convicted of serious crimes while in public office, and thus had sworn a sacred oath not to break, but rather to uphold the law.
Cheney, Bush and their globalist masters have now deliberately fomented, encouraged and developed a nazi regime on our soil with our own resources. To say that this is unamerican is akin to describing a rabid wolf as a “cute little puppy”; i.e. an understatement verging on negligence. Therefore, you must now act without prevarication to preserve our most cherished American and human values, and you must not fail to do so. While America has not, regrettably, always acted in the highest of interests, we have heretofore, thankfully, always at least tried to do so, yet our nation has now been led by lies into the darkest and most treacherous of directions by Cheney, Bush, and their globalist henchmen. When, exactly, do you intend to put a stop to this? Or do you? Because if you do not only listen, but also take all immediate action to exert and to definitely advance the expressed will of We, The People of the United States of America, by actually doing what you also have sworn your solemn Oaths to do; namely to Protect, Preserve and Defend our U.S. Constitution, Nation, and Flag against all enemies both foreign and domestic, then you as well can no longer be considered by anyone to be anything other than directly complicit in these outrageously illegal, immoral, unconscionable, unamerican and entirely intolerable depredations of the genuine American values we always have and always will represent.
It now seems that The Greatest Generation may have defeated the nazis only to have “lawmakers” permit Regan to initiate a reconstruction of the despicable reich here on our own American soil. To the extent that you now fail to oppose this criminal illegality, you actively collaborate with and support it.
Our brave American armed forces have been stretched to the limit by these same cowardly traitors, who, claiming “other priorities” repeatedly avoided service in a war which they advocated others should fight and die in.
Our American economy and jobs have been consistently and intentionally ruined, our social services, infrastructure and environment have been gutted and polluted to the benefit of insidious criminals “overseeing” these unauthorized and illegitimate expenditures of our money, our Constitutional rights have been repeatedly trampled, our courts and legal systems have been directed against us, there is no Justice as our very Department Of Justice itself has been hijacked to advance by passive neglect and active barratry the political and financial interests of the wealthiest 5%, and not even the wealthiest 5% of Americans per se, although they indeed have profited at the direct expense of everyone else, but rather these policys which you, however wittingly, have encouraged and allowed to continue most often helped the predatory aims of globalist corporatist thieves, who so far from owing or paying any allegience to our genuine American interests or ideals, rather intend to destroy America, to eliminate our borders, to decimate our health, safety and welfare, and are on their way to doing so as they have deviously planned at least since 1750, and now openly boast in their misbegotten arrogance, delusions of superiority, corruption, criminality, racism and illegality of the most virulent and internationally condemned character.
These criminals have operated to implant millions of people with heinously amoral and entirely illegal radio devices, to perpetrate universally banned mind control, directed energy, eugenics and numerous other crimes against American private individuals and citizens, using the resources of our own government itself. They have plotted to arrogate all wealth and resources to themselves according to profoundly unamerican and despicably inhuman “valuesâ€, while deliberately subverting our Free Press and fraudulently manipulating our Fair Elections to conduct these violations of all moral, ethical and legal bounds.
Is this the legacy which you intend to leave? Is this in some unimaginable way allowable for you because, for the moment, you have rights, you have money, you have the life and freedom which America still nominally promises to everyone, but now makes available only to those willing to sacrifice their honor, dignity and principles in exchange for the trappings of wealth and a power most often excersised to the detriment of their own neighbors? Your legislative records and words do not necessarily indicate this is the case, but it is now more than six years past time for your deeds, not merely your words, to convey the most sincere answer to these questions. Americans are a kind, patient and forgiving people, but Americans cannot and will not abide traitorous betrayal by those to whom we have entrusted the guardianship of our sacred Liberty which generations of our forbears, and we ourselves, have given everything to secure.
Bush has tried to say that Americans have not “really” sacrificed anything in the present state of war which he has created, yet Americans have in fact sacrificed at least as much if not more than many in generations past; we have sacrificed our international respect and reputation, we have sacrificed our Constitutional Rights and Freedoms, we have sacrificed our standard of living, we have sacrificed our social commity and trust, we have sacrificed our environmental, physical and mental health, we have sacrificed the progress made for decades before us, we have sacrificed our Free Press, we have sacrificed over 9 trillion dollars, 3500 American lives, and we have sacrificed our very right to Free, Fair, Honest and Open American elections. Bush’s assertion is therefore nothing but yet another lie. In the past six years, Americans have sacrificed a very great number of things which by all legal, moral, legitimate and every other right belongs to us, and not to Cheney, Bush, or anyone else.
If you fail us, not only do you fail yourselves, but history must then remember you with those who called themselves Americans but whose actions revealed their true identity. Should you further abrogate your obligations to faithfully execute your solemn sworn Oaths of duty to uphold our American Constitution at this critical hour in our beloved nations history by immediately bringing both Articles and Proceeedings of Impeachment against both Cheney and Bush, and by seeing to it that they and their aiders and abbetors are brought to the very same Justice which they so eagerly prescribe for others, yet have not and do not ever themselves abide by in any measure, then you will have actively participated in the violation of your own solemnly sworn Oaths by allowing perhaps the most extensive crime ever commited against your own nation and world to occur unopposed. In that event, even should we so desire, we neither shall nor can be any countrymen of yours, nor can we acknowledge you as having any rightful, legal, lawful or otherwise legitimate claim to governance, authority, respect or basic common civility.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:32 amActually, I believe the question aught to be “Whom would Jesus bomb?”
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:32 amYes, republic, it does. Funny that they say it wouldn’t have done much damage because it was “slow burnâ€.
Comment by JPark
Right, JPark. That’s what I was wondering about too… wouldn’t do much damage? To what, the concrete?
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:35 amAbsolutely right Heckuva. Those schmucks are objects (ironic, eh), not subjects.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:35 amRepublic, the napalm wouldn’t do much damage on their bones. It would just be a flesh wound.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:38 amI had a long argument with a poster named LandSurveyor about Christian extremism the other day. In making the case that Americans should be more concerned about living under Sharia law than about the machinations of Christian extremists in our own government, s/he
insisted that “Muslims are different from Christians” (implying they are more prone to violence) and dismissed all of my examples of Christian-based cults, terrorism, torture, war, and genocide as either ancient history or due to isolated individuals. The poster’s last line of defense was that s/he trusted the system to keep “our” (meaning Christian) radicals under control.
I wonder what LandSurveyor has to say about this, as well as the little-reported Christian elements in the taped rantings of the Virginia Tech shootings (he compared himself to Christ and claimed he was doing Christ’s work).
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:43 amLandSurveyor is a tool. There is no getting to people like him. Logic is foreign to him.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:47 amI wonder what LandSurveyor has to say about this, as well as the little-reported Christian elements in the taped rantings of the Virginia Tech shootings (he compared himself to Christ and claimed he was doing Christ’s work).
Comment by Fatherflot
Um, I’m sure it’s nothing. It’s all a mistake! Yeah, that’s it. Some liberal led him astray. His dog died. Um, look over there! It’s Jessica Simpson! It wouldn’t have worked anyway….
Get my drift? :D
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:48 amI wonder what LandSurveyor has to say about this, as well as the little-reported Christian elements in the taped rantings of the Virginia Tech shootings (he compared himself to Christ and claimed he was doing Christ’s work).
Comment by Fatherflot — May 23, 2007 @ 12:43 am
Actually, I heard that dude was autistic… either that or a movie made him do it.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:54 amHehe, that was actually funny, Mr. President.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:59 amActually, I heard that dude was autistic… either that or a movie made him do it.
Comment by Mr. President
Where did you hear the VT guy was autistic? No way is that true. There’s a difference between autistic and anti-social.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:01 amOh jeebus….did I misunderstand another joke?
I’m going to bed.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:02 amSometimes, just sometimes, I wish democrats had a few crazies. So many of our problems could have been avoided if the Dems had a handful of Lee Harveys on the team.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:04 amComment by Zooey — May 23, 2007 @ 1:01 am
Someone in a class of mine last semester. I live in Northern VA. She claims to have gone to school with him… either Centerville or Annandale. I forget which.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:04 amHehe, that was actually funny, Mr. President.
Comment by JPark — May 23, 2007 @ 12:59 am
That actually wasn’t a joke. The kid grew up about 10 mins. from where I live. I know several people that go to VT, two are close friends. Luckily they were not injured or killed.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:07 amIf you didn’t mean it as a joke you are lying. Autistic or a movie made him do it? I have no idea why though. Autistics are usually not capable of murder and a movie made me do it might as well be Satan made me do it (a lame copout by his family). He was messed up…probably bipolar with psychotic breaks from the videos I have seen.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:13 amI am glad your friends weren’t harmed, Mr. President.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:14 amKane, we did have that psycho, John Hinckley, Jr. But he might not have been ours. He was just horny.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:17 amComment by JPark — May 23, 2007 @ 1:13 am
Yeah, I don’t know if he was really autistic, that’s just what the girl said.
Anyway, the movie was called “oldboy” and the guys name was cho, I verified with the google that he imitated parts of the film in his “movie”.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:33 amMr. Pres, don’t buy that crap. An autistic could never plan something like that. The guy was psycho, but it wasn’t autism. If he were autistic he would not have been in college.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:38 amComment by JPark — May 23, 2007 @ 1:38 am
They were saying he had Asperger’s syndrome (I think that’s how you spell it). It is a form of autism, but you are actually a genius at certain things, however it makes it so you have a hard time interacting with other people.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:42 amAsperger’s is technically a subgroup of autism. It really isn’t anything like it though. Yes, they focus on one thing. They learn everything they can about feet or dogs or cars. They are very anti-social. Not necessarily violent but they are incredibly uncomfortable in social situations. They pretty much show no facial expression (which is why I don’t think he had it…you could read his expressions on the videos).
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:51 amMark D. Uhl must be a real looney-tune. I’m intrigued because his “logic” of making bombs to stop protesters doesn’t make any sense. I guess it makes about as much sense as Coulter saying that Falwell “exuded Christian love for all men.”
** roll eyes **
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:06 amSo how are these guiys different from Al Quiada?
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:25 amSo the nut was going to set off jellied gasoline bombs on protesters? He was going to try to burn people to death to honor Jerry Falwell?
May 23rd, 2007 at 5:34 amIt’s called “winger logic.”
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:39 am“Campbell County authorities arrested a Liberty University student”
Now their catching terrorists.
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:48 amIs this kid demonstrating the “compassionate” part of compassionate conservative?? Or is this the “conservative” part of compassionate conservative? I get confused by the blurred lines compassionate conservatives walk these days.
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:54 amSo, do you think he’ll be shipped to Gitmo? Oh, no, our terrorists are ok. It’s only the brown skinned ones that are bad.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:11 amThose madrasas here in America are not good for our existence.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:42 amIf you a$$holes actually believe that this individual’s actions are a reflection on Jerry Falwell and the curriculum at Liberty University, then Virginia Tech is responsible for producing Seung-Hui Cho.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:44 amWonderful, this kids was going to blow up protesters to stop them from interfering with Falwell’s funeral service. Does he think that detonating a bomb and killing people wouldn’t disrupt the service?
There are way too many nut jobs running around out there. And most of them are molded in the image of George Bush, the biggest nut job of all.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:45 amWell if the nut had thrown a gasoline bomb it might have set Jerry Falwell’s coffin aflame and gave him a sendoff to the fire of Hell.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:53 amthe ‘very reverend’ would be proud of his Little fascist
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:12 amFalwell’s God was a terrorist. Falwell’s followers are terrorists.
This is not news.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:13 am.
Is this kid demonstrating the “compassionate†part of compassionate conservative?? Or is this the “conservative†part of compassionate conservative? I get confused by the blurred lines compassionate conservatives walk these days.
Comment by Ben Dover
One thing is for certain, you are demonstrating extremely weak argumentation as well as an inability to think clearly. This is pretty typical of liberals these days.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:24 amAnyway, the movie was called “oldboy†and the guys name was cho, I verified with the google that he imitated parts of the film in his “movieâ€.
Comment by Mr. President
In “Oldboy”, the name of the guy is Dae-su.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:29 amUm, Jake, do you have a problem with the difference between Jesus in the rest of the New Testament and Jesus in the Book of Revelations? John was a crazy MF.
Comment by JPark
Apparently your understanding of the Bible and Christianity is woefully lacking. That doesn’t seem to stop you from making unqualified comments though, does it?
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:34 am“I’m humbled that my beloved students would go so far as to kill in my name. I only allow the cream of the crop to enter my Liberty University. Such good kids they are”.
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:06 amAsperger’s is technically a subgroup of autism. It really isn’t anything like it though. Yes, they focus on one thing. They learn everything they can about feet or dogs or cars. They are very anti-social. Not necessarily violent but they are incredibly uncomfortable in social situations. They pretty much show no facial expression (which is why I don’t think he had it…you could read his expressions on the videos).
Comment by JPark — May 23, 2007 @ 1:51 am
Those with Asperger’s can certainly attend college and live normal, productive lives. Some of them tend to have trouble with the law and/or drug use probably due to a lifetime of not fitting in and being teased and made fun of because they are socially awkward. Sounds familiar doesn’t it? Lack of facial expression is found in some, not all who have Asperger’s Syndrome
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:17 am“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.â€
Jerry Falwell, on blame for 9/11, September 13, 2001.
Comment by Angry One — May 23, 2007 @ 12:18 am
He took that information straight from bin laden. Don’t libs say we need to listen to the terrorists to see why they attack; to address their grievances? Well, bin laden said he wants us to change our immoral society and get rid of homosexuality, fornication, drug and alcohol use, and gambling. Not that I’m advocating doing what bin laden wants (not all of it anyway). There’s that little problem of him wanting to get rid of Israel. We can’t have that. But, other rantings aside, this Falwell statement is partially true. Those things exist here and it was part of the reason for the attack. Would it have happened based only upon the other problems bin laden has with the U.S.? No one knows.
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:32 amLack of facial expression is found in some, not all who have Asperger’s Syndrome
Comment by upright left — May 23, 2007 @ 10:17 am
Preliminary news reports that I have heard put as many as 4 people in this bombing plot. One of the other 3 was once a member of the armed forces. I doubt Asperger’s Disease can be blamed for this.
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:34 amRead Glenn Greenwald today (5/23/07). He’s got a column about a University of Maryland study about how different groups feel about targeting civilians. Turns out the “regular” Americans are much more likely to approve of attacks on civilians—-much more so than Iranians and much more so than Islamic-Americans.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/23/polls/index.html
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:34 amApparently your understanding of the Bible and Christianity is woefully lacking. That doesn’t seem to stop you from making unqualified comments though, does it?
Comment by liberal dork
His understanding is right on… no one even knows who came up with revelations… just some guy named ‘John’ … hell he could have had a swastika on his forhead for all we know… his hallucinations kinda lean in that direction… and yes I have read revelations several times… and yes there are at least two different Jesus personalities in the bible… and yes I have read the bible…
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:36 amBut, other rantings aside, this Falwell statement is partially true. Those things exist here and it was part of the reason for the attack. Would it have happened based only upon the other problems bin laden has with the U.S.? No one knows.
Comment by upright left — May 23, 2007 @ 10:32 am
Good call. We should definitely use a terrorist attack as an excuse to meddle in our citizens’ personal affairs. /sarc off
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:36 amAutism: A spectrum of neuropsychiatric disorders characterized by deficits in social interaction and communication, and unusual and repetitive behavior. Some, but not all, people with autism are non-verbal.
Asperger: Asperger syndrome is a pervasive developmental disorder that is characterized by an inability to understand how to interact socially. Typical features of the syndrome also may include clumsy and uncoordinated motor movements, social impairment with extreme egocentricity, limited interests and unusual preoccupations, repetitive routines or rituals, speech and language peculiarities, and non-verbal communication problems.
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:37 amComment by upright left
And exactly where did Osama say those things? Last I checked Osama bitched about American bases in Saudi Arabia and the plight of the Palastinians and Iraqis…
Osama does not want western culture in HIS country… he isnt the one railing against our way of life in our own country… that is Falwell and Robertson etc…
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:38 amComment by ggibson — May 23, 2007 @ 10:38 am
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,4552895-110490,00.html
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:57 amOsama does not want western culture in HIS country… he isnt the one railing against our way of life in our own country… that is Falwell and Robertson etc…
Comment by ggibson
Well if it isn’t Gerald Gibson! I remember a time when you claimed to be a Christian. Now here you are defending Osama Bin Laden while attacking two well known Christian leaders. Your transformation to the ‘Dark Side’ is complete.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:00 amPreliminary news reports that I have heard put as many as 4 people in this bombing plot. One of the other 3 was once a member of the armed forces. I doubt Asperger’s Disease can be blamed for this.
Comment by erock — May 23, 2007 @ 10:34 am
I have no idea whether anyone involved has Asperger’s. I was just clarifying characteristics of the condition because of comments made about it.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:00 amGood call. We should definitely use a terrorist attack as an excuse to meddle in our citizens’ personal affairs. /sarc off
Comment by erock — May 23, 2007 @ 10:36 am
Your comment would be relevant had I suggested changing anything because of a terrorist attack. I simply pointed out that bin laden said those things were part of the reason for the attack, so Falwell’s statement is partially true.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:05 am“Asperger’s Disease”
Asperger’s Syndrome or Asperger Syndrome
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:07 amI have no idea whether anyone involved has Asperger’s. I was just clarifying characteristics of the condition because of comments made about it.
Comment by upright left — May 23, 2007 @ 11:00 am
I believe the young man arrested has Asperger’s Disease. Thanks for the clarification though.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:08 amYour comment would be relevant had I suggested changing anything because of a terrorist attack. I simply pointed out that bin laden said those things were part of the reason for the attack, so Falwell’s statement is partially true.
Comment by upright left — May 23, 2007 @ 11:05 am
To quote you –
“Well, bin laden said he wants us to change our immoral society and get rid of homosexuality, fornication, drug and alcohol use, and gambling. Not that I’m advocating doing what bin laden wants (not all of it anyway). ”
The implication here is that you want to do away with some of the things that you claim bin Laden hates about U.S. culture. Hence my statement was entirely relevant.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:10 amNot that I’m advocating doing what bin laden wants (not all of it anyway). â€
Comment by erock — May 23, 2007 @ 11:10 am
This was a joke in anticipation of certain expected responses. I see how it would be confusing to those who haven’t seen previous exchanges on other threads.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:17 amThis was a joke in anticipation of certain expected responses. I see how it would be confusing to those who haven’t seen previous exchanges on other threads.
Comment by upright left — May 23, 2007 @ 11:17 am
Didn’t sound like a joke. Sounds more like backpeddling.
Just out of curiosity, what responses were you anticipating?
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:26 amThis was a joke in anticipation of certain expected responses. I see how it would be confusing to those who haven’t seen previous exchanges on other threads.
Comment by upright left — May 23, 2007 @ 11:17 am
Oh, by the way, based on your assertions that “bin laden said he wants us to change our immoral society and get rid of homosexuality, fornication, drug and alcohol use, and gambling” it seems that the Christian Right and Jihadist Islam want many of the same things for America.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:35 amJust out of curiosity, what responses were you anticipating?
Comment by erock — May 23, 2007 @ 11:26 am
Responses from those who know I’m conservative and ascribe to me all the opinions and actions ever displayed by any conservative at any time in history. For example, I believe homosexuality is immoral and oppose allowing homosexual marriage as long as the majority of the population is against it. Once the majority believes it’s ok, which I believe will happen in the not too distant future, then go for it. Of course, this doesn’t mean I want the government policing homosexual behavior. (Have to add that, hopefully, to avoid chasing rabbits.) ;)
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:48 amOh, by the way, based on your assertions that “bin laden said he wants us to change our immoral society and get rid of homosexuality, fornication, drug and alcohol use, and gambling†it seems that the Christian Right and Jihadist Islam want many of the same things for America.
Comment by erock — May 23, 2007 @ 11:35 am
Yeah! Everyone knows that homosexuality, fornication, drug and alcohol use, and gambling is what made this country great. The practice of these reaps great benefits for the individual as well. Only radicals would be opposed to these great blessings in our society. Conservative Christians and radical muslims are one and the same.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:49 amYeah! Everyone knows that homosexuality, fornication, drug and alcohol use, and gambling is what made this country great. The practice of these reaps great benefits for the individual as well. Only radicals would be opposed to these great blessings in our society. Conservative Christians and radical muslims are one and the same.
Comment by Fac ut vivas — May 23, 2007 @ 11:49 am
Our rights and personal freedoms are what make this country great… Only a fascist would want to take these away in the name of “righteousness.”
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:57 amit seems that the Christian Right and Jihadist Islam want many of the same things for America.
Comment by erock — May 23, 2007 @ 11:35 am
Jihadist Islam wants to get rid of Israel like many on the left and some on this board. They also support many socialist ideas supported by the American left. So where does that leave us? No sexual immorality, socialized medicine, no alcohol, get rid of all the Jews or at least drive them out of the middle east, state owned oil, no usury. Doesn’t sound like a place either you or I would like. Of course we wouldn’t have anymore terrorist attacks according to bin laden.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:06 pmI believe the young man arrested has Asperger’s Disease. Thanks for the clarification though.
Comment by erock
FYI: Asperger’s is not a “disease,” it’s a syndrome.
I can see how a young man with Asperger’s would be very entrenched in his thinking and training, to the exclusion of reason.
It’s an explanation, not an excuse. People with Asperger’s know the difference between right and wrong.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:09 pmDoesn’t sound like a place either you or I would like. Of course we wouldn’t have anymore terrorist attacks according to bin laden.
Comment by upright left — May 23, 2007 @ 12:06 pm
Agreed. Likewise I wouldn’t want to live in the world the Christian Right yearns to impose on us.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:20 pmOur rights and personal freedoms are what make this country great… Only a fascist would want to take these away in the name of “righteousness.â€
Comment by erock — May 23, 2007 @ 11:57 am
Along those lines, we have the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. So what do you call those who wish to silence Christians? What name do you have for those who would take their rights away?
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:22 pmAlong those lines, we have the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. So what do you call those who wish to silence Christians? What name do you have for those who would take their rights away?
Comment by Fac ut vivas — May 23, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
Christians, or anyone for that matter, can say whatever they please unless of course what they say is tantamount to a call to arms. I am not aware of any legitimate attempts to silence them or strip them of their rights.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:27 pmAgreed. Likewise I wouldn’t want to live in the world the Christian Right yearns to impose on us.
Comment by erock — May 23, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
Just as I don’t like living with the effects on our society of those practicing every freedom we have simply because they can without regard to the consequences. Just because you can do a thing doesn’t mean you ought to do it.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:31 pmJust as I don’t like living with the effects on our society of those practicing every freedom we have simply because they can without regard to the consequences. Just because you can do a thing doesn’t mean you ought to do it.
Comment by upright left — May 23, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
That’s your personal belief and that’s perfectly fine. Don’t do those things. In fact, organize a parade and hold signs condemning those things. I couldn’t care less. Just don’t impose your beliefs, by force or by law, on others.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:36 pmThat’s your personal belief and that’s perfectly fine. Don’t do those things. In fact, organize a parade and hold signs condemning those things. I couldn’t care less. Just don’t impose your beliefs, by force or by law, on others.
Comment by erock — May 23, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
To begin with, I never advocated restricting those things, with the exception of homosexual marriage. And I don’t believe in holding parades and carrying signs advertising sexual choices. My point was, the effects of certain acts affect more than those who practice them. I’m affected by the promiscuity of others by the cost of my taxes to deal with the consequences of promiscuous behavior. My taxes also increase to deal with the consequences of drug and alcohol use. But I’m not advocating govenment regulation of sexual behavior, or prohibition, or lifetime sentences for those who get in trouble for drug use. I also don’t advocate making you go to church, or profess to be a Christian(which would be a lie anyway). So actually, it seems that I am more affected by liberals practicing their freedoms indiscriminately than liberals are by anything I have done.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:51 pmupright left
Boo frickin’ hoo
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:04 pmI also don’t advocate making you go to church, or profess to be a Christian(which would be a lie anyway). So actually, it seems that I am more affected by liberals practicing their freedoms indiscriminately than liberals are by anything I have done.
Comment by upright left — May 23, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
You are right in one respect. Certain acts, while seemingly harmless to others do in fact affect society at large. To add to your list, the consumption of fatty foods leads to heart disease which must be treated, resulting in use of my tax dollars or increases in my insurance rates. Smoking (arguably) causes pulmonary disease in innocent by-standers. Excessive energy consumption drives the prices for gasoline, natural gas, etc up. I can just as easily attribute these activities to conservatives as you have attributed promiscuity and drug and alcohol use to liberals. More likely both conservatives and liberals are equally responsible for all of these activities.
The fact is that what we do can inconvenience other people as you have pointed out. However, these activities are not restricted to people with any specific ideology. And the world will almost certainly not be a better place if we forcibly restrict people to socially conscious behavior.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:07 pmOkay, first off: Christianity.
Personally, I am coming to the conclusion that what is needed, is for public displays of one’s Christianity to be banned. Make saying “Happy Christmas” a fineable offence, make Easter just another day, and Saint Valentine’s can get sub-letted to the porno-industry. Most people probably wouldn’t even notice that last one.
Why? Do I oppose freedom of religion? Am I anti-Christian? No, I am just sick of the largest religious movement on earth whining about how it is being so freaking repressed. Lets give them something real to whine about.
On a more serious note:
Protesting someone’s funeral? Distasteful.
Deciding to make some bombs so you can hopefully burn a couple of those protestors to death with them? Criminal and downright psychotic.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:24 pmAnd the world will almost certainly not be a better place if we forcibly restrict people to socially conscious behavior.
Comment by erock — May 23, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
I suspect there are liberals on this site who will have a HUGE problem with that last statement.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:33 pmI suspect there are liberals on this site who will have a HUGE problem with that last statement.
Comment by upright left
Bullshit.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:38 pmI suspect there are liberals on this site who will have a HUGE problem with that last statement.
Comment by upright left — May 23, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
If there are I wish they would pose an argument. I’m pretty sure #98 was kidding, but if he’s not I’m seriously opposed to his ideas.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:39 pmDo I oppose freedom of religion? Am I anti-Christian? No, I am just sick of the largest religious movement on earth whining about how it is being so freaking repressed.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — May 23, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
Just get your fellow liberals to agree with you on the answer to your first two statements and to treat Christianity with the same respect that they give Islam and everything will be fine. Although, I think it’s actually fear more than respect that they have for Islam.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:41 pmI suspect there are liberals on this site who will have a HUGE problem with that last statement.
Comment by upright left — May 23, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
Seriously, you don’t actually know what liberalism is all about do you?
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:41 pmupright left
Boo frickin’ hoo
Comment by God — May 23, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
Oh so very harsh Gode. ;)
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:43 pmAnd the world will almost certainly not be a better place if we forcibly restrict people to socially conscious behavior.
Comment by erock — May 23, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
I suspect there are liberals on this site who will have a HUGE problem with that last statement.
Comment by upright left — May 23, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
Bullshit.
Comment by Zooey — May 23, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
LOL… So you can’t think of ANY (ANY!) socially conscious behavior that you advocate? Think hard! LOL
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:47 pmWell if it isn’t Gerald Gibson! I remember a time when you claimed to be a Christian. Now here you are defending Osama Bin Laden while attacking two well known Christian leaders. Your transformation to the ‘Dark Side’ is complete.
Comment by Fac ut vivas
I never said I was a christian. I said I grew up a christian and was driven away from them by their hate for Americas freedoms.
I never defended Osama…. one of you guys said he attacked us because of our way of life which is false.
Ever feel embarressed about being completely wrong for 6 straight years? (at least) ..
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:48 pmupright left
A song which puts my full respect for Islam a thousand times better then I can.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/audio/Islamsnot4me.htm
I don’t have much truck with any religion, particularly Islam.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:49 pmSeriously, you don’t actually know what liberalism is all about do you?
Comment by Bruce Gorton — May 23, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
I know what I read on this site by people who call themselves liberals. Maybe they represent a different liberal faction than you do. (just kidding! I didn’t really mean faction.)
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:49 pmComment by ggibson — May 23, 2007 @ 10:38 am
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/ print/ 0,,4552895-110490,00.html
Comment by upright left
As is common with you guys … YOUR OWN LINK disproves you…
As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:
(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.
a) You attacked us in Palestine:
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:49 pm
LOL… So you can’t think of ANY (ANY!) socially conscious behavior that you advocate? Think hard! LOL
Comment by upright left
Oh, you’re too smart for me — NOT.
I was calling bullshit on your assertion that there are liberals on this site that wouldn’t have a problem forcibly restricting people to socially conscious behavior.
If you’ve got nothing — change the subject. You’re so good at that.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:01 pmupright left
Leftwing is anti-authoritarian, in essence to be leftwing you have to mistrust what the government tells you until you check into it yourself.
Its why the left is pro-Gay marriage being legal, as where does the government get off telling you who you can marry?
Of course there are things we advocate, clean air standards, strong consumer protection (Particularly now with petfood) workers rights, that sort of thing, but for the most part we figure your government should be invisible right up until you need it. We are very reluctant to give government more power when it comes to individuals.
It shouldn’t tell you what you can read, say, and (in a more limited sense) do, and if other people turn around and call you an idiot for what you read, say or do, well that is their right too. If you want to pray in school, go ahead, it is your right to express yourself, but don’t force the atheist kids to do it.
And if you have the right to express your religion, I have the right to express my doubt in it. You have the right to your religion, you do not have the right to have your religion respected.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:02 pmComment by upright left
As is common with you guys … YOUR OWN LINK disproves you…
As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:
(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.
a) You attacked us in Palestine:
Comment by ggibson — May 23, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
It’s a long document, gg. Was that as far as you could read? Is this the same way you “read” the Bible? You obviously understood neither. But, then you lack something needed to understand the Bible and if you were raised in a Christian home, I’m sure you know what you are missing.
Had you read further in Osama’s letter you would have found this:
1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam. …
(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you. …
Who can forget your President Clinton’s immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he ‘made a mistake’, after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations? …
If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight with the Islamic Nation.
If you want to see how Osama’s claim of their reasons coincides with Falwell’s, read the full list that Osama gives of the “debauchery” of the U.S. Again, I acknowledged that our support of Israel was a large part of it, while you deny the rest of it. Got a little hypocrisy problem there, gg?
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:16 pmAnd if you have the right to express your religion, I have the right to express my doubt in it. You have the right to your religion, you do not have the right to have your religion respected.
Comment by Bruce Gorton
**standing ovation**
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:16 pmComment by ggibson
I never said I was a christian. I said I grew up a christian and was driven away from them by their hate for Americas freedoms.
Yeah you did… It was a year ago or more. I don’t remember the thread, but I had interacted with you under another handle. I was defending Christianity while you disagreed with every bit of well-established Biblical doctrine I was presenting—yet you claimed to be a Christian. I recall thinking at the time, ” There’s no way this guy can be a Christian if he’s consistantly finding fault with the Bible.” Thanks for your current admission—I apologize for my misunderstanding.
I never defended Osama…. one of you guys said he attacked us because of our way of life which is false.
In retrospect, ‘defend’ was inappropriate. I was reacting to your gratuitous swipe at Falwell and Robertson, while thinking that you were a Christian. By the way—I hold no loyalty to either man.
Ever feel embarressed about being completely wrong for 6 straight years? (at least) ..
I can only assume that you are referring to Bush? In that case ‘completely wrong’ is a misnomer. Disappointed would be more fitting. Still—he’s been the lesser of two evil’s in both elections.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:26 pm**standing ovation**
Comment by Zooey — May 23, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
Hmmm. Oh nevermind. Way too easy.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:28 pm“Of course there are things we advocate, clean air standards, strong consumer protection (Particularly now with petfood) workers rights, that sort of thing, but for the most part we figure your government should be invisible right up until you need it.”
So you get to decide where government intervention is ok, not conservatives. Got it.
“You have the right to your religion, you do not have the right to have your religion respected.”
Comment by Bruce Gorton — May 23, 2007 @ 2:02 pm
Does my religion deserve the same treatment as any other religion? If it’s not proper to show any depiction of Mohammed because it’s offensive to Muslims, is it also improper to have a depiction of Christian figures that are obviously offensive to Christians? Just looking for a little equality here.
I assure you conservatives are more distrusting of big government than are liberals. With the exception of our current president, who is a traitor to the conservative cause, conservatives want to get rid of as much government as possible.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:29 pm…Does my religion deserve the same treatment as any other religion? If it’s not proper to show any depiction of Mohammed because it’s offensive to Muslims, is it also improper to have a depiction of Christian figures that are obviously offensive to Christians? Just looking for a little equality here…
Comment by upright left
You won’t find any equality here my friend. If you are indeed a Christian, then you know that those you’re interacting with loathe your position. The would like nothing more than to silence their opposition, all the while paying lip-service to our Constitutional rights.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:37 pmFac ut vivas
He wasn’t the lesser of two evils, just the more inspiring of them.
Look, take a long hard look at Gore after 2000. He went around the world, and managed to get the world on board in fighting global warming, he took died in the wool skeptics like Richard Branson, and got them joining his cause in it, and he managed it even as America fought tooth an nail to drag the world in the opposite direction.
Now imagine that same basic ability set in charge of America. You wouldn’t have lost France as an ally, you might have had the EU helping you. Chances are, Iraq wouldn’t have happened.
With no Iraq war, Afghanistan, would have been easier and the poppy production less significant. With no Iraq the burden on America’s army would have been lighter, and FEMA would have had more equipment to deal with Katrina – even if all else stayed the same.
With Gore’s obvious emphasis on fuel economy and reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil chances are you would even have less terrorism, due to their being less money to go spare in Saudi Arabia.
Further, Bush was wrong in virtually everything. America’s deficit has doubled, his general economy is still setting 6 year records (Which is about as long as he has been in power) and I don’t like the looks of this sub-prime loan drama.
He has divided America into Liberal and Conservative factions like it has never been divided before, he has alienated America’s allies, and he knocked America clean off the moral high ground thanks to his policies on torture.
Bush is probably the worst president in American history, he doesn’t actually have a solid success. Even Jimmy Carter had 3-Mile Island.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:42 pm**standing ovation**
Comment by Zooey —
Were you a cheerleader?
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:44 pmYou won’t find any equality here my friend. If you are indeed a Christian, then you know that those you’re interacting with loathe your position. The would like nothing more than to silence their opposition, all the while paying lip-service to our Constitutional rights.
Comment by Fac ut vivas — May 23, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
Oh, I’m well aware of that. But they do believe in equality here. Just a different kind of equality. You know about “finding your own truth?” Same thing. ;)
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:45 pm“Of course there are things we advocate, clean air standards, strong consumer protection (Particularly now with petfood) workers rights, that sort of thing, but for the most part we figure your government should be invisible right up until you need it.â€
So you get to decide where government intervention is ok, not conservatives. Got it.
“You have the right to your religion, you do not have the right to have your religion respected.â€
Comment by Bruce Gorton — May 23, 2007 @ 2:02 pm
Does my religion deserve the same treatment as any other religion? If it’s not proper to show any depiction of Mohammed because it’s offensive to Muslims, is it also improper to have a depiction of Christian figures that are obviously offensive to Christians? Just looking for a little equality here.
I assure you conservatives are more distrusting of big government than are liberals. With the exception of our current president, who is a traitor to the conservative cause, conservatives want to get rid of as much government as possible.
Comment by upright left — May 23, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
First, you are confusing the inconveniences posed to some citizens when others exercise their rights with the imminent threat posed to society by corporate neglect. Without a certain degree of regulation, corporate America has shown itself to be extrememly irresponsible with their customers’ safety and well-being. The government must intervene here because not to do so would cause the loss of life of a significant portion of the population. Comparing this to the inconvenience that occurs when someone say, screams at me in the street to repent for my sins is laughable at best.
Second, to the best of my knowledge, there is no law preventing anyone from drawing pictures of Mohammed. Draw all the pictures you want. Conversely, don’t complain when someone draws pictures that you deem offensive.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:46 pmupright left
On your first point: Actually it has more to do with not wanting arsenic in my water supply, and my pets dying because the Chinese factory that my pet food supplier bought their food added some anti-freeze to it. And of course, reducing air polution is a good idea too: The entire human species kind of takes precedence over factory owners who could just maintain their factories properly.
As to religion?
Go click on the link I provided and listen to that song if you want a solid answer on your queries about how much respect I give Islam. Seriously you are asking questions which anybody who has clicked on that link already knows the answers to.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:51 pmBruce Gorton
Your hero Gore is a raving lunatic. Converting souls to the religion of human-caused global warming is no indication of what kind of world leader he would have been. America would have had more terrorist attacks under his presidency—as well as under Kerry’s. If anyone is responsible for the Liberal / Conservative division in this country, it is the Democrats. They’ve done nothing but attack the Bush administration ever since he took office. Their derision is amplified by the media on a daily basis, and all you ‘free-thinkers’ have been conditioned to believe every word of it. Just because some have been saying that Bush is the worst president ever, doesn’t make it so. I’m willing to bet that history will not see it that way.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:59 pmWere you a cheerleader?
Comment by Fac ut vivas
I was in the game. Thanks for cheering from the sidelines.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:04 pmHe’s a TERRORIST…
…and should be treated according to the Patriot Act…
…and “24″…
…SERIOUSLY!
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:06 pmSecond, to the best of my knowledge, there is no law preventing anyone from drawing pictures of Mohammed. Draw all the pictures you want. Conversely, don’t complain when someone draws pictures that you deem offensive.
Comment by erock — May 23, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
Remember that little brouhaha over the Danish cartoons of Muhommad? You know, when muslims started killing people in various places around the world because they thought the cartoons were offensive? Well, apparently, it’s against some law of Islam to depict Muhammad. (and you must use the word depiction, not picture. Otherwise, you’ll be chasing rabbits about when photography was invented, etc.) Did you notice that the cartoons weren’t shown in America? At least one news source, which I can’t recall but will research because someone here will refuse to believe otherwise, said it was because they were afraid and thought it would be reckless to risk unjury or death to their employees by showing the cartoons.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:10 pmRemember the dung/pornography depicition of the Virgin Mary in the new York Museum (which receives government funding)? Well, some folks on this site stood solidly behind the Muslims. They had every right to be upset. (Ok maybe they shouldn’t have killed people, but still.)
Did they also stand behind the Christians who were offeded? Nope. The dung/porno depiction of Mary was art, it was “surreal”. So, you see, erock, the only equality around here is the afore mentioned liberal version of equality. Everything is as equal as liberals (on this site) think it should be at the moment.
Comment by upright left — May 23, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
So you’re citing the activities of privately owned news corporations (largely owned by wealthy conservatives) as government and public infringment on your right to create a “depiction” of Mohammed? Pretty shoddy argument. I would be no more opposed to the showing of the Danish images as I was to the depictions of the Virgin Mary, though both were in poor taste. If you find offense with the depictions of the Virgin Mary created with government funds, perhaps you should write to your representative and complain. That’s your right as a citizen.
You should know that I am very critical of government funding of the arts.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:18 pmWere you a cheerleader?
Comment by Fac ut vivas
I was in the game. Thanks for cheering from the sidelines.
Comment by Zooey —
Chess club?
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:18 pmComment by upright left — May 23, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
Also, defending Muslim’s right to be upset about a depiction of Mohammed and arguing that making such a depiction should be illegal are two very different things. You have the right to be upset about whatever you want. Just don’t kill people over it.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:21 pmComment by Fac ut vivas — May 23, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
If you don’t see the irony created by your moniker and your “cheerleader” posts, then there’s really no hope for you.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:23 pmFac ut vivas
Bullshit. Gore, what his stance speaks of, is a massive ability to get people to agree with him, are you saying this isn’t valuable in a president?
Bush has done sweet bugger-all about real terrorism other then give the terrorists easy targets. America is becoming increasingly isolated because you have a president whose response to trying to talk a long term valued ally into helping America, is to accuse that ally, which was hit hard in WWII, of not understanding what America was going through on 9/11.
That was GW Bush in France.
Did GW Bush manage to keep Italy from throwing it in when a Italian got shot after rescuing an Itallian citizen from being beheaded? Did he calm them down? No. Italy dumped you in Iraq for one stupid action because Bush couldn’t calm them down. Bush does not have the same charisma or social skill as Al Gore.
Further, take a look at what Gore proposed when it came to airlines and keeping terrorists out of the cockpit. Go look it up, and realise this was before 9/11.
You guys on the right, you talk tough but when it comes to putting anything into practice? Stuff up after stuff up. I don’t judge Bush harshly based on his words, I judge him harshly based on his actions, on his personal cowardice on 9/11, and on his failures, repeated failures since then to strengthen America in the face of adversity.
I judge him on the fact that his most strident supporters are ill able to bring up anything more then 9/11 as a solid point in his defence and 9/11 was a failure.
I judge him based on the fact that in Hurricane Katrina he revealed once and for all that his ranch is NOT another Whitehouse and he is the president who has taken the most leave.
I judge him based on a deficit which has boomed out of control, and the fact that that deficit does not even include the Iraq war. I judge him based on the fact that he single handedly doubled America’s national debt.
I judge him based on the fact that he turned his back on scientists on issues ranging from Stem Cell research, to global warming, to evolution. I judge him on his failures, and the sheer lack of a solid, real success.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:24 pmChess club?
Comment by Fac ut vivas
Good one. You cheered for Chess Club?
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:26 pmChess club?
Comment by Fac ut vivas
Good one. You cheered for Chess Club?
Comment by Zooey
It was the only humane thing to do. You looked so pathetic—sitting there in silence—nervously contemplating your next move. :)
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:35 pmIt was the only humane thing to do. You looked so pathetic—sitting there in silence—nervously contemplating your next move. :)
Comment by Fac ut vivas
Must have been some other brilliant, fabulously hot babe — that you weren’t dating.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:45 pmGo click on the link I provided and listen to that song if you want a solid answer on your queries about how much respect I give Islam. Seriously you are asking questions which anybody who has clicked on that link already knows the answers to.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — May 23, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
Excellent song, Bruce. My point here is that all religions should be respected or disrespected equally. I have no desire to push my religion on anyone. If God had wanted that, He would have done it Himself.
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:21 pmAlso, defending Muslim’s right to be upset about a depiction of Mohammed and arguing that making such a depiction should be illegal are two very different things. You have the right to be upset about whatever you want. Just don’t kill people over it.
Comment by erock — May 23, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
My point was that, on this site, some think you don’t have the right to be upset about whatever you want. Some were defending the right of Muslims to be upset over things they found offensive, but Christians were wrong for the same thing. And we just asked for the removal of the offensive thing from a tax sponsored museum. We didn’t kill anybody over it.
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:27 pmAnd we just asked for the removal of the offensive thing from a tax sponsored museum. We didn’t kill anybody over it.
Comment by upright left — May 23, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
I happen to agree with you on the “work of art” in question. In this case it was such a clear attack on Christianity that I find it hard to believe that anyone found it anything but offensive. However, that is not to say that anything that anyone considers offensive cannot be included in a tax-supported museum. For instance, some works of art depict nude men and women. Just because some consider this innapropriate I would not support their removal. Who ultimately decides what stays and what goes? I don’t know.
But thank you for not killing anyone over it. Clearly you have more sense than some Liberty U. students.
May 23rd, 2007 at 5:00 pmWho ultimately decides what stays and what goes? I don’t know.
But thank you for not killing anyone over it. Clearly you have more sense than some Liberty U. students.
Comment by erock — May 23, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
I don’t think it’s that difficult to avoid “art” that degrades religion. And people are certainly free to put that kind of “art” in private showings. And people are free to go see it or not.
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:20 pmAnd clearly you have more sense than some of the “intellectuals” on this site. Thank you for not sharing their intolerant, hateful views.
And clearly you have more sense than some of the “intellectuals†on this site. Thank you for not sharing their intolerant, hateful views.
Comment by upright left — May 23, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
A great deal of people (on the right and left) are very frustrated. It’s easy to lash out in anger when you are given anonymity a blog presents. I also frequent some right wing sites where the discourse is no more civil. Some posters who only want to disrupt discussions only exacerbate the situation.
Fortunately we both have our sense for now.
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:43 pmupright left
Look, lets put it this way.
The major public debate around Christianity is due mostly to one simple factor: The Christians have outright whined about how they are being repressed.
And here is the latest example of brutal, horrific repression which the Christians can come up with: Store clerks wishing them a happy holiday at Christmas.
And yeah us outspoken, proud atheists who frankly act morally without a hope for reward, without a threat of eternal torment, and who see our own actions as being ours, are sick and tired of the fact that every time there is a debate about anything, from lessons taught in school to the laws on the books, to the rocks in the ground, somebody has to bring their bible along.
You want to know us Atheists particularly seem to target Christianity? It is because Christianity is frequently put forward as an argument when we are arguing other topics.
Gay marriage? Who cares if it is against the Christian religion, government is supposed to be religion neutral. Stem cell research? Who cares about your religious views on it? Government is supposed to be religion neutral. Evolution? Who cares what your Bible says, it is not a reliable source of scientific knowlede and… government is supposed to be religion neutral.
If Christians want their faith to be simply left alone, then they shouldn’t bring your faith into debates where what it says is either wrong, or irrelevent.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:45 pm“And yeah us outspoken, proud atheists who frankly act morally without a hope for reward,”
Whose idea of moral? Do atheists get to choose for everyone what is moral? You are the minority in this country, remember? Why do you get to decide for the country that it is ok to create babies, then kill them before they are born to use their cells? Who gets to decide how far along that baby has to be before it’s no longer ok to kill it to take it’s cells? I don’t think I want ya deciding that for me, buddy.
“And here is the latest example of brutal, horrific repression which the Christians can come up with: Store clerks wishing them a happy holiday at Christmas”
Repression? No. But if corporations are going to make a bundle from a Christian Holy day, then I don’t think it’s too much to ask that they use Merry Christmas in their advertising and refrain from telling employees that they can’t say Merry Christmas or Happy Easter.
There are issues in this country that didn’t use to come up because Christians were a larger majority than they are now. Democracy is majority rule with minority rights protected. That means there will be times when the minority doesn’t get what it wants because it is the minority. Would you feel better if gay marriage was prohibited because the majority thinks it is disgusting rather than thinking it’s immoral?
When Christians are no longer the majority, then I won’t expect what Christians want on these kinds of issues to win out. Atheists have pushed everything to the limits. Hence, the actions of people like Jerry Falwell. I find it very interesting how atheists want to get rid of every vestige of religion in this country, yet you take absolutely no responsibility for the decline of the family, increase in violence, drug abuse, and generally coarsening of our society. You can deny your responsibility to make yourselves feel better, but you know, my Godless friend, the fault lies squarely with you and yours. You have a blessed day now, ya hear? ;)
May 24th, 2007 at 2:53 pmupright left
1: You realise what a total bunch of wussies that Christmas issue made you look like don’t you? Help! Help! We’re being repressed by somebody wishing us a “Happy Holiday”! Oh what a terrible thing, and Bah Humbug besides.
2: Morality differs from person to person, its what makes it morality, not law. You believe abortions are repugnant, don’t have one then, you believe homosexuality is wrong, don’t go sleep with another member of your sex. Your choice.
That said, when a Christian does “the right thing”, that Christian does it with an expectation of eternal reward. When an atheist does “the right thing” it is without expectation of reward, and atheists actually act in a more moral manner in a lot of instances.
While law is not morality, it does serve as a minimum which we as society, have agreed upon (The things we won’t tolerate, if you will.) About 16 percent of the world’s population is atheist, yet only 0.2 percent of the world’s prison population is atheist.
There have been no wars fought in Atheism’s name (Probably because it isn’t exactly inspiring telling your soldiers that when they die its the end) and there has been remarkably little done in the of evil in Atheism’s name. We didn’t get Hitler, we didn’t get the inquisition and the witch hunts, we didn’t get the massacre of the native American Indian, and we didn’t enslave people.
My morality goes as follows: It is wrong to take pleasure in harming those weaker then you, you should protect the weak, it is wrong to tell lies, it is wrong to steal, a person who is ruled by fear is a coward, don’t be a coward. If you see something you believe to be wrong, you speak up, you do not back down until you are convinced otherwise. Religion is just another opinion to be discussed just like anything else.
Government doesn’t rule the majority, it rules everyone. It is why you conservatives are so bad at it, you do not understand the basic concept that everyone’s rights should be protected, everyone should get a say, and you should not make laws based on group rights simply because one group is currently the majority.
The majority was once in favour of slavery, and white supremacy. At one point the majority practiced human sacrifice.
You bring your religion into an argument expect to have it criticised by those of us who do not see any divine authority behind you, we simply see your argument as calling upon an authority which doesn’t exist.
That you rely on your religion as an authority to win over the majority does not mean that you are morally superior, but rather morally inferior as you are reliant on instant borrowed authority, rather then logic and facts.
You have to convince us that the law is just, you have to convince us that the law is enforcable (The main argument against banning abortion? That it isn’t enforceable.) You have to convince us that the law will work and won’t abridge the rights of others.
Oh, and as to the disintegration of American family values? American family values are a myth born of watching too much TV. Who were the heroes of the old west? Migrant agricultural workers who turned to crime. 1920’s, were known for sex, alchohol, and gangsterism. 1930’s saw the introduction of the great depression, and people weren’t terribly well behaved during it.
1940’s, well you had the war on and the mafia had so much power over America’s docks that that war would have been lost without a deal being cut.
1950’s, you had the KKK.
1960’s, you had your police officers beating the hell out of your university students. You had a virtual civil war with the KKK, and the rise of the counter KKK groups on the left. Fast forward 20 years to the 1980’s, and you had the cocaine boom.
I trust you are not going to point ot the 1990’s as a blissfully trouble free time to family togetherness.
You are trying to invoke a golden age which simply didn’t exist.
May 24th, 2007 at 4:28 pm“atheists actually act in a more moral manner in a lot of instances.”
Again, your opinion of morality. You keep repeating that atheists are moral, but you don’t seem to get that that is nothing more than an opinion on your part. And becoming a Christian does much more than just save you from hell. It would obviously be a waste to try to explain that to you, so I’ll just leave it.
“We didn’t get Hitler, we didn’t get the inquisition and the witch hunts, we didn’t get the massacre of the native American Indian, and we didn’t enslave people.”
Trust me, Hitler wasn’t a Christian. And are you sure there were no atheist slave holders? None at all?
“Government doesn’t rule the majority, it rules everyone. It is why you conservatives are so bad at it, you do not understand the basic concept that everyone’s rights should be protected, everyone should get a say, and you should not make laws based on group rights simply because one group is currently the majority.”
Now you are just being foolish. Of course everyone gets a say (vote), but everyone isn’t going to agree and decisions have to be made. What, do we never make a decision until every agrees? A lot of people don’t want to wear seatbelts, but we have a seatbelt law in my state because the majority wanted it. A lot of people don’t want to pay taxes, but we have taxes because the majority agrees we need them. We don’t have a state income tax in my state because the majority doesn’t want it. To say that the majority shouldn’t rule is ridiculous. That’s where minority rights protected comes in. Minorities deserve to have the basic rights protected, but they don’t have the right to rule our society.
“You have to convince us that the law is just, you have to convince us that the law is enforcable”
The majority doesn’t have to convince you of anything. The majority just has to vote in like minded people to pass the desired legislation. Why do you think abortion laws stand? The majority thinks people who would abort a baby would probably not care for it properly anyway so why make the baby suffer. If the majority cared to outlaw abortion, it would be outlawed even if it required a constitutional amendment.
“Oh, and as to the disintegration of American family values? American family values are a myth born of watching too much TV.”
So you dispute every study that says that there are more children born to unmarried women, that more childen grow up without fathers, that more women and children live in poverty, that drug use and abuse is higher, that there is more violence in our society now than there was in 1950? Hey, bud, if you need to think that to live with what liberals have done to our society, more power to ya.
Oh, and that Christmas thing? The threat of Christians taking their Christmas shopping elsewhere put the fear (of God?) into some retailers didn’t it? Kind of ticked ya off did it? Well, you have the right to contact them just like Christians did. But, what effect do you think it will have as opposed to the Christians? But, take heart. The direction our world is going, you all may be the majority before we know it. And we all know what happens then, don’t we? I’m rather looking forward to it myself, because I’ll already be gone. ;)
May 24th, 2007 at 5:37 pmupright left
There are more children then in the 1950’s, drug availability is up and reportage of abuses is also up. In the 1950’s a lot of child abuse was outright ignored, thanks to the rise of liberalism it stopped being. (Hence the shift in statistics.)
And while you might pretend that an era where churches got bombed for including brown people in their congregations was a golden age of morality, those of us who actually read up on history, note that you are talking out of your ass.
Oh, and as to poverty? From the US Government census:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/perindex.html
1966 (It doesn’t go back to 1950) Male 13 percent. Female 16.3
percent.
2000 (Clinton’s last year) Male: 9.9 percent. Female: 12.6 percent.
2005 (Latest year on it) Male: 11.1 percent. Female: 14.1 percent.
As for the numbers? Yes they have grown, as has the American population.
Now for the kiddies:
1966: 43.5% of the poor were under 18.
2000: 36.7% of the poor were under 18.
2005: 34.9% of the poor were under 18.
So your argument is crap.
May 26th, 2007 at 6:54 am“There are more children then in the 1950’s…”
Surely ya don’t expect to get away with that? That doesn’t even deserve a response.
“drug availability is up…”
That one doesn’t hold water either, but it does beg the question: If greater availability is the reason for the increase in drug abuse, why are liberals for legalization? Not doing so great here, Bruce.
“In the 1950’s a lot of child abuse was outright ignored, thanks to the rise of liberalism it stopped being.”
You are right about the “children’s rights movement” beginning with liberals. It brought to light the extent of child abuse in our society and a lot of children have been saved because of it. Of course, as with too many liberal causes, it suffered because of the excesses of some of it’s proponents. So we had people complaining that schools didn’t have the right to search kid’s lockers for drugs because it violated their rights. (Protecting kids who were using illegal drugs and helping them hide it. Encouraging their drug use? Of course.) Then parents were violating their kid’s rights by searching their rooms, etc, etc, etc. A good thing damaged by going too far.
And finally, your stats. Isn’t it interesting how you can find stats to show just about anything that you want. Families in this country are doing much better than they were in the 50′ and 60’s and, thus, those children are doing better. Were there too many stats for you to read further or did you just stop when you found what ya needed to prove what ya wanted to prove? Because if ya read further and get to the women and children in female headed households, you see the point I was making. The liberal movement has given us more children born to single and teenage mothers. These children have a much higher poverty rate than children born into two parent families. But heaven forbid we teach children the there is any benefit to marrying before having children. We don’t want to stigmatize anyone. Let them make mistakes that hurt them the rest of their lives but by golly don’t stigmatize em by telling em there is anything wrong with having a child outside of marriage.
Why is it that you can’t admit that there was anything good about the U.S. before the 1960’s? Of course there were problems. Serious problems. But there was more to this country than it’s deplorable treatment of minorities. Is it just the fact that religion was a large part of people’s lives then and it really ticks you off? You said earlier that you aren’t anit-Christian, but in each post you get a little more hostile in regard to it.
May 27th, 2007 at 2:11 pm