Lars Larson encourages people to vote for ‘Barney Fag.’
By on Nov 4th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Lars Larson encourages people to vote for ‘Barney Fag.’
Last Friday night, right-wing radio host Lars Larson played a spoof “Barney Frank for President” advertisement that ended by referring to Rep. Frank (D-MA), who is gay, with a derogatory term. “Now remember, this Erection Day — Election Day, vote for Barney Frank for President. I’m Barney Fag — uh, Frank and I approve this massage — message,” said the fake ad. Listen here:
This isn’t the first time a conservative has attacked Frank in such a way. In 1995, then-House Majority Leader Dick Armey referred to Frank as “Barney Fag” during a radio interview.
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
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
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
Because as Mark Foley and Larry Craig (among others but I won’t play their game and go into innuendo) will tell you, sexual orientation is a partisan trait. Enjoy the Obama administration Lars!
November 4th, 2008 at 1:11 pmI was flipping channels the other day while traveling for work. I heard this guy tell a story, supposedly true, about a cat and a dog, and he said that “cat’s are dems, dogs are republicans”
Supposedly this house was burning down and a cat ran out leaving her litter of kittens. A small dog ran back into the house, and was found alive, lying with the kittens (also alive), having “protected them” from the fire.
Larson said (and I paraphrase), “Democrats are like cats – they’ll let their children burn to death in order to save themselves. Republicans are like dogs, who will protect others at their own peril.”
This man is beneath contempt, and I believe deserves no attention.
November 4th, 2008 at 1:13 pmThis is nothing short of hate crime. It incites and legitimizes violence toward our homosexual population and is designed to drive them underground and out of sight.
November 4th, 2008 at 1:13 pmLars Larson is a bottom-feeder. This election is a referendum on that sort of ignorant, divisive crap. It’s gonna be so great to see that ridiculously ignorant blustering subside. Americans are sick of it, as reactions to McCain’s revolting campaign indicate.
November 4th, 2008 at 1:14 pmLars, your mother must be so proud! Good thing he took it easy on the other Barney:
“I love you, you love me…”
November 4th, 2008 at 1:15 pmThe day all these slang word’s mean nothing will be a huge leap forward…Just like when people say “Witch” as though it were a bad word..Sending Blessings out to Larson, he really need’s them..
November 4th, 2008 at 1:17 pm“Dick Armey? What’s his wife’s name, Vagina Coastguard?”
November 4th, 2008 at 1:17 pm-Peter Griffin, The Family Guy
swank,
lars has all the qualities of a dog.
except loyalty.
*
November 4th, 2008 at 1:18 pmDick Armey didn’t just use the term Barney Fag, he invented it. When called on it, he said it was a slip and unintended. I’m from his area of Texas, and can assure you it was very much intended and completely consistent with his nature. One has only to look at a picture of Armey to recognize him as a classic slimeball, lounge lizard type of subhuman. If one were actually to be near him in person, it would require an immediate hot shower to feel clean again.
November 4th, 2008 at 1:19 pmI always vowed that if I were ever at an event of any kind and was in Armey’s presence, I would introduce myself as Barney Fag.
Drop dead Lars Larson you loser!
November 4th, 2008 at 1:19 pmStay Classy, Lars.
November 4th, 2008 at 1:22 pmThis Larson guy is absolutely despicable but this won’t stop the major media NTWKs like CNN & MSNBC from having this scum useing the “public airwaves” on their shows.The voice of bigotry on public TV.
November 4th, 2008 at 1:23 pmRaptureReady Says
November 4th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Barney Frank is gay? He definitely has to go. We cannot have an immoral person representing the people.
_________________________________________________________
Then I suggest you move to New Bedford, Massachusetts. Then you can vote against him in the next election. However, please know you’d be likely to be outvoted — the people of the Massachusetts 4th district seem to like him. And it’s really up to them to decide who they want to represent them in Congress, wouldn’t you agree?
November 4th, 2008 at 1:25 pmRaptureReady Says:
We cannot have an immoral person representing the people.
Well, now that that’s settled, I guess it’s time to dismantle the Republican Party, according to that logic.
Not a whiff of morality left there.
November 4th, 2008 at 1:27 pmRaptureReady Says:
Seem to like a person that is the blame in the down fall of our economy?
*
it’s a little early to
start drinking, isn’t it?
^
November 4th, 2008 at 1:30 pmHey RaptureDBag,
I think the people of Massachusetts (I am one of them) are more in a position to decide who represents them, don’t you?
It would seem the people of Massachusetts disagree with you on that particular point.
Massachusetts, the center of the Gay Marriage universe in terms of the USA…and we have a gay member of the US Congress…we haven’t suffered ‘the wrath’ just yet, our state is not sliding off into the Atlantic, our divorce rates are lower than most if not ALL red/’christian values’ states…
And just so this sinks in:
HOW DARE YOU TELL THE PEOPLE OF MASSACHUSETTS WHO THEY CAN AND CANNOT HAVE AS THEIR REPRESENTATIVE!?
November 4th, 2008 at 1:30 pmBashing a Democrat is the closest thing to sexual pleasure a Republican can know.
November 4th, 2008 at 1:31 pmRR:
If by that you mean Barney Frank, then yes, the people in that district seem to like him or they would not have elected him now would they?
And how is Frank responsible for predatory lending, deregulation, and corporate fatcats taking our tax dollars in the bailout and paying themselves huge performance bonuses?
How is Frank responsible for a war which, when finally finished, will most likely cost 1 if not 2 trillion dollars?
Go Phuck yourself, RR.
November 4th, 2008 at 1:31 pm.
What was that Sarah Palin was saying about Media types that criticize people seeking office…
… Oh, IOKIYR, NO?
.
November 4th, 2008 at 1:32 pm#8 Christofascist Darryyl said:
Seig Heil!!!
November 4th, 2008 at 1:33 pmDr. Hussein Matt Says
November 4th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Lynn Samuels, a shillary supporter, is on the air this very moment demanding the death certificate Obama’s grandmother. She believes that his grandmother died weeks ago and that they only released the information until last night so Obama could cry on the national stage.
____________________________________________________________
Oh, give me a fockin break.
Let’s pretend just for a minute here that it wasn’t Obama’s grandmother, but McCain’s mother (who is alive and well, and 96 years old). If she had fallen ill during the campaign, I’m sure that McCain would have suspended his campaign appearances as Obama did to spend time with her. And if (God forbid) she passed on, I doubt seriously that McCain would have manipulated her death in the manner that these conspiracy theorists are suggesting Obama has done. Even if some of McCain’s handlers had such a vulgar idea, I imagine McCain would have some rather sharp words for them. Is there anyone here who would allow their mother (or any member of their family) to be exploited in such a crass manner?
Lynn Samuels needs to get over it. Her candidate didn’t make it. She can either deal with it or just remain a very bitter person. But she would be serving her country a lot more if she would just STFU.
November 4th, 2008 at 1:36 pmLars lives right here in Portland, Oregon. It’s so embarrassing.
November 4th, 2008 at 1:36 pmWow. With mature logic and precision argumentation like that displayed by Lars Larson and his acolyte Daryll, it’s amazing that Democrats even have a single seat in Congress.
How can the Republicans fail with such tactics?
November 4th, 2008 at 1:36 pmralph:
It’s amazing isn’t it?
It’s almost as though…their tactics are hateful, vile, stupid, without merit or factual basis…and…could it be? The American People are f’ing sick and tired of it?
One can only hope.
November 4th, 2008 at 1:38 pmAnd everyone be sure to be careful, and talk nice to our precious little Sarah, and give her respect and deference.
My ass….
November 4th, 2008 at 1:40 pmAll’s I can say is thank God the world saw Hitler and the Nazi Party before they witnessed Bush and the Republicratic Party of America.
November 4th, 2008 at 1:41 pm“The Borgen Project has some good info on the cost of addressing global poverty.
November 4th, 2008 at 1:42 pm$30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.
$540 billion: Annual U.S. Defense Budget.”
Poor RR or little d as I like to call him, he is trying so very hard to get recogition any where possible….The day’s of bashing us over the head with your cherry picked bible verses are over little d…Perhap’s redstate is still listening, go there.
November 4th, 2008 at 1:44 pmRaptureReady Says
November 4th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Seem to like a person that is the blame in the down fall of our economy?
_________________________________________________________
You’re really off your game today, Daryll. This sentence isn’t even close to anything that makes sense grammatically. But I think what you’re trying to do is connect Barney Frank’s sexual orientation with the bad economy.
Are you suggesting that our economy would be hunky-dory right now if Barney Frank was heterosexual? That the sub-prime lending market had nothing to do with it? That banking deregulation had nothing to do with it? That over-building by greedy developers had nothing to do with it? That outsourcing jobs to other countries had nothing to do with it? That the skyrocketing national debt had nothing to do with it? That bankruptcies caused by the state of our health care system had nothing to do with it? That the blame rests solely on a Congressman who happens to be gay?
That’s just bizarre, even for you.
November 4th, 2008 at 1:44 pmLars Larson (is he the drummer for Metallica?) says:
Now remember, this Erection Day — Election Day, vote for Barney Frank for President. I’m Barney Fag — uh, Frank and I approve this massage — message,” said the fake ad.
What the hell is it with these republican nut jobs and their infatuation with gay sex?
November 4th, 2008 at 1:45 pmParodyll?
@ 17: Seem to like a person that is the blame in the down fall of our economy?
Alright, it’s apparently time for a simple lesson in the use of the English language. The implied [he: the person] just doesn’t work here. One should specifically identify the the individual or group alluded to. And, a person that is the blame is simply incorrect. The correct term is is to blame, not is the blame.
And, for the record, Representative Frank is not to blame for the current fiasco, though you seem unable to wrap your head around the drumbeat of deregulation over decades, primarily driven by characters like retired Senator Phil Gramm—an adviser to Senator McCain—which and whom are to blame primarily for this fiasco. But, hey: why let facts get in the way at this point?
But, I digress. Go practice your grammatical construction skills. Damn sure that you’ll need them in the ‘English only’ world that you and your friends envision…
And, with apologies to Neil Young: keep on livin’ in your [dream] world.
November 4th, 2008 at 1:47 pmswank Says:
——————————————————————————–
Larson said (and I paraphrase), “Democrats are like cats –Republicans are like dogs
This is true in one respect. When we leave home for a couple of days, we fill the food bowls and the cats eat a little at a time so the food lasts until we return. If we were to put the neighbor’s dog in the house with the cats when we left, he would immediately eat all of the food, no matter how much we left out for them, and everyone would then go hungry.
November 4th, 2008 at 1:53 pmLying Lars should run for top BIGOT. How do people become this hateful?
November 4th, 2008 at 1:53 pm@ 27: Lars lives right here in Portland, Oregon. It’s so embarrassing.
’tis so, even for those of us downstate in liberal Eugene.
With an apologetic nod to our racist history, both nationwide and in Oregon, how about tarring and feathering Lars Larson, and tossing him into the frigid Columbia River? Or, the Willamette?
November 4th, 2008 at 1:54 pmSIGN: Do not feed or tease the trolls.
I hereby nominate Lars Larson as campaign spokesman for the Palin / Wurzelbacher 2012 ticket. Who’s with me?
November 4th, 2008 at 1:54 pmMichael Lafferty Says:
@ 27: Lars lives right here in Portland, Oregon. It’s so embarrassing.
’tis so, even for those of us downstate in liberal Eugene.
With an apologetic nod to our racist history, both nationwide and in Oregon, how about tarring and feathering Lars Larson, and tossing him into the frigid Columbia River? Or, the Willamette?
Works for me. Somewhere out near the Astoria bar . . .
November 4th, 2008 at 2:00 pmDr. Hussein Matt Says:
——————————————————————————–
RaptureReady Says:
Barney Frank is gay? He definitely has to go. We cannot have an immoral person representing the people.
The number of times Jesus mentioned homosexuality. Zero.
Daryll’s Bible has numerous mentions of homosexuality. Of course, that’s because Daryll wrote them in the margins.
November 4th, 2008 at 2:00 pmPeople – I strongly suggest we totally ignore RaptureReady for the rest of the day. He’s working at hijacking every topic. Let him stew in his own delusion.
November 4th, 2008 at 2:02 pmFairness Doctrine.
November 4th, 2008 at 2:07 pmWho the hell listens to Lars Larson in the Portland area anyways? I can barely see the trees for all the Obama signs around here. There must be a lot of closet Republicans around here, guiltily hiding in their basements with the radio turned down low.
November 4th, 2008 at 2:17 pmGood to hear the Republican Christian Values at work. I look forward to an Obama/Biden Administration and as I speak newsweek has printed an article by the church to ask for healing. What a country as Republicans and the church attack candidates on the lowest levels even using God’s Name now asking for healing. What would Jesus think?
November 4th, 2008 at 2:19 pmI can’t help myself. I am always amused by the insane ravings of Daryll. Speaking of psychopaths, I wonder f Daryll was one of the morons who were praying at the feet of the “Golden Bull” on Wall Street the other day.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/wheres_charlton_heston_when_yo.php
November 4th, 2008 at 2:20 pmMy retired right-wing-ish father recently told me that of all the politicians he sees and listens to on C-SPAN, the one who consistently impresses him the most with his common sense and intelligence is Barney Frank.
November 4th, 2008 at 2:20 pmElBruce Says:
Who the hell listens to Lars Larson in the Portland area anyways? I can barely see the trees for all the Obama signs around here. There must be a lot of closet Republicans around here, guiltily hiding in their basements with the radio turned down low.
That’s a great question, and one I have no real answer for. I’m not sure what sort of local audience he has anymore, but with a syndicated show he doesn’t need us.
November 4th, 2008 at 2:20 pmLars is nothing more than a two-bit punk who was most certainly the class bully as a kid. He is an embarrassment to the city of Portland and State of Oregon
November 4th, 2008 at 2:25 pmWhat’s so christian or moral about name-calling?
November 4th, 2008 at 2:30 pmI’m not sure Daryll’s fantasy description of “shaking the devil off” of Judas really count, shoeless.
November 4th, 2008 at 2:32 pmLarsON LarsOFF
Maybe Lars should talk to his parents about being more inventive with naming their kids. Lars Larson!!!!
Ok. No matter his name, he is an idiot.
LarsOFF
November 4th, 2008 at 2:34 pmbarracks9 Says:
What’s so christian or moral about name-calling?
You reminded me of that great Monty Python movie. “Big nose.” and “I want to be called Loretta.” Funny stuff.
November 4th, 2008 at 2:36 pmWhy doesn’t Rep. Frank just sue the crap out this guy, and everyone like him? Just like Hagan in NC. Whenever smears like this happen, just sue ‘em, immediately and often.
November 4th, 2008 at 2:52 pmDr. Hussein Matt Says:
.
.
.
The number of times Jesus mentioned homosexuality. Zero.
oops
November 4th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
The number of times Jesus mentioned homosexuality is actually unknown. The Bible does not record that Christ used this term, but the Bible does note that not everything Christ did or said was recorded. He did mention the city of homosexuals, Sodom. He used it as a good example of a bad example.
Christ did mention appropriate sexual expression as being between a man and a woman in their marriage. Christ described this relationship as “one flesh.”
November 4th, 2008 at 3:04 pm“I wish the candidates would discuss global poverty more. According to The Borgen Project:
November 4th, 2008 at 3:10 pm$30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.
$540 billion: Annual U.S. Defense Budget.”
bitblt posts on a homosexual-themed thread on TP!
It’s an Election Day Miracle!
November 4th, 2008 at 3:17 pmbitblt Says:
——————————————————————————–
The number of times Jesus mentioned homosexuality is actually unknown. The Bible does not record that Christ used this term, but the Bible does note that not everything Christ did or said was recorded.
Wow! That is some powerful argument against homosexuality!
November 4th, 2008 at 3:18 pmshoeless Says:
.
.
.
Wow! That is some powerful argument against homosexuality!
November 4th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Astute observation there shoeless Democrat.
You might want to note that the fact Christ didn’t mention homosexuality isn’t much of an argument for the practice. Now is it?
OTH, the fact that He notes the Creator’s intent in Matthew 19 is a good argument for heterosexual sex within a marriage. Or so it seem to bit.
November 4th, 2008 at 3:25 pm“…the Bible does note that not everything Christ did or said was recorded.”
Leaves you a lot of room to… I dunno…make things up and attribute them to your saviour, doesn’t it?
I heard that he said a rich man has the same chance of getting into heaven as a camel has to pass through the eye of a needle. Wanna tell your McCain family that one?
November 4th, 2008 at 3:34 pmRaptureReady Says:
Barney Frank is gay? He definitely has to go. We cannot have an immoral person representing the people.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Being gay does not make one immoral just because idiots like you keep SAYING over and over. You morons really do think things magically become true if you repeat them often enough
November 4th, 2008 at 3:34 pm“…the Bible does note that not everything Christ did or said was recorded.”
Oh, I must add that this leaves open the possibility of a homosexual relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist, doesn’t it? If the Bible didn’t record everything he did, isn’t it possible their relationship was based on more than brotherly love?
Gee, I like this Christianist game. Let’s interpret the Bible any way we like!
November 4th, 2008 at 3:36 pmRaptureReady Says:
Seem to like a person that is the blame in the down fall of our economy?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No it is largely morons like you. Those completely without the ability for higher brain function that are largely to blame for most of the worst ills in our country. Hatefilled, ignorant, bigots like YOU.
November 4th, 2008 at 3:38 pmDwH Says:
“…the Bible does note that not everything Christ did or said was recorded.”
Leaves you a lot of room to… I dunno…make things up and attribute them to your saviour, doesn’t it?
I heard that he said a rich man has the same chance of getting into heaven as a camel has to pass through the eye of a needle. Wanna tell your McCain family that one?
November 4th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Leaves you a lot of room to… I dunno…make things up and attribute them to your saviour, doesn’t it?
It just so happens that if one doesn’t believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, what one believes about the Bible is mostly irrelevant. In fact, as far as bit is concerned, if one doesn’t believe this about Christ, what one believe about anything is pretty much irrelevant? Ya’ dig?
November 4th, 2008 at 3:39 pmbitblt Says:
——————————————————————————–
shoeless Says:
.
.
.
Wow! That is some powerful argument against homosexuality!
November 4th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Astute observation there shoeless Democrat.
You might want to note that the fact Christ didn’t mention homosexuality isn’t much of an argument for the practice. Now is it?
So, you are saying that people shouldn’t be gay because Jesus didn’t go out of his way to promote homosexuality?
You might want to note that the fact Christ didn’t mention wiping his butt after taking a crap isn’t much of an argument for the practice. Now is it?
November 4th, 2008 at 3:41 pmbitblt Says:
The number of times Jesus mentioned homosexuality is actually unknown. The Bible does not record that Christ used this term, but the Bible does note that not everything Christ did or said was recorded. He did mention the city of homosexuals, Sodom. He used it as a good example of a bad example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Got to be the stupidest attempt at pretzel logic I have seen recently. So then are you suggesting we give credence to what you MAKE UP IN YOUR HEAD about what Jesus MIGHT have said? Because that would be bone ignorant. IF Jesus had thought this a really important issue I assume he WOULD have said numerous things about it. Got evidence that Sodom was bad BECAUSE of its homosexuality instead of other reaons? You DONT? Imagine my suprise.
Christ did mention appropriate sexual expression as being between a man and a woman in their marriage. Christ described this relationship as “one flesh.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So what. That doesnt say that a relationship between two men is ALSO not one flesh. You can feel free to make things up in your head twist them around and make YOUR interpretations of them. Dont be suprised if we dont follow you into La La land
November 4th, 2008 at 3:45 pmMy God (metaphorically speaking), there are some seriously language-challenged folks here.
I miss the points completely when posts are drafted in such a poorly constructed manner.
November 4th, 2008 at 3:47 pmLars Larson? isn’t he a mike weiner clone for the reeeeeally stupid?
November 4th, 2008 at 3:48 pmbitblt Says:
It just so happens that if one doesn’t believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, what one believes about the Bible is mostly irrelevant. In fact, as far as bit is concerned, if one doesn’t believe this about Christ, what one believe about anything is pretty much irrelevant? Ya’ dig?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And it also just so happens that if one is as ignorant as bit CLEARLY is then what HE believes about anything is clearly irrelevant to ANYTHING. Ya dig?
November 4th, 2008 at 3:48 pmShoeless says:
You might want to note that the fact Christ didn’t mention wiping his butt after taking a crap isn’t much of an argument for the practice. Now is it?
Jesus never had to wipe his butt after crapping! He always crapped perfectly tapered turds every time. That’s one of those miracles the Christians don’t talk about. On a related note, where do you think all those loaves of bread came from?
November 4th, 2008 at 3:53 pmbitblt Says:
It just so happens that if one doesn’t believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, what one believes about the Bible is mostly irrelevant. In fact, as far as bit is concerned, if one doesn’t believe this about Christ, what one believe about anything is pretty much irrelevant? Ya’ dig?
Why are you here then? Why aren’t you stoning your children at the village gate or something?
November 4th, 2008 at 3:55 pmBitblt says:
In fact, as far as bit is concerned,
Did Jesus refer to himself in the third person? Given his place in the Trinity I suppose he could make that argument grammatically, what’s your excuse?
November 4th, 2008 at 3:58 pmBobwurst, I suspect bit’s habit of referring to himself in the third person is part pretension, part an attempt to distance himself from absurd theories that would make most thinking people giggle.
November 4th, 2008 at 4:15 pmI love how bitblt and Daryll and other holier-than-thou zealots try to use Matthew 19 as some sort of condemnation of homosexuality, even though it doesn’t mention homosexuality, only heterosexual marriage.
And yet, I don’t hear bit or Daryll condemning John McCain for divorcing his first wife and, in the view of Jesus himself, committing adultery with his second wife.
So strange that they claim to be “protecting marriage” when they attack gay marriage, but they’re curiously silent about the REAL threat to marriage — divorce.
November 4th, 2008 at 4:24 pmDr. Hussein Matt Says:
.
.
.
Hence, the number of times Jesus mentioned homosexuality is ZERO. If it were so important, Christ would have preached about it.
Oops
November 4th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
The Bible doesn’t record that Christ taught against wife abuse or child abuse or a number of other practices that are obviously sinful. Do you want to draw similar conclusions from lack of teaching in these other areas?
Christ did specifically teach against adultery and murder, and He made it clear that attitudes – don’t lust, don’t hate -were as important as actions. Furthermore, He did teach against divorce when He stated the Creator’s intention that a man and a woman would be “one flesh” in a marriage.
November 4th, 2008 at 4:28 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
I love how bitblt and Daryll and other holier-than-thou zealots try to use Matthew 19 as some sort of condemnation of homosexuality, even though it doesn’t mention homosexuality, only heterosexual marriage.
And yet, I don’t hear bit or Daryll condemning John McCain for divorcing his first wife and, in the view of Jesus himself, committing adultery with his second wife.
So strange that they claim to be “protecting marriage” when they attack gay marriage, but they’re curiously silent about the REAL threat to marriage — divorce.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Its typical. Brainwashed bots like RR and bit care NOTHING about truth, facts nor reality. They care only about how they can use anything to push their rightwing propaganda. They think only what they are TOLD to think they regurgitate what they have been programmed with. They are propaganda parrots without even the shadow of substance
November 4th, 2008 at 4:29 pmbitblt Says:
Typical stupidity from you. The abuses you talk about have VICTIMS. People are hurt. That has NOTHING to do with homosexuality which is only immoral IN YOUR OPINION. Ya got nothin. You are a worthless hatefilled bigot. I could find more logic in a magic 8 ball than you have EVER shown in any of your posts.
November 4th, 2008 at 4:32 pmAlso bit Jesus DID speak against violence and what you mentioned are forms of violence so in a way he DID teach against them. NOTHING LIKE THAT can be said about homosexuality. Ya got nothin. You aer worthless
November 4th, 2008 at 4:36 pmSo basically you’re acknowledging that your argument against homosexuality isn’t based on what Jesus said, but on what you perceive to be “obviously sinful”.
Don’t expect to convince many here with that kind of argument.
And yet the religious right focuses like a laser beam on Teh Gays and regularly turns a blind eye to divorce. Go figure.
November 4th, 2008 at 4:44 pmdbadass thinks that bitblt will not acknowledge the logic of the llam’s words. Frankly dbadass gives the bible no greater nor lesser value than any other scripture but bitblt also seems to think that all religions are not created equal.
November 4th, 2008 at 4:49 pmA whole city of homosexuals. Wow I suppose they had some kicking restaurants and that the whole place was tastefully decorated eh bitblt?
November 4th, 2008 at 4:51 pmNot to mention a whole shitload of great drag clubs, dbadass.
November 4th, 2008 at 4:56 pmAnd probably the highest per capita income in the Middle East.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:03 pmThe way I see it, if the guy takes it up the butt, he’s a fag, end of story. Why is everyone raising such a fuss about it? If he wasn’t a fag, then he should be offended, but he is, so why is he so upset? Maybe he should stop being such a butt pirate.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:04 pmJonathan111:
November 4th, 2008 at 5:06 pmDid you add one 1 too many? You are really 11 years old right? Maybe he is just into femoral sex… Who cares?
Jonathan111 Says:
The way I see it is that bigoted jerks like you are too ignorant to breathe our air. Do the world a favor and give yourself a vascectomy with a pair of rusty wirecutters. The genepool should not be corrupted with stupid depraved pieces of garbage like you. Go in search of a functional cerebral cortex and dont forget that little chore with the rusty wirecutters.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:09 pmthe way I see it, if the guy says bigoted things on a blog, he’s a bigot, end of story.
If that gets him upset, maybe he should stop being such an as$hole.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:11 pmI’m straight, if someone came up with a degrading name for me being straight, I wouldn’t care. The only reason why people get offended by these comments is because somewhere deep down, they are ashamed of their homosexuality. Being gay is a choice, regardless of what the popular belief may be. My bible says the same thing as everyone elses, and it tells you homosexuality is wrong, end of story. Just because the world has chosen to become more loose in its morals, does not mean God all of the sudden decided it was okay.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:13 pmJonathan111 Says:
You are a MORON. That is a derogatory name for you being stupid. You are a hateful bigot. Perhaps you dont care if we use derogatory names to define you. I could see that because you are a moron. A hatefilled bigoted jerk. Crackwhores have more dignity and are several rungs above cretins like you on the evolutionary ladder. Do the world a favor and DO. NOT. BREED.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:16 pmHi Jonathan111:
November 4th, 2008 at 5:17 pmI was just kidding about the 11 thing. I am however a biologist that understands a few things about hormone levels and development. I will be the first to admit that the science is still unclear on this topic yet I see you have decided that gender preference is a choice. I am curious what tangible evidences you might point to to support this. If you have none I suppose we sort of have to call bullshit don’t we?
Thanks
Haha, maybe I should become gay, then I couldn’t reproduce. Hmmm, wonder why that is… Oh yea, God did not intend for a man and another man to be together.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:19 pmdbadass Says:
A whole city of homosexuals. Wow I suppose they had some kicking restaurants and that the whole place was tastefully decorated eh bitblt?
November 4th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
The Bible says there were actually five cities destroyed. Sodom and Gomorrah are the two most well known of the five. The Old Testament uses Sodom as a really good example of a really bad example many times. Several books in the OT comment on Sodom. Frequently the OT remarks that nothing grows in these places and no one lives there. Their destruction appears to be complete.
Isaiah 3 is one of the better known verses about Sodom.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
dbadass Says:
Evidence? You are asking this moron for evidence? He dont need no stinking evidence he has HATE and ignorance.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:21 pmJonathon, when exactly did you make the choice between being heterosexual or homosexual?
November 4th, 2008 at 5:22 pmObviously, the argument here is not whether homosexuality is wrong, it is whether or not you believe in the Bible. If you do not, that is okay, I will not argue. But, if you do, you have to believe the WHOLE Bible, not just pick out the bits and pieces that suit your lifestyle.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:24 pmFunny you might mention the OT bitblt. See I am in the seafood industry and I notice that the OT has some real issues with that stuff. I thought it might be funny if I started to refuse to ship that stuff to my customers ala those jackass pharmacists who think they need not do their jobs. What do you think? Good idea? See the thing that weirds me out is the selective use of scripture to reinforce ones on prejudices and fears…
November 4th, 2008 at 5:26 pmBTW: what does the great big book of everything have to say about male/female sodomy? I am thinking maybe those weren’t exactly “gay cities” now where they. I also thought that those made up stories where more about trying to be a decent person.
Jonathon, if you know exactly, please give us an approximation of your age when you made the choice between being heterosexual or homosexual?
November 4th, 2008 at 5:26 pmAh Jonathan111
November 4th, 2008 at 5:27 pmYour timing is perfect…
Thank you
November 4th, 2008 at 5:28 pmJonathan111 Says:
Maybe you should rent a braincell just to see what it is like to have one and look up the word decency in the dictionary so at leas you have some dim idea what it is.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:29 pmJonathon, stop avoiding the question. You claim that sexuality is a choice. When did you choose between being heterosexual or homosexual?
November 4th, 2008 at 5:29 pmJonathan111 Says:
Oh so its wrong because the bible says so. I assume you dont eat shellfish, that you make your wife leave the house during menstruation. Then again rubber women dont have that problem. Perhaps you are thinking of selling your children into slavery or killing your mother for sewing cloth with two types of thread. Or do you just pick and choose among the Levitican laws according to your hatefilled bigotry?
November 4th, 2008 at 5:32 pmSo anything Jonathan111:
November 4th, 2008 at 5:32 pmAm I to understand that you think any bullshit thing that shows up in that book that almost all recognize to have gone through multitudes of versions, translations, and corruptions is truth?
ralph the wonder llama Says:
.
.
.
And yet the religious right focuses like a laser beam on Teh Gays and regularly turns a blind eye to divorce. Go figure.
November 4th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
bit has often commented on the real and emotional cost of sexual sin, and bit places this awful cost at the the feet of irresponsible men. ( bit doesn’t think women are blameless; he just doesn’t comment on their responsibilities.)
(This one’s for you dbadass.)
Like the bumper sticker says: “Who loves abortion? Irresponsible men.”
The fastest growing poverty group in the U.S. is single women with children. bit believes this is because of irresponsible sexual behavior on the part of men. One of the questions associated with this poverty group is how long can the nation sustain those fathered by someone who’s not there to provide?
If bit remembers correctly, BHO addressed – did a kind of Crosby speech about responsibility – the issue of black fathers being responsible in a speech in April of this year.
Any time you want a discussion about divorce, bit’ll be ready. Of course, most of it will be rehashed quotes about homosexuality. Christ make it clear that the Creator intended only one kind of sexual expression – one man one woman forever.
Why don’t you, RTWL, get TP to post some articles about the terrible costs associated with divorce? There might even be one or two TPers who’ll have personal experiences.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:33 pmWell, it appears that Jonathon does not know whether or not he is gay. It seems that he never made the decision about his sexuality. I suppose that means Jonathon is bisexual.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:33 pmBut, if you do, you have to believe the WHOLE Bible, not just pick out the bits and pieces that suit your lifestyle.
Isn’t that just hypocritical and typical of thumpers.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:34 pmHaha, Eugene, I like your sense of humor. No, there are alot of things in the Old Testament that were not the same in the New Testament. Old laws were replaced, but nowhere in the New Testament did it give the go ahead for homosexuality.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:36 pmshoeless Says:
Jonathon, when exactly did you make the choice between being heterosexual or homosexual?
November 4th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Though the recidivism rate is very high, there are those who chose to be not homosexual.
Exodus International
November 4th, 2008 at 5:37 pmNo, shoeless, I have never had to make that decision because I have never struggled with that. But, there are all different types of mental illnesses out there, homosexuality being one of them, that people struggle with. People with mental illnesses may not see what they are doing as wrong.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:39 pmbit, when did you make your decision on whether to be heterosexual or homosexual?
November 4th, 2008 at 5:39 pmbitblt:
November 4th, 2008 at 5:40 pmWhat bumper sticker is that? Never seen one of those myself. Still I am a little confused about where I ever suggested human beings of any gender or preference should not be responsible. I am also sort of confused by why we would want to have a discussion of divorce if it isn’t really going to be that but instead some sort of rehashing about your belief system relative to homosexuality. I think it might be interesting if you can have a discussion of tangibles rather than one rooted in a book I and many others don’t believe to be anything other than a book of stories which may or may not be helpful to people.
Jonathan111 Says:
Haha, Eugene, I like your sense of humor. No, there are alot of things in the Old Testament that were not the same in the New Testament. Old laws were replaced, but nowhere in the New Testament did it give the go ahead for homosexuality.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
And nowhere in the New Testament did it give the ok for ending selling your children into slavery nor eating shellfish except by tortured interpretation from a dream, nor that you SHOULDNT kill your mother for sewing cloth of two types of thread or touching the skin of a pig or the other levitican laws that you are ignoring and focusing on homosexuality. Ya got nothin
November 4th, 2008 at 5:40 pmJonathan111 Says:
——————————————————————————–
No, shoeless, I have never had to make that decision…
Then how do you know it is a decision? You said sexuality is a choice. You must decide.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:40 pmJonathan111:
November 4th, 2008 at 5:42 pmCan I assume that you will be providing no actual evidences? Since you have already dodged my request for your evidence that homosexuality being a choice, is it safe to assume you have no evidences of it being a mental illness?
livelongandprosper Says:
But, if you do, you have to believe the WHOLE Bible, not just pick out the bits and pieces that suit your lifestyle.
Isn’t that just hypocritical and typical of thumpers.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Christians are not Jews even though Christianity came out of Judaism. That one doesn’t have to be a Jew to be a Christian comes primarily out of the writings of the Apostle Paul and the Apostle Peter.
Much of the OT is a history of how these people were governed – best when God was included and behaved – usually very badly.
Jewish dietary laws are not the same as the Big10. Further, the Jews usually didn’t understand everything about their own laws. When Christ says adultery is about both attitude and action, this was new to many Jews, but it’s not a concept foreign to the OT. When Christ says “love your neighbor as yourself” is the second greatest commandment, he’s quoting from the OT.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:42 pmJonathan111 Says:
So now homosexuality is a mental illness? I think your hatefilled bigotry and ignorance are a mental illness. One FAR more destructive of society. Being straight was never a choice for me and I cant see any reason to think it is any different for homsexuals.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:43 pmOnce again, dbadass, the argument here is whether or not you believe in the Bible. If you do not, I am not going to even try to change your mind. But, think about this. I believe in the Bible. I believe Jesus died for our sins. I believe when we die, we will be judged. You believe, when we die, there is nothing, or, we will not be judged. If you’re right, then we are both okay when we die. But, if by some minor chance I’m right, where does that leave you?
November 4th, 2008 at 5:44 pmbadass Says:
.
.
.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
You often ask when bit will be working “abortion” into the subject. That was it.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:45 pmWell Jonathan111,
November 4th, 2008 at 5:47 pmI suppose that leaves me worm food which is fine by me. Now might you be so kind as to address the very logical point which EugeneDebs makes at 117? Thanks
bitblt:
November 4th, 2008 at 5:48 pmWhere in the Big10 is either abortion or gender preference addressed?
dbadass Says:
.
.
.
I think it might be interesting if you can have a discussion of tangibles rather than one rooted in a book I and many others don’t believe to be anything other than a book of stories which may or may not be helpful to people.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Tangibles…
How long can a nation endure when irresponsible men father and abandon their offspring to the care of the state?
What state can sustain – in both real cost and in the cost of disenfranchised citizens – this for any period of time?
How does one make fathers want to be responsible for their children? http://www.charactercounts.com?
November 4th, 2008 at 5:49 pmbitblt Says:
Jewish dietary laws are not the same as the Big10. Further, the Jews usually didn’t understand everything about their own laws. When Christ says adultery is about both attitude and action, this was new to many Jews, but it’s not a concept foreign to the OT. When Christ says “love your neighbor as yourself” is the second greatest commandment, he’s quoting from the OT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You cant understand the New Testament without a grounding in the old testament. Also did you MISS the fact that homosexuality is ALSO NOT IN THE BIG TEN????? Prohibitions against homsexuality are in the same levitican laws as the dietary constraints, the prohibitions against your wife being in your home during menstruation, allowing the selling of your children into slavery or killing them for being unruly. There isnt a shred of logic behind your bigotry. Not ONE SHRED.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:49 pmWell, acutally, dbadass, if by some small chance I am right, then that leaves you in hell. Don’t worry though, you won’t be lonely. Believe me, there are no atheists in hell.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:49 pmbitblt Says:
livelongandprosper Says:
But, if you do, you have to believe the WHOLE Bible, not just pick out the bits and pieces that suit your lifestyle.
Isn’t that just hypocritical and typical of thumpers.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Christians are not Jews even though Christianity came out of Judaism.
So you assume I was referring to old and new testaments! Oh well, your stuck on your myth.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:50 pmbitblt,
November 4th, 2008 at 5:50 pmlast time I checked the nation has all sorts of laws which hold men accountable for supporting their children? Where is all this abandonment to the state happening? Personally I hold two jobs to support mine.
Jonathan111 Says:
So you believe in the bibles support for killing unruly children. Selling your children into slavery, not eating shellfish. Killing people who plant two kinds of crops side by side. Banning your wife from your house during menstruation at least when you finally get one that isnt rubber? NAH, its just an excuse for your bigotry nothing else
November 4th, 2008 at 5:51 pmSo Jonathan111
November 4th, 2008 at 5:52 pmYou aren’t going to field my good friends EugeneDebs’ point are you? Hell isn’t real. I fear it not.
Jonathan111 Says:
Well, acutally, dbadass, if by some small chance I am right, then that leaves you in hell. Don’t worry though, you won’t be lonely. Believe me, there are no atheists in hell.
Looking at the actions of those that believe like you, and if, by dumb ass luck your right, then there won’t be very many people in that mythical heaven place.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:52 pmBelieve me, there are no atheists in hell.
Another piece of crap statement based on myth and nothing else.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:53 pmJonathan111 Says:
Well, acutally, dbadass, if by some small chance I am right, then that leaves you in hell. Don’t worry though, you won’t be lonely. Believe me, there are no atheists in hell.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And if by some small chance pigs begin to fly we can use them as carrier pigeons
November 4th, 2008 at 5:53 pmThanks for dropping by Jonathan111.
If it weren’t for three or four Conservative Christians posting on TP, these homosexual related thread would be extremely boring.
BTW, you may have noticed that only takes a single person, who believes something specific, to get them roiling.
Appears to bit that the single most dangerous person in our current society is one who believes something specific.
Best,
November 4th, 2008 at 5:53 pmbit
Once again Eugene, the Old Testament and New Testament have seperate laws. And by the way, I do not hate anyone. Believe it or not, 2 of my closest friends are lesbians. I do not hate homosexuals at all. I do not approve of what they do (or who they do), but, I do not hate anyone.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:55 pmbelief is selective self dillusion
November 4th, 2008 at 5:55 pmWell, Eugene, pigs flying would be kind of cool. It might be harder for us to get our bacon though.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:56 pmbitblt Says:
Appears to bit that the single most dangerous person in our current society is one who believes something specific.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No the most dangerous people in our society are people like YOU. That believe what they are TOLD to believe because they are ignorant and brainwashed and have never had an original though in their lives. The sheeple like YOU led around by the nose by power and privelge using whatever is convienient to push your buttons. See I believe in God I just dont think all the people who SAY they are working for him really are. You for instance.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:56 pmdbadass Says:
bitblt,
last time I checked the nation has all sorts of laws which hold men accountable for supporting their children? Where is all this abandonment to the state happening? Personally I hold two jobs to support mine.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
bit believes most states have increased their enforcement in this area, but even that’s not the same as having dad there.
Do you agree?
Further, believe it’s rare that any dad will pay his estranged family out of poverty. Hint: many deadbeat dads don’t make much to start with.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:56 pmHoly crap!
I guess that covers my thoughts on the subject but, I might add, that Jebus wasn’t quoting the OT when he proposed the “Golden Rule” he was quoting Confucius. Assuming Jebus ever existed in the first place.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:57 pmIt’s Pilsner time. Jonathan and bitblt, there are always good ideas that come from myths that can be applied to reality. Please accept this and stop wasting your time interpreting this myth called religion. There are many community organizations where you can find comfort from things you don’t know.
Cheers!
November 4th, 2008 at 5:57 pmdbadass Says:
belief is selective self dillusion
November 4th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Believe I had this thought once…when I was checking to seem how much rum was still in the bottle.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:58 pmbit seems to under the misapprehension that ralph’s argument was something along the lines of divorce is a horrible blight.
ralph’s point was in fact more along the lines of pointing out the strange myopia of people like bitblt who focus, for some unexplainable reason, on the phenomenon of homosexual behavior, and use a standard bit of the Gospel of Mark to support their argument, but at the same time generally fall silent on the REAL topic of the verse.
Perhaps bit does often speak out against the evils of divorce with the same fervor he uses in condemning homosexuality, but he seldom does so here, unless prompted to when he uses Matthew 19 to justify bigotry against gays.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:58 pmYou convinced me, bit. Let’s just sterilize anyone who isn’t earning six figures by their 20th birthday.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:59 pmralph believes this post is a forgery; bitblt refers to himself in the first person.
Obviously an imposter.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:59 pmWell, livelongandprosper, I’m assuming youre a Trekky. Don’t get me wrong, I like Star Trek as much as the next guy. But, I kind of get the feeling you don’t believe in God. Now, where do you think this whole universe came from? Do you assume it just came from thin air? The big bang thing? That would be the easiest thing to believe. Then, I could say “There is no God, there are no reprocussions when I die. I can live like I want!”
November 4th, 2008 at 6:02 pmJonathan111 Says:
Once again Eugene, the Old Testament and New Testament have seperate laws. And by the way, I do not hate anyone. Believe it or not, 2 of my closest friends are lesbians. I do not hate homosexuals at all. I do not approve of what they do (or who they do), but, I do not hate anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
NO THEY DONT. Jesus said I came to fulfill the law NOT TO CHANGE IT. IF however they DID then homosexuality was NOT spoken against by Jesus so you have no rationale to your hateful bigotry about it if you discount the old testament. It is spoken against in EXACTLY the same place as all those other levitican laws. You dont care, the only thing you care about is an excuse for your hateful bigotry.
If you dont hate anyone you are still a hatefilled moron perhaps its just self loathing due to your abject stupidity. Your first post was a disgusting piece of filth that only a hatefilled moron could possibly have posted.
November 4th, 2008 at 6:04 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
.
.
.
Perhaps bit does often speak out against the evils of divorce with the same fervor he uses in condemning homosexuality, but he seldom does so here, unless prompted to when he uses Matthew 19 to justify bigotry against gays.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Divorce, for most people, is still kept very quiet, and often not something about which one is proud. Many people experience it as a kind of failure in their lives.
Of course, many heterosexuals behave in ways that make the nation not worth preserving.
Homosexuality, on the other hand, has achieved a very much a in-your-face attitude. “We’re going to make you accept this,” seems to be the attitude.
Perhaps you like the Conservative Christian saw that if the heterosexuals were behaving the homosexuals would simply go back into the closet.
November 4th, 2008 at 6:06 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
.
.
.
Obviously an imposter.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
It was intentional.
November 4th, 2008 at 6:07 pmIt’s kind of weird that some people who take their moral cues from religion (nothing wrong with that, in general) assume that there is no other possible source for a responsible moral code — that there is no other reason for not doing ill to your fellow man than the threat of ultimate judgment by a big guy in robes and a white beard sitting on a cloud somewhere.
Most curious, this narrow view of the source of human morality.
November 4th, 2008 at 6:07 pmJonathan111
November 4th, 2008 at 6:08 pmI think it might be more appropriate to say there are many gods rather than there is no god
All I said in my first post is why is this guy so upset about being called a fag. If he chooses to do this, he should own it. It does not bother me that you call me a “hatefilled moron” because I stand up for what I believe in. If he is proud of being gay, then it should not bother him to be called a fag. But, like I said, God did not create homosexuality, so, somewhere deep down, there is some shame there. That is why the word Fag cuts so deep to homosexuals
November 4th, 2008 at 6:08 pmJonathan111.
November 4th, 2008 at 6:11 pmAnd all I said in my first was hey maybe he is just into femoral sex and besides who cares?
ralph the wonder llama:
November 4th, 2008 at 6:13 pmMight I suggest DeWaal’s Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals?
Good evening to all, and to all a good night. I have to go now and spread the Word of the Lord which is filled with hate and mis-understanding for the poor homosexuals who God said was against him but he allowed them to be that way. Apparantly :)
November 4th, 2008 at 6:14 pmOnce again, bit misses the point ralph was making; the religious right has made a crusade for itself against gay rights, and bit frequently cites Matthew 19 as a biblical justification of this.
Yet the religious right is conspicuously silent on the scourge of divorce, which was the actual focus of Matthew 19.
No all-out crusade to end that most immediate threat to “traditional marriage” – and , need it be said, ralph cannot see how gay marriage is in any way a threat to “traditional marriage” in the first place. Ralph’s marriage to his wife is not threatened.
As for bit’s last sentence, ralph cannot make heads nor tails of it.
November 4th, 2008 at 6:14 pmYeah, and why should Barack Obama or any black man be upset about being called a “ni__er”? If he chooses to be black, he should own it.
November 4th, 2008 at 6:16 pmJonathan111 Says:
And as I said in my first post you are a hatefilled moron and a bigoted jerk. You can hide behind calling your bigotry a beleif. Hey what if I believe you molest small furry animals does THAT make it true? I guess you dont mind being called a hatefilled moron because you ARE a hatefilled moron. You are defending calling someone a hateful slur. So I have no problem treating you the same way. My understanding of Christianity is that you try to fix YOURSELF and love others. YOU seem to think it means you need to FIX others and love yourself. Truth is I find you disgusting
November 4th, 2008 at 6:16 pmWow. Pretty limited “all-powerful” God you have there.
November 4th, 2008 at 6:17 pmHaha, yea, Ralph, but the Bible never said it wasn’t okay to be black. I myself am a black man
November 4th, 2008 at 6:17 pmJonathan111 Says:
You didnt do ANY spreading of the word of God HERE. You spread YOUR hateful bigotry and OPINION. Nothing more
November 4th, 2008 at 6:18 pmNo one who understands the Big Bang Theory would be stupid enough to say the universe came from “thin air”. Or “nothing” as the “you can’t get something from nothing” argument goes.
The Big Bang Theory states that all the mass and energy in the universe was, about 13-14 billion years ago, contained in a singularity. Before that time it’s impossible, at this time, to theorize what conditions were like because the laws of physics, as we know them, didn’t apply.
NO ONE HAS EVER CLAIMED THE UNIVERSE CAME FROM NOTHING.
Now. There are alternative theories but the available evidence points to the universe, and the laws of physics, begging to resemble the observed universe in a rapid expansion (not an explosion) of the singularity. Some of the hypotheses include a cyclical universe- an endless series of big bangs and “big crunches”- and multiple universes which force matter and energy into a singularity which expands when the pressure of the outside universes is lower than the energy/matter contained in the singularity. Then, of course, one needs to consider more exotic theories like string theory and n-dimensional geometry.
In short. If one is too damn ignorant to examine a theory, and understand it, one is too damn ignorant to form a legitimate counter argument. Simply stating the “thin air” meme is proof positive that one is incapable of a knowledgeable discussion of the origin of our universe.
November 4th, 2008 at 6:18 pmEugeneDebs, I think the point is not that it’s true that Jonathan111 molests small furry animals; what matters is that you believe his behavior is sinful, and therefore he is a sinner.
November 4th, 2008 at 6:19 pmEugene, I love ruffling your types feathers :)
November 4th, 2008 at 6:20 pmJonathan111 Says:
Haha, yea, Ralph, but the Bible never said it wasn’t okay to be black. I myself am a black man
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
It also nevera said it wasnt ok to be an idiot. YOU yourself ARE an idiot
November 4th, 2008 at 6:20 pmHaha, yea, if I molested small furry animals I would be a sinner on that part, because, the same as homosexuality, it is sexual perversion
November 4th, 2008 at 6:21 pmOh, I see. I didn’t realize you were basing your right to call a homosexual a derogatory name in your view of biblical teaching. I thought your original argument was “what’s the big deal?”
Was I wrong about that?
November 4th, 2008 at 6:21 pmI am beginning to think that we need to consider restricting the number of players upon the field. It really isn’t fair to put the consistent logical thought of pete, the llama and EugeneDebs (with his own special touch of harsh call out)on the field all at the same time…
November 4th, 2008 at 6:22 pmJonathan111 Says:
You have delusions of adequacy. You are way too stupid to do ANYTHING to my feathers. I amuse myself slapping you around and destroying your logic free posts. Where do conservative idiots get the idea they have amazing mind reading powers and can tell how I feel or what I am thinking when I toss these posts out? You DONT read minds you DONT know how I feel. Thinking you do is just another in your LOOOOONG line of delusions
November 4th, 2008 at 6:22 pmYea, what is all the fuss about? Like I said, Eugene said it doesn’t bother me to be called a hatefilled moron BECAUSE I’m a hatefilled moron. It shouldn’t bother him to be called a fag because he is a fag.
November 4th, 2008 at 6:23 pmJonathan111 Says:
Haha, yea, if I molested small furry animals I would be a sinner on that part, because, the same as homosexuality, it is sexual perversion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Homosexuality is NOT a pervestion just because really stupid people like YOU say it is. Just like it isnt necessarily true that you molest small furry animals just because I say you do. You really arent very bright. You do KNOW that dont you?
November 4th, 2008 at 6:26 pmJonathan111:
November 4th, 2008 at 6:26 pmExcellent! I have been looking for an expert on perversion from some time. Might you help clarify I few things? I figure missionary is not perversion, right? Now there is a whole lot of stuff that me and the ladies have enjoyed through the years. Can you help me sort them into the kosher and nonkosher piles of perversion? It would be so helpful to have an expert available
To you, homosexuality might seem the same as your unnatural love of small furry creatures.
But to someone who was born gay, homosexuality is the most natural expression of their sexual being that they can imagine.
You said “I have never had to make that decision because I have never struggled with that”. Sounds like you were born straight, as was I. I never had a choice about to whom I was attracted. What makes you think gay people have a choice that straight people don’t face?
November 4th, 2008 at 6:26 pmEugene, I don’t know what your’e thinking. I don’t know what your’e thinking when you toss another man’s salad, and, to be quite honest, I don’t care to. The point is, I am getting under your skin, you’re not getting under mine
November 4th, 2008 at 6:26 pmI understand your concern, dbadass, but it’s not like Jonathan111 is really playing the same game as we are; logic doesn’t really faze him. So it’s no big deal.
November 4th, 2008 at 6:27 pmI would tend to agree, dbadass, but trolls have been in such short supply that one needs to take advantage of an opportunity when one finds it.
And, personally, I just can’t resist an opportunity to point out the utter ignorance of those who argue about science from a position of Faith.
November 4th, 2008 at 6:27 pmdbadass, to be quite honest with you, the way I see it, as long as you’re with your wife, any position is acceptable :)
November 4th, 2008 at 6:28 pmWhen one man tosses another man’s salad, couldn’t that be described as “getting iunder his skin”?
From what I’ve heard, anyway.
November 4th, 2008 at 6:30 pmSo, Pete, when did Science actually prove this big bang thing? You know, it’s funny, everyone takes what scientests say to be fact. Until, of course, the scientists themselves discover that they were wrong all along. God is the only thing that rings true throughout the ages.
November 4th, 2008 at 6:30 pmJonathan111 Says:
Yea, what is all the fuss about? Like I said, Eugene said it doesn’t bother me to be called a hatefilled moron BECAUSE I’m a hatefilled moron. It shouldn’t bother him to be called a fag because he is a fag.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hatefilled moron is an accurate description. NOT a hateful slur. It would be like calling Barney Frank a homosexual which no one would complain about. It is NOT the same thing as calling him a fag. Anyone with a normal IQ would get that distinction. You being REALLY stupid is the reason you dont. Calling him a fag would be more like me calling you the N word since you are black. I really cant believe how ignorant you are.
November 4th, 2008 at 6:30 pmSo, stupid troll, what reasearch can you quote which leads you to doubt the Big Bang Theory? String theory? Cyclical universe? Steady state universe? Special Relativity? Quantum mechanics? N-dimensional geometry or the “multiverse”?
Or have you. like ignorant fools throughout history, decided you can’t comprehend such things and come to the uninformed opinion that God did it?
November 4th, 2008 at 6:32 pmJonathan111 Says:
No MORON. I am simply amusing myself. I cant believe how stupid you are. How in the WORLD would you know if you are getting under my skin or anywhere else with me unless you could read my mind? The FACT is obviously you CANT. Find a reasonably bright six year old to explain this very simple concept to you.
November 4th, 2008 at 6:33 pmWhat if you have no wife and she is just a hot chick who enjoys the same things as you?
November 4th, 2008 at 6:34 pmExactly. Just ask those who were persecuted under the Spanish Inquisition. THEY certainly heard the ring of truth in God. Once they were “convinced” of the error of their ways, that is.
And the truth-ringing of the Salem witch trials — how about that, huh? There was some serious truth-ringing.
And the “conversion” of the ignorant savages in Africa and the Americas throughout history. Sure, some of ‘em were sold as slaves, but the Bible says that’s cool, so that’s just more evidence of God ringing true throughout the ages.
Yep. God is the only thing that rings true throughout the ages. Gotta agree with ya there.
November 4th, 2008 at 6:36 pmpete @ 183
November 4th, 2008 at 6:36 pmOh come now my friend, now you are just checkmating em before everyone else is done…
Oh, and Jonathan, I’ve seen EugeneDebs posting for a while now and he really is just amusing himself with you.
You’re not really getting under his skin. Sorry.
November 4th, 2008 at 6:37 pmJonathan111:
November 4th, 2008 at 6:39 pmWhy do you keep implying there is only one god?
And which God would that be, stupid troll. Last I heard there were many. And only about a fifth of modern humans share in the Belief of the Judeo-Christian creation myth. There are older beliefs and newer ones. Heck! Even the “unchanging Word Of God” has undergone several dramatic changes, and countless minor ones. Unfortunately, Believers discard evidence of these changes and merely postulate that their personal interpretation is the one and only.
As for evidence, as Creationists are so fond of saying, it’s all around you. From the receding galaxies to a single atom. One can actually listen to the background roar of the Big Bang. Of course, the evidence demands a bit of work to comprehend and there’s always an error factor.
November 4th, 2008 at 6:41 pmSorry, db. When I see an idiot at the end of a limb I find it hard to not saw it off. And I’m a little out of practice in my troll bashing. But, I’ve resolved to indulge myself today in case we don’t see any trolls for awhile.
November 4th, 2008 at 6:45 pmGood strategy, pete. There’s a real good chance the trolls will be hibernating after tonight.
November 4th, 2008 at 6:52 pmpete Says:
Trollstabbing is a moral imperative
November 4th, 2008 at 6:57 pmThanx for the support but, I really didn’t intend to break our “new” toy. Sigh…
November 4th, 2008 at 6:59 pmMan, it’s good to be able to post again without worrying about getting dogpiled on. These a-holes need to be taken down and kept down. If we don’t blast them every time they open their mouth they will cause complete chaos and stymie all attempts to move forward with the mandate.
November 4th, 2008 at 9:44 pmYeah whack-a-troll
November 4th, 2008 at 10:28 pmLOL
excuse the spelling, posting/browsing from my Tilt phone
Larson is, himself, gay. In typical republican fashion, he rails against homosexuality in the full throated, self loathing way they are famous for. One day, he will be caught with his schlong in the glory hole, or on his knees on the other side.
November 5th, 2008 at 10:22 amralph the wonder llama Says:
.
.
.
It’s kind of weird that some people who take their moral cues from religion (nothing wrong with that, in general) assume that there is no other possible source for a responsible moral code — that there is no other reason for not doing ill to your fellow man than the threat of ultimate judgment by a big guy in robes and a white beard sitting on a cloud somewhere.
Most curious, this narrow view of the source of human morality.
November 4th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
…assume that there is no other possible source for a responsible moral code…
Seems like now would be the perfect time to say what the other possible source(s) for a responsible moral code might be.
So, what would it be?
If you read bit you of course know this John Adams quote:
So, let’s have a little test about what we think Adams meant when he said “religion.”
Chose one of the following: John Adams meant _____________ when he used the word “religion” in the above quote.
1) Christianity
2) Judaism
3) Islam
4) Hinduism
5) Buddhism
6) Wicca
7) http://www.charactercounts.com
8) big men with really big guns
9) add you own choice
10) scientific theories
11) paganism
You might also want to remember the beginning verses from Jeremiah 23:
Run to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem,
look and take note!
Search her squares to see
if you can find a man,
one who does justice
and seeks truth;
that I may pardon her.
Which of the eleven worldviews in the list above has the best shot at insuring justice and truth? Actually, which of the eleven worldviews is even interested in insuringjustice and truth? Further, which of the eleven worldviews has provided you with the life you live?
If bit’s memory is correct the Old Testament has an account that goes like this:
There was no King in the land. (Apparently the King was suppose to keep order.)
Everyone did what was right in their own eyes, and as a result, chaos ensued.
Most curious, this narrow view of the source of human morality.
November 5th, 2008 at 1:58 pmSo, that’s the source of human morality?
didn’t J. Adams say…
November 5th, 2008 at 2:21 pm“When philosophic reason is clear and certain by intuition or necessary induction, no subsequent revelation supported by prophecies or miracles can supersede it.”
dbadass Says:
didn’t J. Adams say…
“When philosophic reason is clear and certain by intuition or necessary induction, no subsequent revelation supported by prophecies or miracles can supersede it.”
November 5th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
bit will assume that you believe you have quoted an accurate statement from John Adams.
Since this quote seems to be a remark on the reasoning process, it seems to bit to need an object. What is dbadass suggesting would be the “…clear and certain…” conclusion of philosophic reason and intuition? Adams could have been training his children to raise stock with this remark.
In any case, does the logic contained in your Adams’ quote confirm or deny the logic contained in bit’s Adams quote?
IOW, is there some reason both statements can’t be true?
The last Adams quote was from a speech
November 5th, 2008 at 2:57 pmdelivered to military officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts on October 11, 1798.
Sometimes bit tries to resist, and sometimes he just goes with it.
dbadass Says:
didn’t J. Adams say…
“When philosophic reason is clear and certain by intuition or necessary induction, no subsequent revelation supported by prophecies or miracles can supersede it.”
November 5th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
bit can’t seen how the reasoning behind the practice of destroying the pre-born and behind the practice of same-same gender marriage can be twisted, folded, pounded, or crushed to fit the logic of this quote.
November 5th, 2008 at 3:06 pmBitbit cant see ANYTHING he is a moron. Bitbit seems too stupid to remember that John Adams also signed the Treaty of Tripoli which says DIRECLY that the US is NOT founded on Christianity. Bit can google it. Bit can continue in his delusions if he wishes but it is CLEAR the founding fathers didnt want religion within a country mile of government. Bit apparantly didnt know that Adams was a DEIST. Great libraries are filled exclusively with things bit doesnt know
November 7th, 2008 at 6:08 amWe have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion…. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other
IOW, is there some reason both statements can’t be true?
The last Adams quote was from a speech
delivered to military officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts on October 11, 1798.
Adams made this speech abuot a year after the Treaty of Tripoli was signed.
widipedia.org
Treaties, or laws, don’t necessarily reflect the personal opinions of those who sign them.
This is also true of the RvW ruling. This ruling doesn’t reflect the views of many who live in this nation.
The quote and the treaty were not all Adams had to say:
Quoted from:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/650
which references:
Adams, John (1856), The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, ed. Charles Adams (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, & Co.).
In addition, the founders want the government to be influenced by Christianity, but not be a particular sect of Christianity. This is obvious from those who prepared the First Amendment.
November 7th, 2008 at 1:02 pmThe founders were imbued with the ideas of those who came before them:
consitution of the
New England Confederation
May 19, 1643
Articles of Confederation of the United colonies of New England,
The (Online). (1643, May 19). The Avalon Project at Yale Law School.
We still are. As bit has said previously, and several times, the Constitution of the U.S. was not written to support, endorse, promote, or allow immorality. These words from the Articles of Confederation… seem to support bit’s assertion.
November 7th, 2008 at 4:57 pm