Yesterday, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) attacked the nine “liberal Democrat” “naysayers” who voted against his resolution on the “importance of Christmas and the Christian faith.” Today, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) responded, explaining his vote:
While the Republicans are passing a resolution celebrating Christmas, the president was vetoing health care for children. There’s a little bit of irony going on around here.
King was one of the lawmakers who voted against expanding SCHIP.
HR 847 went beyond the previous HR Res on Ramadan.
December 13th, 2007 at 8:23 pmIt “acknowledges and supports the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization;”
This Res was not done in the same spirit as the Islamic faith recognition.
This latest was a backdoor attempt to say that America is a Christian nation.
Neat trick, Stevie Boy!
By clicking onto the hypertexted “nine” above, you’ll be able to view the roll call vote.
Of the forty representatives who did not vote, TWENTY-ONE (more than half) were Republicans, including, get this….Steve King (R-IA).
So, he couldn’t see fit to vote for his own bill, at the same time, criticizing those who voted against it?
Why has no one held him to account or this?
December 13th, 2007 at 8:25 pmWere the Founding Fathers Christians?
December 13th, 2007 at 8:25 pmThey were certainly godly men who believed in a supreme being, but not everyone would subscribe to the Apostles’ Creed.
Slight correction to previous post…
Neat trick, Stevie Boy!
By clicking onto the hypertexted “nine†above, you’ll be able to view the roll call vote.
Of the forty representatives who did not vote, TWENTY-ONE (more than half) were Republicans, including, get this….Steve King (R-IA).
So, he couldn’t see fit to vote for his own bill, at the same time, criticizing those who voted against it?
Why has no one held him to account for this?
December 13th, 2007 at 8:26 pmRighty:
“Nativity Sets, good. Critical to National Security.
Sick Kids?…screw’em.
bet y’all didn’t know those were traditional values, didja? course ya didn’t, cuz yer commies!”
December 13th, 2007 at 8:27 pmHere is a posting that I placed on another site a couple of weeks ago…
Benjamin Franklin did not appear to be a huge fan of Christianity. About the topic, he was quoted as follows:
“If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both there (England) and in New England.â€
It certainly would seem that John Adams, our second president, was not a major promoter of Christianity. Please consider the following quote:
“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved–the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!†— John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson
And are you sure that Thomas Jefferson supported Christianity:
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.†AND
“Twenty gods or no god? Which Christian denomination provides such a degree of latitude?”
Do you suppose that Christianity as practiced in Salem, MA (circa 1619) might what the Founding Fathers had mind–or not?
Anyone who pays taxes in this country is already supporting (financially, at least) Christian denominations in this country. The U. S. government collects taxes from most of us (except the very rich) and then hands it over to the “right†Christian denominations as part of the program for faith-based initiatives. Whether we like it or not, we have no choice (short of voting the scoundrels out of office) as to whether we will place our hard-earned money in the offering plate, which plate we will place it in, or how much we will be required to donate.
In fact, how many of you have received a notice from the I. R. S., enumerating for you how much of your tax bill went to church-based organizations? At the very least, you should be able to deduct it as a charitable contribution.
We should also receive an accounting of how well their program worked in repairing the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina.
December 13th, 2007 at 8:31 pmDon’t know where to post this off-topic …sorry
Mitt Romney founded Bain & Co. in 1984, and today its spinoff — Bain Capital — is the third largest private equity firm in the country. Today they bought ClearChannel, a company that owns over 1100 radio stations and 30 TV stations.
How many people doubt he will use these 1100 radio stations to “promote” his candidacy? ANd if he doesn’t win the nomination, won’t his radio stations plug the Repugnican candidate? Consolidation of media..
December 13th, 2007 at 8:34 pmRep. King (R) should be working on useful legistlations rather than chasing empty slogans like war on Christmas by O’Reilly, Gibson & co.,which we now hear that it has been won and victory has been declared.
Rep. King should act as a representative rather than propagandist, becuase the whole issue does not exist and does not deserve the time spent on.
December 13th, 2007 at 8:34 pmA little while ago tonight, I emailed my representative, John Hall, regarding this resolution, expressing my disappointment in his vote for this unconstitutional resolution. I posted it on our blog. This was before I read curmudgeon’s comment above indicating that Rep King couldn’t even vote in support of his own hypocritical resolution. Now I have to a bit more to say to Rep. Hall!
December 13th, 2007 at 9:05 pmWhats really shocking about this story is that only NINE democrats apparently voted against this ridiculous bill?
Our founding fathers are turning over in their graves, and farting in the general direction of congress.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 9:02 pm
What’s shocking, is a lunatic like you that thinks atheists are fanatics is criticizing all of those democratic politicians for basically saying EXACTLY the same things you say…
December 13th, 2007 at 9:10 pmAllow me to add to Rep. McDermitt’s quote:
“While the Republicans are passing a resolution celebrating Christmas, they are voting in favor of torture and the president was vetoing health care for children.”
December 13th, 2007 at 9:11 pm“While the Republicans are passing a resolution celebrating Christmas, the president was vetoing health care for children.”
Sounds like a good campaign slogan for the Democrats!
December 13th, 2007 at 9:21 pmAnd never forget that Barney deserves better health care than 40 million Americans. Gives new meaning to “It’s a dogs life.”
December 13th, 2007 at 9:22 pmwhat a ridiculous spectacle congress has made of itself. How did the republican morons ever get control of the of the national dialoge - they’re indescribable idiots.
December 13th, 2007 at 9:25 pm.
You’re out of your mind.
And you’re a liar. I said no such things and I’m getting sick of you coming in and attacking me in threads to spam the thread just because you got your a$$ kicked in another one.
You got a point to make then put up the quotes of mine that say what you claim I say or ki$$ my a$$.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 9:21 pm
You said atheists are fanatics, REPEATEDLY, please go review the thread, maybe you were off your meds?
You can RETRACT the accusation at this very moment, but someone that claims to be a religious expert, and doesn’t understand greek root words isn’t exactly an a$$ kicker, they’re an EMBARRASSMENT and a LAUGHING STOCK!!! ROTFL!!
December 13th, 2007 at 9:27 pmGOPhers are total hypocrites.
December 13th, 2007 at 9:27 pmAnd by the way dumbass, ATHEOS is not greek.
Its LATIN.
It was translated from a Greek word that you can neither spell or pronounce.
So blow me.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
So it’s a GREEK WORD - BAHAHA, like I said!! HYSTERICAL!!
Thanks for proving that your ‘blow me’ response is that of DESPERATION of being WRONG YET AGAIN!!! You make me laugh little man!
In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative á¼€- + θεός “god”) meant “godless”.
December 13th, 2007 at 9:37 pmYou couldn’t handle the thread which is still open by the way, so you come in here and run your mouth about something that has nothing to do with this thread.
You want to get into the atheists\fanatic debate then go to the thread where its still going.
But quit spamming the thread you ignorant illiterate twit.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
Hey most people don’t bother posting on OLD THREADS for weeks, except losers like you that are DESPERATE to have the LAST WORD even when you’re proven wrong! You’re such a sad little nerd!! You make me laugh fatboy!
December 13th, 2007 at 9:38 pmNo dumbass. Its a latin word, TRANSLATED from Greek.
Now like I said, stop pestering, and stop stalking me.
You want this debate, go back to thread where its going on.
But keep it the hell out of current threads.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
No it’s a GREEK WORD that was ABSORBED into latin, in the same way you could argue by your argument that it’s not a latin word, but an ENGLISH WORD translated from Latin. But you’d be WRONG and show what an IGNORANT FOOL YOU WERE!! ROTFL!!!
December 13th, 2007 at 9:41 pmOh, and little ‘tard, a TRANSLATION doesn’t adopt a FOREIGN ROOT, it uses an indigenous one!!! ROTFL!!
December 13th, 2007 at 9:42 pmGee, what a surprise. “Think Progress†loves Muslims, but hates Christians and Jews. I think we already knew that.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 13, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
Ah, poor tard, didn’t you get the memo? We’re all secular humanist atheists that hate ALL OF YOU RELIGIOUS FOOLS EQUALLY!!! ROTFL!!!
December 13th, 2007 at 9:42 pmAlright.
I tried.
Enoughs enough.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
Yeah, but you FAILED because YOU WERE WRONG, and too DUMB/IGNORANT/ARROGANT to admit it! You and Exley are TWO PEAS IN A POD, fatty!
December 13th, 2007 at 9:43 pmHey, seriously. Are you two done yet? You’re both acting like spoiled 12 year olds. Take this to private email or just stop.
December 13th, 2007 at 9:45 pmGee, what a surprise. “Think Progress†loves Muslims, but hates Christians and Jews. I think we already knew that.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 13, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
Gee, what a surprise. You’re still dumber than roadkill.
December 13th, 2007 at 9:45 pmLook over there at the shiny thing!
December 13th, 2007 at 9:52 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
Comment by republicans hate facts — December 13, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
Wow! Here when I saw another war on Xmas thread I thought it would be boring! Thanks guys, this is an early Xmas present.
December 13th, 2007 at 9:53 pmSo - Scoreboard is -
Repubs:
Torture Good.
One religion nation.
Sick kids worthless.
hmmmm….that ought to work well in November. Now if only there were some Dems with balls to use that, and everything else available.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:10 pmGee, what a surprise. “Think Progress†loves Muslims, but hates Christians and Jews. I think we already knew that.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 13, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
Only in your that tiny and claustrophobic space that once harbored a
thinking mind.
Nice try, chuckles. dangle.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:10 pmRep. Steve King is simply following his religious tenets. There was not a single care provider in 1 AD, why should the system change now? To complete the transition, he should reside in a stone house heated with a camel dung fueled campfire which would serve as well to cook his meals. No more Smithfield hams for the solstice dinner though.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:31 pmGee, what a surprise. “Think Progress†loves Muslims, but hates Christians and Jews. I think we already knew that.
Comment by cold_hard_left
O’ great uninformed one:
http://manifestlyso.wordpress.com/ 2007/ 12/ 13/ the-jewish-strawman/
I knew someone like you would be saying something like you did sometime today =P
December 13th, 2007 at 10:33 pmToday the Repubs voted in favor of Christmas and Torture.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:33 pmSo, they’re “Pro Jesus” toand “Pro Torture”.
It doesn’t even enter in their pointy little heads that Jesus was tortured to death.
See, you fooled the real troll with your bickering. We know with chimp’s endorsement of the NIE they would need something exciting to wake them out of their stupor.
Really guys, I suggest that a comment was misread and a salvo was fired. Let’s shake hands and turn our energies back to more important stuff, for the sake of the trolls’ education.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:35 pmLess than two weeks to go until the recently liberated* Christmas holiday and little Jimmy with the congenital medical condition can go suck some eggnog ’cause he ain’t gonna be gettin’ any of that socialized Hill’reh care now! MERRY CHRISTMAS mother fathers…
* The war on Christmas is over! Mission Accomplished!
December 13th, 2007 at 10:36 pmIt doesn’t even enter in their pointy little heads that Jesus was tortured to death.
Comment by OxyCon — December 13, 2007 @ 10:33 pm
If they ever really thought about it, Oxycon, those pointy little heads would simply implode in a puff of rancid, sooty smoke, leaving a terrible after odor that would linger for days.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:36 pmSIGN THE PETITION TO KEEP THE DEBATES OPEN!!
This week the Des Moines Register decided to exclude Congressman Dennis Kucinich from the Iowa debate — despite the fact that he met all of their published criteria.
Senator Mike Gravel and Congressman Ron Paul have also faced debate exclusions as well.
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/ o/ 2489/ t/ 5103/ petition.jsp?petition_KEY=752
December 13th, 2007 at 10:40 pma resolution on christmas??? - has this guy got nothing better to do with his time? - time that tax dollars pays for
December 13th, 2007 at 10:45 pmGee, what a surprise. “Think Progress†loves Muslims, but hates Christians and Jews. -CHL
Well if George can hold their hand, why cant you?
December 13th, 2007 at 10:48 pmThe myth: All the founding fathers were Christians and America was founded on the Christian religion.
The facts: Most of the founding fathers were either deists or freethinkers who scorned Christianity.
A passage from the treaty with Tripoli, passed unanimously by the US Senate and signed by President Adams in 1797 sums it up well: “…The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”
December 13th, 2007 at 10:48 pmYou ruin every thread you find me in with your ridiculous debate and your utter illiteracy.
You think you know something about ancient languages but you know nothing. You know what you read in wiki, and you don’t even know that.
Keep your rabid foaming attacks off the other threads and grow up.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
I know enough to know that atheos (atheist) is a GREEK WORD, and that english derived from it, and its meaning, and that it doesn’t mean the think you SAID it meant. I even proved you wrong using the webster’s standard english dictionary. As for the wiki claim, PROJECT MUCH, lunatic boy, who’s so ‘tarded he doesn’t know the difference between ADOPTING a word and TRANSLATING it? ROTFL!!!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:04 pmI’m sick of you a$$holes not being able to read. Scroll up dickhead. WHere did I start something with this c0cksucker? Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
More projections there CRAIG? ROTFL!!
Bart, do us ALL a favor, and BECOME A REPUBLICAN NOW! It better fits your inability to grasp the english language (or Greek or Latin) or even COMMON SENSE! But your LASHING OUT because you can’t handle being PROVEN WRONG is the BIGGEST REASON!!!
I was posting and this son of a b$tch comes in and attacks me. I told him to stop spamming the thread, and now you lop me into it like I did something. Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
Actually YOU were attacking other democrats in congress that chose to attack secularism, I merely pointed out that you SHARED their failing - hypocrisy.
Well read next time stupid, before opening your big fat ignorant mouth. I’m sick of the f@#KING PILE ON, and being blamed for BEING STALKED.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
Pointing out that you can’t admit you’re wrong, when it’s topically relevant is STALKING YOU? You can add PARANOIA to the list of GOP traits you seem to possess in abundance there fatboy!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:07 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
Comment by republicans hate facts — December 13, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
Wow! Here when I saw another war on Xmas thread I thought it would be boring! Thanks guys, this is an early Xmas present.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — December 13, 2007 @ 9:53 pm
Well he may be a hypocrite, but you’re a hypocritical fool that’s too ‘tarded to even know that you make Bart look like a genius! Ignorance is bliss, and child, you’re the most blissful libertarian around! Ron Paul is calling you! He says DESTROY OUR SCHOOLS, can you hear his voices in the dumb little skull of yours yet?
December 13th, 2007 at 11:08 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
Comment by republicans hate facts — December 13, 2007 @ 11:07 pm
I am available for marriage counseling, you two.
I mean, how is Lil B going to “shine the light of his Truth, Veritas Truth, RHF’s Truth” on me if you guys keep this up?
Was that only a week ago? RHF, your inviatation to the Smackdown is in serious danger!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:11 pmWell he may be a hypocrite, but you’re a hypocritical fool that’s too ‘tarded to even know that you make Bart look like a genius!
Comment by republicans hate facts — December 13, 2007 @ 11:08 pm
And keltoi?
You can ki$$ my a$$.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 10:09 pm
Awwww…there ya go! I knew you kids could patch it up!
Group Cyber-hug everyone!
My work here is done.
Man, I am never skipping one of these war on Xmas threads again!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:15 pmYou’re following me around spamming threads, and you’re a liar.
Everything you said is a lie.
You’re a liar from the beginning.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:12 pm
Poor ‘tard, you think WAY too much of yourself. If I wanted to follow you around, I’d just go back to that thread that I made a fool of you on, and that you won’t STOP POSTING ON!!! ROTFL!!!
A liar like you shouldn’t really call others out, when it’s so obvious you’re the one at fault.
Oh, and for a little LANGUAGE TUTORIAL, if atheos were translated to Latin, the prefix would be in producing intheos, not atheos…
You’re such a BLATANT LIAR. You know NOTHING of religion, greek, latin or ANYTHING - FRANKLY! You sure you aren’t a REPUBLICAN? ROTFL!!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:20 pmThe original word was greek, but the word “ATHEOS†is Latin, translated from the greek by Cicero in the first century BC.
And none of that has anything to do with my position that Atheism is a belief.
Atheism is a belief. It cannot prove its primary premise, that is there is no god, thus its a belief.
And since you’re too stupid to figure that out, I pointed you to the dictionary, which also says atheism is a belief.
And now, all you, and the other stooges are just a couple if illiterates arguing with the dictionary.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:18 pm
ROTFL!!! Atheos is a GREEK word, so it COULDN’T be a LATIN WRITER (CICERO) responsible for it!!! The greek is άθεος and it’s not LATIN in origin, NOR is it translated. If it were, it would be INTHEOS - which would be a latin form…
Keep digging, child, you just make yourself look MORE and MORE STUPID! Just ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG, and a HYPOCRITE and we can move forward. Ok, tard?
December 13th, 2007 at 11:23 pmBartles, you’ve got Thom Hartmann on your side, I listened to him debate this for a while Tuesday morning.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:23 pmBut for X sakes, can’t you lighten the fu(k up once in a while?
You’re an idiot.
Arguing with the dictionary.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:22 pm
You mean the Merriam Webster? Because IT says YOU ARE WRONG - ‘tard!!! As does the GREEK LANGUAGE that DEFINED THE WORD!!
You’re an idiot, little ‘tard.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:25 pmPoor little bart thinks he’s the expert, not the merriam-webster dictionary!!
Main Entry:
athe·ism Listen to the pronunciation of atheism
Pronunciation:
\ˈÄ-thÄ“-ËŒi-zÉ™m\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date:
1546
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity
Sorry tard but a-theos means GODLESS, or WITHOUT THEOS (belief in god), whereas you claim it meant AGAINST THEOS, which in greek would be anti-theos (the greek meaning of a- and anti- are completely different).
But don’t let the dictionary, or your lack of an understanding of the language you would HAVE TO HAVE MASTERED to be the person you claim to be stand in your way of making a fool of yourself!!! ROTFL!!!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:29 pmYou know Ruc, you’re a good guy, but you’re off in left field.
My getting irratated tonight is the cumulation of over 2 weeks and 2000 comments of a ridiculous debate with these fools, and now they’re following me to each and every thread I dare to go in, and just starting the debate all over again.
I dare to respond, and then all of you start piling on me, completely IGNORING them, and bashing me for daring to respond.
So why don’t you lighten the f$#k up on me once in a while?
I get zero help from any of you when I’m right and some idiots are debating me. Instead all I get is the pile on.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:26 pm
You FABRICATE the meaning of a word, I point out you’re a liar, and you whine that everyone is pissed you’re such a moron and a liar? Sorry, ‘tard, but that’s a product of YOUR RUDE BEHAVIOR!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:30 pmThe only to dictionaries of record for English are Merriam Webster and Oxford - but BOTH show you’re a liar bart.
Oxford English Dictionary
atheism
/aythi-iz’m/
• noun the belief that God does not exist.
— DERIVATIVES atheist noun atheistic adjective atheistical adjective.
— ORIGIN from Greek a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:31 pmatheism [ˈeiθiizəm] noun: the belief that there is no God
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:31 pm
Which is the same thing as saying that they’re GODLESS or don’t BELIEVE IN GOD, which is the OPPOSITE of your previous claim that they were AGAINST THEISTS!!! MORON!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:32 pmYou know Ruc, you’re a good guy, but you’re off in left field.
I dare to respond, and then all of you start piling on me, completely IGNORING them, and bashing me for daring to respond.
So why don’t you lighten the f$#k up on me once in a while?
I get zero help from any of you when I’m right and some idiots are debating me. Instead all I get is the pile on.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:26 pm
YEAH, RUC, he was feeling so stalked and persecuted and picked on last night he had to go on a 10 post riff where he was referring to himself in the 3rd person. Back him up or else he’ll bust out another personality or 5.
Which may or may not include RHF.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:33 pmBart can’t lighten up, or he’ll lose his godliness, his righteousness, his hold on All That’s True. His foolish generalizations got him his ass handed to him on a plate, but, damn it, he will be right! No matter what! Not to mention some pretty good anger management issues. He never knows when he’s been beaten.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:33 pmatheism noun:1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God [ant: theism]
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:32 pm
Yes, but not you claimed that it was always a DOCTRINE, this says “OR”, thereby DISPROVING YOUR CLAIM!
Ready to admit defeat? Or are you going to CONTINUE to be a MORON that doesn’t know what OR means?
December 13th, 2007 at 11:33 pmYEAH, RUC, he was feeling so stalked and persecuted and picked on last night he had to go on a 10 post riff where he was referring to himself in the 3rd person. Back him up or else he’ll bust out another personality or 5.
Which may or may not include RHF.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — December 13, 2007 @ 11:33 pm
STFU ‘tard! You’re in no position to talk about others being crazy and persecuted, you CONSTANTLY WHINE about me persecuting you like a 12 year old little girl!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:34 pma·the·ism –noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:34 pm
Still not comprehending the meaning of the word OR bart?
ROTFL!!! And you claim to understand religious doctrine! No wonder you’re such a rude little twirp!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:35 pmatheism [(ay-thee-iz-uhm)] Denial that there is a God.
American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:29 pm
here’s another plateful of ass for you, Bart, cooked up by your very own self. Are you really seriously giving Mr. P a run for the roses?
December 13th, 2007 at 11:36 pmSorry, ‘tard, but that’s a product of YOUR RUDE BEHAVIOR!
Comment by republicans hate facts — December 13, 2007 @ 11:30 pm
OH MY GOD!!!
Now I have read it all.
Lil B is feeling outnumbered and persecuted on TP, and RHF is chastising someone for RUDE BEHAVIOR!!!
Good Night guys. The offer of marriage counseling is still open.
GRIN.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:37 pma·the·ism : The doctrine that there is no God or gods
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:36 pm
That’s ONE MEANING of the word, not the ONLY MEANING, which was your claim.
This STILL PROVES you’re just cherry picking second tier sources to support your fanatic claims…
December 13th, 2007 at 11:37 pmOH MY GOD!!!
Now I have read it all.
Lil B is feeling outnumbered and persecuted on TP, and RHF is chastising someone for RUDE BEHAVIOR!!!
Good Night guys. The offer of marriage counseling is still open.
GRIN.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — December 13, 2007 @ 11:37 pm
Who’s CHASTISING? Stop projecting again, whiny little girl. I merely pointed out that there’s a CONSEQUENCE to rude behavior, especially when it’s unwarranted. See, that’s why I only use it to people like ‘you’ that act in a ‘tarded way, or against Bart. Neither of you realize that you’ve already BEEN RUDE, and you receive my posts BECAUSE of that…
Marriage counseling? ROTFL!!! Poor little ‘craiger’, just another GOP self loathing closet case. That explains why you’re such a clueless moron that acts like a little girl! Come out of the closet, stop hating yourself, and maybe you won’t be such an ignorant @ss there, GIRLFRIEND!! ROTFL!!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:40 pmYea.
Having ones argument stated word for word in half a dozen English dictionary’s amounts to having ones “ass handed to themâ€.
Another f@$#king idiot who can’t read.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:38 pm
Actually your argument was that atheism IS a doctrine AGAINST RELIGIONS- PERIOD, whereas the dictionary does not say it IS a doctrine ‘THAT DOESN’t BELIEVE’ and even then it says it’s EITHER a DOCTRINE or a BELIEF - so NO YOU DID NOT SEE YOUR ARGUMENT IN THE DICTIONARY - and in FACT THE DICTIONARY POSTS HERE DEBUNK YOUR CLAIM!!
You’re just TOO ILLITERATE, TOO STUPID and TOO DISHONEST TO ADMIT IT!!!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:42 pmWhen you fanatical atheists can prove your primary contention, that a god or gods do not exist, then you will graduate from a belief based system, to a fact based system.
And not one minute before.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:41 pm
Ah, poor ‘tard, see THAT’S YOUR PROBLEM! You don’t have to prove a negative, that’s a logical fallacy! When you produce ANY EVIDENCE that PROVES GOD EXISTS, then you can graduate from a BELIEF SYSTEM into the RATIONAL WORLD!! ROTFL!!!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:43 pmOh, and BART, SANTA SAYS YOU’VE BEEN BAD, and you CAN’T PROVE HE WON’T PUNISH YOU FOR IT!!
ROTFL!!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:44 pmBut as long as your “belief system†makes claims it cannot prove, then it will remain a belief system.
Just like the dictionary says it is.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:42 pm
Your “belief system” says you believe there is a God, despite NO EVIDENCE of this - stop projecting your DOCTRINE, JUST LIKE THE DICTIONARY SAYS!!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:45 pmAnd btw, thanks for bringing in your pet poodle, the one you call RHF.
This rabid little runt proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that atheists are as fanatical as the overly religious loons out there.
No difference whatsoever.
:\
Cept the religious folk tend to be more likable.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:44 pm
That b!tch is yours, just has irrational, stupid and hateful as you are!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:46 pmFor the rest of us, who don’t need labels to define us, and don’t require belief systems to structure our thought processes around, atheists are just as rabid and fanatical as the religious fundamentalists.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:46 pm
UNLABELED is a LABEL - MORON!!! ROTFL!!!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:46 pmYeah for McDermott, he is my representative from West Seattle, and he enjoys a 89% approval rating for good reason.
Buck Fush
December 13th, 2007 at 11:46 pm“The fact is if you deny the existence of god, then you “BELIEVE†god does not exist.
You can not prove it, so you merely have a belief.”
Comment by BARTLEBEE
Athiests “believe” in the observable, and the quantifiable. Is that a spiritual belief? Athiests will bow to the unknown, but never to the unknowable.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:47 pmYou shouldn’t lecture others on being fanatical, when you claimed that atheism is an anti-theist doctrine, and that the word atheist meant anti-theist (a lie)…
Sorry, but YOU are the fanatic bart… A LYING, IGNORNAT FANATIC!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:47 pmatheists are just as rabid and fanatical as the religious fundamentalists.
Comment by BARTLEBEE
Oh my goodness, not the nut case with his rants again, Bart you are F’ing mental.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:47 pmAthiests “believe†in the observable, and the quantifiable. Is that a spiritual belief? Athiests will bow to the unknown, but never to the unknowable.
Comment by barfly — December 13, 2007 @ 11:47 pm
Whereas Bart will NEVER BOW, even when you PROVE HE’S WRONG AND IGNORANT!! ROTFL!!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:48 pmMaybe there’s just something about politics all us surfs just don’t git.
/sarcasm
December 13th, 2007 at 11:50 pmWhen atheism can prove its primary contention, that a god or gods do not exist, then it will rise from the belief system it is, to the realm of fact based systems.
But until it can prove its contention, its just another belief system invented by lazy minds who cannot live with uncertainty.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:47 pm
So you’re back to the logical fallacy that atheists should be required to prove something that has no proof of existence. To not believe in something without proof isn’t fanaticism or doctrine (other than the doctrine of rational thinking).
Since you don’t seem to understand what rational thinking is, it is understandable that you’d say something this LAZY because you can’t deal with the fact that rational thought comes to a conclusion against your DOCTRINE…
December 13th, 2007 at 11:50 pmgive it up guys engaging Bart, this nut case will spend 2 or 3 days, (recently too) on his mental crap.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:51 pmFor f_ck’s sake, why don’t you both shut up?
December 13th, 2007 at 11:51 pmObserve class, the rabid, ranting foaming at the mouth lunacy of the rabid atheist.
This one should be in a cage.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:48 pm
Observe class, the rabid, ranting foaming at the mouth lunacy of the rabid hypocritical RELIGIOUS FANATIC that as I pointed out is in no position to condemn Congressional Democrats. This one should be in a cage!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:51 pmNotice how he cracks up and starts with the name calling, I’m telling you he is touched in the head, and just seeing this mental patient on gives me good reason to go clean something in the house, anything but his mental breakdown again.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:52 pmgive it up guys engaging Bart, this nut case will spend 2 or 3 days, (recently too) on his mental crap.
Comment by Buckie Boy — December 13, 2007 @ 11:51 pm
Yeah, that’s why I stopped posting on the other thread, he’s a wingnut in classic republican/religious fanatic style. No logic, no rational thoughts and no capacity to debate or admit when he’s proven wrong.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:52 pmYou stupid freaking democrats piss me off. All you want is the fed to come in, provide health care for you and every other person you can possibly sign up. And to top it off, you come here and take my money to do it!
Listen, if you want health care for kids, fine. Raise the taxes in your STATE, or find some other freaking way to pay for it.
And while I am on the subject of health care, your stupid a$$hole candidates for the most part want UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. Ya, sure, lets raise taxes! Lets go spend some money that we don’t even have! No problem! That is the most retarded bull$hit bandaid to a problem I have ever seen. Why don’t we stop the big pharm lobbying, and stop letting them hike up the cost of drugs to the point where you NEED the gov’t to pay for it?? Brilliant! I can buy my insulin, over the counter, for half of the price 5 hours north. Insulin made in the same factory as the stuff I used to buy here.
When the government steps in and says it is going to take care of something, I would suggest the “run like hell” approach instead of the current one most of this country embraces. FEMA. IRS. No Child Left Behind. Homeland Security. I could go on…
December 13th, 2007 at 11:53 pmFor f_ck’s sake, why don’t you both shut up?
Comment by Zooey — December 13, 2007 @ 11:51 pm
Sorry, but in a thread about the religious takeover of government, I feel I have a right to defend atheists. Perhaps you don’t. Your right..
December 13th, 2007 at 11:53 pmNotice how the loser atheist resorts to labeling his opponent, who is not religious, religious.
Because the poor rube’s a$$ has been shoved so far up his throat, that he can’t do anything other than lie.
Because he’s a liar.
Like all you pieces of sh$t are.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
You’re either theist (religious) or atheist (unreligious) - PERIOD!!
As for you attacking all of the progressives, thanks for showing your true colors there republican troll!
ROTFL!!!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:54 pmBecause the poor rube’s a$$ has been shoved so far up his throat, that he can’t do anything other than lie.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
I’m not the one that can’t read merriam-webster/oxford dictionary, or who didn’t know the etymology and meaning of the word being used!!
Sorry tard, but either you’re a theist or an atheist - PERIOD!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:55 pmBucket Boy’s too ignorant to read who started this.
RHF’s too much of a pu$$y to hang in the actual thread, so he has to spam this one up with it.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:54 pm
Hey, I corrected you on that thread, it’s not my fault that you keep posting on NEW THREADS on topics based on YOUR HYPOCRISY!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:56 pmAnd when the pu$$y named RHF can’t handle the facts, he resorts to lies, like labeling me religous, or claiming I’m attacking ALL PROGRESSIVESâ€.
Because he’s a liar.
Was from day one.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:57 pm
You’re either a theist, or an atheist - as these are the only two groupings possible. You can be subgrouped as an agnostic as you’ve self described yourself - but that’s still a theist as it has its own doctrine.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:58 pmThe only thing progressive about RHF, is his dementia.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:57 pm
Ah, more projecting from the old-timer…
December 13th, 2007 at 11:58 pmBut thats fine.
Since no ones minds him attacking me in every thread I go in to bring up a debate that he couldn’t handle in another thread, where he and three other idiots like him ganged up on me for 2 weeks, then I’m sure no one minds me taking all the time I need to to respond.
Right FAIZ?
Right fellow TP’rs??
Everyones glad to see this, and any other thread I happen to go in turn into this.
Right?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:59 pm
I’ve attacked you in EVERY THREAD? ROTFL!!
Paranoid, dishonest and prone to exaggeration - yep YOU ARE A RELIGIOUS REPUBLICAN!!! ROTFL!!
December 14th, 2007 at 12:00 amComment by cpuenvy — December 13, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
well, if you weren’t such an idiot, you’d see that universal health care, done right, would lower your taxes, but you’re obviously a republican, and can’t see past your next nickel.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:01 amBecause RHF, Dim Wit, Bucket Boy, and the rest, are going to make sure it does.
So who am I to care?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:59 pm
Since it’s YOU that INSISTS ON CALLING ATHEISTS/ATHEISM fanatics, had it ever dawned on you that you had labeled yourself as an EXTREMIST and that maybe you’d brought this on yourself?
Or do we care to add that favorite GOP trait of mine of PLAYING THE VICTIM when VICTIMIZING OTHERS? ROTFL!!
December 14th, 2007 at 12:01 amWhen does the floorshow start? This is getting tedious.
Where’s my waitress?
December 14th, 2007 at 12:03 amYou stupid freaking democrats piss me off.
Comment by cpuenvy — December 13, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
You fascist Bush bootlickers make me sick. You support torture, breaking the law, war crimes, corrupting the government, removing the Bill of Rights, and destroying the Constitution. And dragging this good country down to the dark depths of fascism.
I fought and bled for this country, and swore an oath to defend the Constitution. You support the destruction of that same Constitution.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:04 amSo lets see, Bart posted in the O’Reilly thread, did I ‘attack’ our little wimp there? Nope!
Bart posted on the thread before that on the NIE, did I ‘attack’ our little wimp there? Nope!
Yet according to our PROFESSIONAL VICTIM BART, I attack him ON EVERY THREAD!!!
Sorry Bart, but 100% DISHONEST YET AGAIN, old timer!
Is that the dementia that makes you incapable of remembering what happened TODAY on THE PREVIOUS TWO THREADS?
ROTFL!!
December 14th, 2007 at 12:04 amThe fact is ATHEISM claims god does not exist.
Doubt this then go to any atheist website out there. Its plastered all over them.
But, they cannot PROVE this claim.
Thus, they’re a belief.
And all the inbred illiterate backwoods idiots like these knuckleheads is going to change that.
When they can prove it, then they’ll be a fact based system.
And not one second before.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:02 am
Actually it’s YOU that kept saying that the DICTIONARY dictates the meaning of the word, and it says that atheists BELIEVE (that’s the word, NOT CLAIM). Are you saying that if they BELIEVE SOMETHING and come to that BELIEF because there are NO FACTS that point to ANY OTHER BELIEVE, then they’re FANATICS, but YOU AREN’T?
Oh, bart, you’re not the brightest bulb are you old-timer?
December 14th, 2007 at 12:06 amAnd like fanatical theists, A-theists must turn to fanatical lies, like this poor demented fool here, who must paint me a religious republican, even though I’ve stated for 2 years I don’t believe, nor disbelieve in a god.
Thats because he lost the debate, has nothing, and must invent lies so he has something to argue against.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:04 am
You either believe that there is a god, or you don’t. To say you believe there ‘might’ be a god, is just a WEAK VERSION OF THEISM - it’s STILL A RELIGIOUS BELIEF.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:07 amGeez, so this thread is about that fscked up Atheism argument again, now….
ok, I’m off for the night then.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:08 amAnd everyone of my so called “friends†in here who ignores that this slug has been following me around starting trouble, and demands I just “shut upâ€, can ki$$ my rosy red a$$ too.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:07 am
Last time I checked, YOU WERE THE SLUG that STARTED THIS FIGHT BY CALLING ALL ATHEISTS FANATICS. But that’s OK, don’t confuse YOUR BIGOTRY and YOUR FANATICISM with VICTIMIZING OTHERS while CRYING VICTIM - after all, why would you want to ADMIT YOU WERE ACTING LIKE A REPUBLICAN?
December 14th, 2007 at 12:09 amATHEISM is a belief.
So says the dictionary.
So says the atheists themselves.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:08 am
A belief or a lack of belief are both beliefs, learn english.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:09 ama·the·ism –noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:09 am
Your WHINE wasn’t that atheists had a belief (YOU HAVE A BELIEF THAT GOD MIGHT EXIST - MAKING YOU A FANATIC), your whine was that Athiests were ANTI-RELIGIOUS because of their beliefs - but then again SO ARE YOU.
Stop projecting your crap on others, because of your own guilt on this.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:11 amWhen they can prove it, then they’ll be a fact based system.
And not one second before.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:02 am
And when you finally grow up and understand logic, you’ll be able to see the ass-backwardness of your claims, and how wrong you are. Until then, you are propogating your ignorant opinion as established fact. You have a lot to learn, and seem dead set against learning anything. look around, and see no god. Travel to the ends of the earth, or into space, and see no god. Listen with all your might, and hear no god. If that isn’t enough for you, then your belief system is the problem. You believe that atheists believe, but you can’t prove it; you have only opinions, and dictionaries don’t agree with each other, so that’s a poor source for your belief system. You don’t like atheists? Just say so, never mind all the posturing and the absolutism. Admit your bias, and get on with your life. Atheists will be fine without you, as they are without gods.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:11 amThe following definition of Atheism was given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), to remove reverential Bible reading and oral unison recitation of the Lord’s Prayer in the public schools. Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:12 am
So ALL ATHEISTS meet the SAME DEFINITION, just like ALL AGNOSTICS and ALL CHRISTIANS do?
ROTFL! You’re a bigoted, biased fool.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:14 amAnd lefty idiot?
When you finally grow up and learn how to read, come see me.
But not until.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:13 am
Ironic from the ‘tard that FALSELY claimed that atheist meant anti-theist!!
ROTFL!!
December 14th, 2007 at 12:14 amIn’ Bart’s world, ANYONE BUT HIM that HAS A BELIEF is a FANATIC!!
ROTFL!!
December 14th, 2007 at 12:15 amBart, if you want to STOP BEING AN IGNORANT FOOL, why don’t you start with that wiki site you have so little respect for. It’ll at least help you realize what an ignorant bigot you are if you take the time to READ IT and REALIZE HOW WRONG YOU ARE!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
December 14th, 2007 at 12:17 amSo says you.
A few BILLION people say otherwise, and you’re an ignorant putz to dismiss their testimonies so casually.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:15 am
They DO? What EVIDENCE do those billions have for the existence of God again? Their BELIEF doesn’t count - ROTFL!!
December 14th, 2007 at 12:18 am“Progressives†like to assert that the United States is in no way a Christian Nation. The harder they fight to assert their point, the more ridiculous they appear to the mainstream of America. Fine by me. The more ridiculous “progressives†appear, the less likely they are able to be effective in any other of their political endeavors.
I’d like a debate moderator to ask the Democrat candidates for President what they think of this issue and watch the waffling begin!
Comment by O. Bigfoot — December 14, 2007 @ 12:12 am
bigfoot, your foolish claim of a christian nation puts you at odds with the Founders and the Constitution, the result being that you are a poor citizen, a hater of America, a theocratic fascist, and one of the primary reasons America grows weaker on the world stage, laughed at by civilized peoples, defeated in battle by the weakest of opponents, insulted by nations abandoning the dollar, and pointed to as a savage, backwards nation of torturers and bigots. Fortunately, you are in the minority, and will soon be completely powerless and irrelevant, and the Christians can go back to worshipping n private, and stop forcing their superstitions down everybody else’s throats, in spite of the fact that so few of them live by Christ’s teachings. You are a prime example of someone Christ would not recognize as his follower.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:18 amBart dismisses atheists on the basis that billions of theists are entitled to their opinion, but the FEWER ATHEISTS SHOULDN’T HAVE THEIRS based on FACTS and RATIONAL THINKING!! ROTFL!!
December 14th, 2007 at 12:18 amI don’t believe there is a god.
I don’t disbelieve there is a god.
In fact Lefty, the only thing I do believe at this moment is that you and the other stooges are a bunch illiterate uneducated twits.
:D
I believe that.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:18 am
Which is a BELIEF that there MIGHT BE A GOD - a FORM OF SKEPTIC THEISM. Poor ‘tard, you don’t even know you’re A FANATIC BY YOUR OWN UNEDUCATED DEFINITION!! You POOR ILLITERATE UNEDUCATED TWIT THAT CAN’T READ A DICTIONARY!! ROTFL!!
December 14th, 2007 at 12:20 amPoor Bart doesn’t realize he’s A FANATIC by HIS DEFINITION!
Oxford English Dictionary
agnostic
/agnostik/
• noun a person who believes that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:21 amWhen you people stop dissing the belief systems of billions of people, then you’ll earn some respect.
Until then, you’re just as rabid and looney as the far religous right.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:20 am
So being an atheist isn’t permitted, because it ‘disses’ the belief system of others? Well what about the billion of Christians that ‘dis’ other religions? Or what about AGNOSTICS like you that ‘dis’ all other religions because you DON’T BELIEVE THEM?
ROTFL!!! You poor projecting little fool!
December 14th, 2007 at 12:23 amThe meaning of a-theism is without belief in God. The opposite of theism.
Charles Bradlaugh, Britain’s most important crusader for atheism, upheld a similar position, noting that “no position is more continuously misrepresented” than atheism. Bradlaugh stated: “Atheism is without God. It does not assert no God.”
from The Freethinker’s Text-Book (London, 1876) by Charles Bradlaugh
December 14th, 2007 at 12:23 amWayne, didn’t you know you can’t have ANY DEFINITION or BELIEFS as an ATHEIST that don’t match what BART PERMITS?
ROTLF!!! What an arrogant little prick he is!
December 14th, 2007 at 12:25 amA few BILLION people say otherwise, and you’re an ignorant putz to dismiss their testimonies so casually.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:15 am
In spite of the fact that not a single one of those billions has the slightest idea of who or what god is, nor can they show him, her or it to me, or you. it seems the ignorant putzes might outnumber me by billions, if I were as”right” as you. However, I don’t deny them or you your beliefs, I merely reject them for myself, because there is no god. It’s quite simple, but obviously over your head. I know not to believe, and yet you would insist that that knowledge constitutes a “belief system”. You are the ignorant putz. And you have very little self-control.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:25 amSee?
Observe the rabid foaming fanatical atheist, desperately trying to paint me as some sort of believer.
To the fanatical atheist, everyone must accept a belief, like him.
Everyone must “take sides†in their war on theism.
To the rabid, fanatical atheist, admitting you do not know is a fanatical belief.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:23 am
ROTFL!!! Yeah, it’s not like you’ve been doing that for DAYS against ATHEIST!!! ROTFL!!! You’re so NATURAL at PROJECTING YOUR ACTIONS ON OTHERS, were you raised HIGHLY RELIGIOUS? You do this SO NATURALLY!!! LOL!
December 14th, 2007 at 12:26 amWhen a man admits he does not know something, the fanatics just cannot stand it.
Because it opens the possiblity that maybe they don’t know either.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:25 am
So you don’t believe - therefore you’re a fanatic by your definition.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:26 amWow, just read in depth the last hundred posts or so….I was pretty amazed at the harsh infighting amongst the libs….your just as ruthless with each other as you are with me! Now I don’t feel so special anymore….awwww shucks…
Comment by O. Bigfoot — December 14, 2007 @ 12:25 am
Bart isn’t really a progressive, he’s a closet republican like you - that’s why he’s getting whacked on… Don’t worry, he deserves it as much as you do on this case…
December 14th, 2007 at 12:27 amHahaha! My comments stop being posted!
That is because sites like this like to keep the dems vs repub fight going. Because bullshit like that keeps sites like this going.
Democracy at work! pfft.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:28 amHahaha! My comments stop being posted!
That is because sites like this like to keep the dems vs repub fight going. Because bullshit like that keeps sites like this going.
Democracy at work! pfft.
Comment by cpuenvy — December 14, 2007 @ 12:28 am
Actually dissent is democracy at work, what you want is called FASCISM…
December 14th, 2007 at 12:29 amWhen a man admits he does not know something, the fanatics just cannot stand it.
Because it opens the possiblity that maybe they don’t know either.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:25 am
So you don’t believe - therefore you’re a fanatic by your definition.
Comment by republicans hate facts — December 14, 2007 @ 12:26 am
It could also be that a man is a coward who is afraid to admit the truth to himself, or it might mean that a man is too stupid or lazy to think it through and come to a conclusion. It might mean a few things. It certainly doesn’t mean that all atheists are fanatics.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:30 amSo says you.
You have neither examined the claims of billions, nor have you examined the thousands of years of historical supporting evidence, endless volumes of historical records, texts, codices, etc.
Hundreds of millions, even billions of people have professed to having communicated with a deity in one way or another.
Just because it hasn’t happened to you, doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened to at least one of them, if not millions of them.
The fact is you have no personal knowledge or proof of the existence of god, so you casually dismiss billions of your fellow man as loons, in light of your own puny lifes experience.
Well to those of us who admit we just don’t know one way or the other, you BOTH look like fanatics, propped up by rigid belief systems that neither of you seem to be able to prove.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:29 am
So says science. There are just as much historical evidence of leprechauns and fairies, but most sane people don’t believe in them for the SAME REASON. There’s NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to prove it. And LOGIC dictates that a GOD that’s SO CONCERNED WITH PROVING and SENDING WORD to us that he’d commit his own flesh and blood would have also bothered to PROVE THIS in a way that would HOLD UP SCIENTIFICALLY. That whole FAITH THING is the COP-OUT of the UNSCIENTIFIC MIND. No different than those that believe in leprechauns, and SANTA like YOU!!!
December 14th, 2007 at 12:32 amThus you both have “BELIEF SYSTEMSâ€, and the rest of us just don’t know.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:30 am
As do YOU, your BELIEF SYSTEM is just as ingrained in you as these posts show - and from what I see MORE FANATICAL than MOST!
December 14th, 2007 at 12:32 amAs I told your illiterate, ADHD self 2 weeks ago the very first day of this stupid debate, I could care less if you call me fanatic or not. Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:33 am
Convenient, because you ARE ONE, and that’s the problem!
The word itself does not necessarily constitute a negative. For example, someone falling off a ship in the middle of the ocean, would do well to be fanatical about treading water. Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:33 am
Actually they’d have to be RELIABLE, fanatic might cause them to drown from overexertion - just like you’ve done here!
So calling me fanatical about admitting I do not know, fanatical about not making conclusions until the facts are in, is fine with me. In fact, I welcome the label. Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:33 am
Another situation that demonstrates your ignorance and cluelessness.
Fanatical is all relative. And what I meant when I said it was simple and clear. Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:33 am
No FANATICAL isn’t relative, only a FANATIC would believe that.
Both the theists, and atheists are fanatics, because you both make claims you cannot prove.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:33 am
So do you. You claim that you believe there COULD be a god or might not be a god, that’s no different that believing there isn’t one. The difference is that your claim is simultaneously cowardly and dismissive.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:37 amSince when does admitting you don’t know something, constitute a “belief�
Is this more dogma from your Atheists belief handbook?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:36 am
It’s a BELIEF that you don’t have enough information or facts or evidence to make your mind. It’s still a belief.
What, did you get this avoidance of your BELIEFS from your AGNOSTICS HANDBOOK for PEDANTIC SENILE FAT OLD MEN?
December 14th, 2007 at 12:38 amI mean if you want to call “not knowing†a belief system, then fine with me.
Hell you can call it a stereo system if that turns your crank.
Whatever gobbldygook you atheists speak is fine with me.
:|
I’m tolerant of all belief systems.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:37 am
Actually you aren’t tolerant of atheist belief systems or religious people, because tolerance isn’t a word that’s compatible with fanaticism - even if you’re too IGNORANT to know it.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:39 amDamn has this become tired or what?
December 14th, 2007 at 12:41 amNo.
I claim I don’t know if theres a god or not. I have no more evidence to support the notion that there is a god, than that there isn’t one.
I simply do not know.
But like I said, if you want to call “not knowing†a belief system, thats fine with me.
If thats what your belief system tells you not knowing something equals, then go for it.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:40 am
So either believing or not believing something that has no scientific evidence is fanaticism, but not believing (knowing) even when there’s no scientific evidence isn’t fanaticism in your world?
You yourself said there was all of this RELIGIOUS EVIDENCE, yet despite that you don’t believe? ROTFL!!! Then that TRULY makes you an ARROGANT FANATIC that thinks you KNOW MORE than the RELIGIONS YOU BELIEVE HAVE EVIDENCE!!!
You just keep digging your grave deeper ‘tard!
December 14th, 2007 at 12:42 amWow, just read in depth the last hundred posts or so….I was pretty amazed at the harsh infighting amongst the libs….your just as ruthless with each other as you are with me! Now I don’t feel so special anymore….awwww shucks…
Comment by O. Bigfoot — December 14, 2007 @ 12:25 am
You’re not special at all, Bigfoot. You’re just another unthinking tool. It must be very frustrating to you that you’re largely being ignored on this thread, no matter how stupid and irrelevant your comment may be. Once these two get their teeth into one another even your childish attempts to derail the discussion will be met with ultimate failure.
Take this opportunity to read some history so you can begin to grasp one essential fact: the Founders of this great nation could see people like you coming a mile away, and did their best to insulate the new country from religious dogmatism and attempts to create an “official” religion. This is not, thank God, a “Christian” nation. It is a nation of free-thinkers, thanks to the lucky coincidence that it was founded when such people abounded in positions of influence. They created a system designed to keep people like you from dragging the rest of us back into the caves, or the catacombs.
If you want to call yourself Christian, fine. Feel free. But you don’t get to rewrite history and claim that the United States of America is “Christian”. God bless Jefferson and Franklin and Paine and Allen and Washington and Adams for their intelligence, their perception and their genius. They created a nation that has survived the constant attempts of troglodytes like you to destroy the freedoms of Americans.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:43 amThe United States is most definately a Christian nation. The overwhelming majority of our elected leaders have always believed so, and they once again proved it yesterday. You lost, the majority won.
Get used to it.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — December 14, 2007 @ 12:40 am
Really? Then why did we SIGN INTO LAW a treaty within a few years of founding the nation which explicitly says “THE US IS NO WAY A CHRISTIAN NATION”?
ROTFL!!! You’re HYSTERICAL!!!
December 14th, 2007 at 12:44 amI’m tolerant of all belief systems.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:37 am
You’re tolerant of nothing if it doesn’t agree with your own narrow and ill-defined fanatacism. Most of the time you have some facts to angrily spew if somebody has the temerity to disagree with the Great God Bartlebee, but on this subject you’ve come up only with opinions. A long list, to be sure, but opinions nonetheless. You can never win this one, as much as it pains you, because you are wrong about your basic point. And your claim that all believers and all non-believers are fanatics is ignorant, bigoted and baseless. You are more fanatical than most, in spite of your lazy, cowardly fence-sitting. Most agnostics I know have the maturity to admit that they’re afraid to take a position. You lack that courage.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:45 amThe United States is most definately a Christian nation. The overwhelming majority of our elected leaders have always believed so, and they once again proved it yesterday. You lost, the majority won.
Get used to it.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — December 14, 2007 @ 12:40 am
Your ignorance of history is truly astonishing, and yet you lecture others for their “ignorance”. There is NOTHING in the founding documents, nor in the profusion of supporting letters and essays to support your mindless contention that this is a “Christian” nation. It is nothing of the kind. References to the Creator reflect Deism not Christianity, but you would not know this because you haven’t bothered to learn a damn thing since grade school.
Repeat it all you want, but it is not true, and any honest student of American history could demonstrate it to you. Except, of course, you refuse to learn a damn thing.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:46 amSo if I don’t know something, then I “believe I don’t know�
You mean I don’t “know†I don’t know?
:\
Because I’m pretty sure I don’t know….. but… you’re really smart… and you say I don’t know….. so….
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:45 am
If you don’t disbelieve something, that’s just a cowardly way to believe it without knowing the specifics of WHAT you believe. Then again, you ARE A COWARD!
December 14th, 2007 at 12:47 amI forget that to be a “progressive†in some folks eyes requires one to deny the existance of God.
Foolishness, yes. But hey, it’s your funeral….
Comment by O. Bigfoot — December 14, 2007 @ 12:47 am
You’re as wrong as wrong can be, as usual, but hey, it’s your funeal. and it will be the end, by the way. Nothing afterwards, no soup for you.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:49 amYou can always spot an idiot troll like RHF.
To him, simply acknowledging something somehow constitutes endorsing it.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:47 am
Your whole diatribe was that if people had a belief, they’re fanatics, yours is STILL A BELIEF. Stop trolling, stop projecting, fool.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:50 amIt does seem that way, doesn’t it?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:48 am
Well, there you go. Bart finally found someone he could talk to.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:50 amHmmm…I seem to remember Bart and I getting into it quite often, he seem liberal enough to me. I forget that to be a “progressive†in some folks eyes requires one to deny the existance of God.
Foolishness, yes. But hey, it’s your funeral….
Comment by O. Bigfoot — December 14, 2007 @ 12:47 am
It doesn’t require it, but it does require that you accept people that do - just as our founding fathers did. That’s something both you and bart seem incapable of doing - very unamerican traits in BOTH of you!
December 14th, 2007 at 12:51 amFoolishness, yes. But hey, it’s your funeral….
Comment by O. Bigfoot — December 14, 2007 @ 12:47 am
Congratulations, you’ve redefined stubborn ignorance and stupidity. Please demonstrate which portions of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights define this as a Christian nation. Otherwise, go to your room.
And, while you’re at it, you have still failed to provide a scintilla of evidence that American-style waterboarding is any different than the waterboarding defined by the war crimes trials after WWII as torture. You made the claim and whenever you’re asked to defend the claim, you run and hide like the coward you’re proven yourself to be.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:51 amI feel should these guys win, and beat you neocons out of the office, where your religous tests of office are required for entrance into the fold, that we’ll just be trading one tyrannical group for another.
A fanatical group of anti religious loons, easily as fanatical and dangerous as you right wing religous loons ever were.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:50 am
ROTFL! More paranoia from the FANATIC! Sorry, just because YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO THIS, don’t blame it on others! You really don’t think atheists are USED to living with religious wingnuts like you?
December 14th, 2007 at 12:52 amSigned by John Adams, and passing the Congress unanimously.
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 tranquility of Musselmen…”
Sorry O.Bigmouth, but THIS TREATY is part of AMERICAN LAW
December 14th, 2007 at 12:54 amNo? You responded…thank you very much!
Comment by O. Bigfoot — December 14, 2007 @ 12:52 am
I was bored. But if this is the sort of validation you require, feel free to keep posting your bloviation. Some day, maybe you’ll be able to provide some sort of evidence. I’m not holding my breath, of course, because you’re more into the running away and hiding.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:54 amNo you festering carbuncle on the anus of illiteracy, if you’d try reading the first 3000 times I posted my whole “diatribe†you’d it stated that people who MAKE CLAIMS THEY CANNOT PROVE are FANATICAL.
Like you.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:52 am
You make claims that there MIGHT be a god, so if god doesn’t exist, then there’s NO WAY THIS COULD EVER BE PROVEN - making you a hypocrite, because you make a claim that can’t be proven.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:55 amThe fact is religion, AND anti religion, have about as much business in our government as RHF has in a library.
The two just do not go together.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:54 am
See ‘tard, you’re doing EXACTLY the thing that got you in trouble before, and I gave you an opportunity to LURN, but you’re just too ‘tarded to lurn. You confuse anti-religious (anti-theism) and a-religious (atheism).
Buy a dictionary, take some language courses, and STOP BEING SO BLASTED STUPID!
December 14th, 2007 at 12:56 amThomas Jefferson- 3rd president, Drafted Declaration of Independence, Signer of Constitution, influential on 1st Amendment
“Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies.”
“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.” [Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823]
“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own” [Letter to H. Spafford, 1814].
“…an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, ‘Jesus Christ…the holy author of our religion,’ which was rejected ‘By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.’” [Jefferson’s Biography]
If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D’Alembert, D’Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God.
December 14th, 2007 at 1:02 am– Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814, using the term atheist to mean one who lacks a god belief, not one who is without morals, as was a common use of the term in Jefferson’s day
Bigfoot, I’ll make it easy for you. You can start here.
I realize it would be too much to suggest you crack a book, so I’ve offered a link to Jefferson’s thoughts on religion and on the founding of this great nation. Feel free, of course, to allow your own blinkered ignorance to prevent you from comprehending a word he wrote. It’s what we all expect of you.
December 14th, 2007 at 1:03 amNo.
The only claim I make is that I do not know.
Is it possible theres a god, and things we cannot see can exist?
I don’t know.
Is it possible all this came about randomly.
I don’t know.
I honestly, do not know. I wish I knew. I wish I could “believe†like Bigfoot, or you.
But I cannot.
Because I just do not know.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:59 am
So do you believe that unicorns, leprechauns and santa claus MIGHT exist? Or is God the only mythical beings that you require no proof to believe that it might exist in your belief system?
December 14th, 2007 at 1:04 am.
McDermott is my Rep. from Seattle.
We’ve worked his last nerve on several issues.
Most of the time he’s come around. This is one of those examples.
I still have to hear his justification on voting for H.R. 1955, essentially declaring the Declaration of Independence a terrorist manifesto.
.
December 14th, 2007 at 1:04 amYet somehow, this angers you atheists, more than it ever angered any religious person I’ve ever encountered.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:52 am
Aren’t you in the least bit embarrassed to post a cheap lie like this? That your cowardly, lazy position angers anybody? Because it’s really a supreme load of bullshit, on top of all your other extreme opinions. Your pathology is closer to bigfoot’s than a thinking progressive, to judge from that cheap generalization, a slur on a group because one guy got your goat. You have the stink of desperation about you now. Anger? With a twit like you? Disgust, maybe; pity, sometimes. After that ugly little lie, scorn, certainly. But you aren’t worth anger.
December 14th, 2007 at 1:10 amSo lets see if I’ve got bartlebee’s “thought process” down.
If you say Santa Claus does not exist, but cannot prove Santa Claus does not exist, not being able to prove he does not exist con