No fish
 

On Sep 13, 7:44*pm, Todd wrote:
DaveS wrote:
No, I don't have a permanent problem with folks who only have
different political views than mine, IF I KNOW THAT THEY ARE OTHERWISE
DECENT CONRIBUTERS TO MY COUNTRY AND THE OTHER THINGS I CARE ABOUT. I
have a deepening problem with you very specifically because of your
racist and fanatical hate statements, which you wrap in Jesus talk,
like you had it on his authority. And how you couple the Jesus stuff,
with your slothful and slavish Rush worship I find disgusting and
hypocritical. You need to earn some creditability before you go
telling others on a recreational group how they should access YOUR
notion of Jesus. Want some respect? Lets hear what you personally are
doing to clean up corruption and abuse in your own sect. What have you
done to make whole the people you have wronged in your life? Until you
have that creditability it is pure vainity to go preaching to others
without a major dose of humility. If you want to be a missionary get
some training and some attitude adjustment, or mostly you will just
**** people off.

Dave
Stop idolizing scumbags like Rush, and you just might have time to
read and talk to Muslims, Jews and Catholics and clear some of the
hate from your mind.

Dave,

You are just being mean. *You are also slurring me. *And,
you have some rather strange, preconceived ideas of others.
How would you like it if I pulled a bunch of the meanest insults I
could think of out of the air and flung them at you. *"Okay,
you are a [insert the meanest insult you can think of here],
now defend yourself." *You would not care for it.

Be respectful. *Keep it to the arena of ideas. *People
will mostly listen to you. *Slur folks who don't
agree with you and they will just think you are
closed minded and mean spirited.

-T- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Don't be such a pussy. As I have said . . .
You need to earn some creditability before you go telling others on a
recreational group how they should access YOUR
notion of Jesus. Want some respect? Lets hear what you personally are
doing to clean up corruption and abuse in your own sect. What have you
done to make whole the people you have wronged in your life? Until you
have that creditability it is pure vainity to go preaching to others
without a major dose of humility. If you want to be a missionary get
some training and some attitude adjustment, or mostly you will just
**** people off.

Dave
Theocracy sucks

No fish
 

Todd wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Todd, I wouldn't cross the street to **** down your throat if
your stomach were on fire. You are an ignorant and dangerous
moron and I am appalled that we live in the same country.

This is a moral difference between us.

You bet your sweet ass there is, you pathetic simpleton.

--
Ken Fortenberry

No fish
 

To respectfully disagree with you, there is no
separation of church and state in the constitution. *That
was a creation of the supreme court in the 19 century.
Thomas Jefferson did make a remark about it in one of
his writing. *The constitution bars the establishment
of a state religion. *The supreme court even has a
copy of the ten commandments on the front of its
building.

The separation of church and state is founded in Constitutional law
and based, in part, on the first ammendment "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof." So this goes much further than the "establisment
of a state religion."
And oh, by the way, look to the Flushing Remonstrance against Peter
Stuyvesant in 1657 (had to look it up, been a long time) as probably
the first call for separation of church and state in the colonies.
By the way, Jefferson made more than "a remark" about it. In 1779,
Jefferson wrote and instantiated into Virginia law (it became law in
1786) the "Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom" which says, in
part, "that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious
opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that
therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public
confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices
of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that
religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges
and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a
natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that
religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of
worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and
conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not
withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the
bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his
powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or
propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a
dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty,
because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his
opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments
of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that
it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for
its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts
against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and
will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient
antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless
by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument
and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely
to contradict them."
Frank Reid

No fish
 

On Sep 14, 7:19*am, Frank Reid wrote:
To respectfully disagree with you, there is no
separation of church and state in the constitution. *That
was a creation of the supreme court in the 19 century.
Thomas Jefferson did make a remark about it in one of
his writing. *The constitution bars the establishment
of a state religion. *The supreme court even has a
copy of the ten commandments on the front of its
building.

And by the way, the Bill of Rights is (oh, this will shake you up, so
hold onto your seat) part of the Constitution.
Frank Reid
(just thought you ought to know)

No fish
 

Todd wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
So what's with "white hookers" ? If Martin Luther King Jr.
had "a thing" for hookers what possible difference could it
make to a decent christian like you if she's white ? Yeah,
that righteous indignation **** ain't gonna fly, Todd. One
doesn't need a good nose to smell the racism in your posts,
they absolutely reek of it.

That was just an unfortunate moral short coming of his.
Look it up. This is one man I am talking about,
not a race. A Christian man that I highly admire
by the way.

You complete missed the point. ...

The point, Todd, is that you showed your true colors when you
posted King had "a thing for white hookers".

So bugger off on the racism slurs.

You can try your damnedest to deny your racist nature Todd, but
your own words betray you.

Todd, I wouldn't cross the street to **** down your throat if
your stomach were on fire. You are an ignorant and dangerous
moron and I am appalled that we live in the same country.

Oh that is real cleaver.

Which one ? Ward, June, Wally or young Theodore ?

Todd, do you actually fly fish ? Or did you just pick roff at
random for proselytizing ? In any case I wish you'd take up
golf or bowling or macrame, anything but fly fishing. It's bad
enough sharing a country with a nitwit like you without sharing
an avocation as well.

--
Ken Fortenberry

No fish
 

On Sep 14, 5:19*am, Frank Reid wrote:
To respectfully disagree with you, there is no
separation of church and state in the constitution. *That
was a creation of the supreme court in the 19 century.
Thomas Jefferson did make a remark about it in one of
his writing. *The constitution bars the establishment
of a state religion. *The supreme court even has a
copy of the ten commandments on the front of its
building.

The separation of church and state is founded in Constitutional law
and based, in part, on the first ammendment "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof." *So this goes much further than the "establisment
of a state religion."
And oh, by the way, look to the Flushing Remonstrance against Peter
Stuyvesant in 1657 (had to look it up, been a long time) as probably
the first call for separation of church and state in the colonies.
By the way, Jefferson made more than "a remark" about it. *In 1779,
Jefferson wrote and instantiated into Virginia law (it became law in
1786) the "Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom" which says, in
part, "that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious
opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that
therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public
confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices
of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that
religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges
and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a
natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that
religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of
worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and
conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not
withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the
bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his
powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or
propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a
dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty,
because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his
opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments
of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that
it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for
its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts
against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and
will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient
antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless
by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument
and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely
to contradict them."
Frank Reid

Hear Hear.
And such is our true and hard won with blood, American tradition and
the founder's principles which PROTECT ALL RELIGIONS AND SECTS.
Religious wars were the curse of all the countries we all came from,
and even flared up in North America before the Revolution that freed
us from such devilish backwardness.
Thank you Frank
Dave

No fish
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

You can try your damnedest to deny your racist nature Todd, but
your own words betray you.

Sticks and stones ...

No fish
 

Todd wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
You can try your damnedest to deny your racist nature Todd, but
your own words betray you.

Sticks and stones ...

Your own sticks, your own stones, Todd. You indict yourself.

Here's a quote you should take to heart, Todd.

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere
ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

-- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

HTH

--
Ken Fortenberry

No fish
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Todd wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
You can try your damnedest to deny your racist nature Todd, but
your own words betray you.

Sticks and stones ...

Your own sticks, your own stones, Todd. You indict yourself.

Here's a quote you should take to heart, Todd.

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere
ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

-- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

HTH


I love the quote. Now you follow it.

Are you able to use google? Do a search on "martin luther
king hookers".

Here you go (some of these really hate the guy, so be careful):
http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com/keytopics/MLK.shtml
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/mlking.asp
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolve...jr-exposed.htm
http://threatinfo.trendmicro.com/vin...Hoax&Page =10
http://nordwave.net/florida/2009/01/...ng-jr-exposed/
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...5143322AAM5dwl
http://www.ety.com/HRP/americana/martinlutherking.htm

And on and on and on. There are hundreds of them.

Here is a good book on the subject:
And the Wall Came Tumbling Down, by Rev. Ralph Abernathy

I would love to see you call Reverend Abernathy
a racist!

I really do no care about the race of the hookers he
preferred. But you seem to. I care about the infidelity
and the assault and battery. By the way, one race beating
the hell out of another is referred to as a "hate crime".

But still I listen to his words and strongly agree with
them.

I am getting the idea that when you hear a differing
opinion that really ****es you off, instead of collecting
your thought and coming up with a reasoned response, you
smear the person with all the nastiest insults you can
think of and challenge them to defend themselves.

You need to start judging judging people on their character
and not your own preconceived prejudices. You should also
work on stopping slandering those you do not agree with.
You should also work on your pottie mouth. Get your mind
out of the gutter. Here is a better suggestion, just cover
your ears with your hands and chant LA LA LA. Or, just
ignore me.

Remember: "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous
than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
-- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

-T

No fish
 

Frank Reid wrote:
To respectfully disagree with you, there is no
separation of church and state in the constitution. That
was a creation of the supreme court in the 19 century.
Thomas Jefferson did make a remark about it in one of
his writing. The constitution bars the establishment
of a state religion. The supreme court even has a
copy of the ten commandments on the front of its
building.

The separation of church and state is founded in Constitutional law
and based, in part, on the first ammendment "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof." So this goes much further than the "establisment
of a state religion."
And oh, by the way, look to the Flushing Remonstrance against Peter
Stuyvesant in 1657 (had to look it up, been a long time) as probably
the first call for separation of church and state in the colonies.
By the way, Jefferson made more than "a remark" about it. In 1779,
Jefferson wrote and instantiated into Virginia law (it became law in
1786) the "Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom" which says, in
part, "that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious
opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that
therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public
confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices
of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that
religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges
and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a
natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that
religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of
worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and
conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not
withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the
bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his
powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or
propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a
dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty,
because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his
opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments
of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that
it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for
its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts
against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and
will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient
antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless
by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument
and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely
to contradict them."
Frank Reid


Hi Frank,

I love Thomas Jefferson. Thank you for sharing.

What two of us did as vets was to defend the freedom
"of" religion, not freedom "from" religion. It is
a good thing that people bring their morality to government
and not check it at the door. That this irritates
others at times is unfortunate. No one is every going to
get elected on the platform for establishing
parts of their religion on every one else.

Would you not want to have your candidate
thumb through the ten commandments and
say, this one, not this one, not this one,
I like my mistress too much, this one,...?

It would give you a real good indication of how
he would react to situations and how he would
govern.

Just out of curiosity, do you follow the
reasoning of some that Thomas Jefferson's
words should be completely discounted because
he owned slaves?

-T

No fish
 

Todd wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Todd wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
You can try your damnedest to deny your racist nature Todd, but
your own words betray you.

Sticks and stones ...

Your own sticks, your own stones, Todd. You indict yourself.

Here's a quote you should take to heart, Todd.

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere
ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

-- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

HTH

I love the quote. Now you follow it.

Well, I did mention it to a person who needs to take it to
heart.

Are you able to use google? Do a search on "martin luther
king hookers". ...

Why ? Haven't you said repeatedly that personal foibles are
irrelevant ?

I really do no care about the race of the hookers he
preferred. ...

LOL ! Sure you don't. You just made sure to mention it to
prove it was of no consequence. Seems to me you're proving
yourself to be both a racist and a liar.

You should remember the first rule of finding yourself in
a hole, Todd. Quit digging.

You need to start judging judging people on their character
and not your own preconceived prejudices. ...

I only know you by what you post here, Todd. And what you've
posted here is pretty damn disgusting.

Todd, do you actually fly fish ? Or did you just pick roff at
random for proselytizing ? In any case I wish you'd take up
golf or bowling or macrame, anything but fly fishing. It's bad
enough sharing a country with a nitwit like you without sharing
an avocation as well.

--
Ken Fortenberry

No fish
 

Inherint in freedom of religion is freedom from religion for those
that wish it. Reread Jefferson's words.
And, as with these stirring words and Jefferson's slave ownership,
context is important.
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a
heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions."
Frank Reid

No fish
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

Todd, do you actually fly fish ?
Yes, I fly fish.

Or did you just pick roff at
random for proselytizing ?

Only the two who exploded all over me over my
belief that God created Trout. By the way, instead of using
your technique of slander and name calling, I shared with
them something that was important in my life. And, then
got slandered some more. I responded to them with friendship
and not your technique of slander, vulgarity, and name calling.
You, by the way, sought to twist my friendship to them all in
knots into something other than what it was. Same way you are
attempting to twist my remark about white hookers.

In any case I wish you'd take up
golf or bowling or macrame, anything but fly fishing. It's bad
enough sharing a country with a nitwit like you without sharing
an avocation as well.

"nitwit"? Well, you are improving.

Loved the picture of that giant brown trout.

-T

No fish
 

Frank Reid wrote:
Inherint in freedom of religion is freedom from religion for those
that wish it. Reread Jefferson's words.

Would you copy and paste the exact phrase you are
talking about.

Who is forcing religion down your throat? This country has
freedom of religion. It is impossible not to hear it
spoken of every so often. Just be polite and ignore them.
All part of being tolerant of other's beliefs. No one is
trying to establish a state religion. None of us wants
the DMV to run our churches or interfere with us in any
other manner. Just be tolerant of others.

And, as with these stirring words and Jefferson's slave ownership,
context is important.
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a
heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions."
Frank Reid

You made me look up "sigh". I assume you are quoting yourself
here. When we sing to the Lord, there is great joy in our hearts.
I have never seen "sigh: to lament with sighing". Never seen it.
I assume you are just trying insult us here.

Am I missing something, or did you change the subject as to
Jefferson's slave ownership?

-T

No fish
 

On Sep 14, 8:22*pm, Todd wrote:
Frank Reid wrote:
Inherint in freedom of religion is freedom from religion for those
that wish it. *Reread Jefferson's words.

Would you copy and paste the exact phrase you are
talking about.

Who is forcing religion down your throat? *This country has
freedom of religion. *It is impossible not to hear it
spoken of every so often. *Just be polite and ignore them.
All part of being tolerant of other's beliefs. *No one is
trying to establish a state religion. *None of us wants
the DMV to run our churches or interfere with us in any
other manner. *Just be tolerant of others.

And, as with these stirring words and Jefferson's slave ownership,
context is important.
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a
heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions."
Frank Reid

You made me look up "sigh". *I assume you are quoting yourself
here. *When we sing to the Lord, there is great joy in our hearts.
I have never seen "sigh: to lament with sighing". *Never seen it.
I assume you are just trying insult us here.

Am I missing something, or did you change the subject as to
Jefferson's slave ownership?

You see the problem with someone like Frank being nice to someone like
you.....or kennie or davie or freddie or stevie or.....the diminutive
member? It actually makes you feel like you deserve it, right?
Doesn't it? You see the problem?

g.

No fish
 

On Sep 14, 7:41*am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

...It's bad
enough sharing a country with a nitwit like you without sharing
an avocation as well.

There's a cure fror that.

g.

No fish
 

Giles wrote:
Am I missing something, or did you change the subject as to
Jefferson's slave ownership?

You see the problem with someone like Frank being nice to someone like
you.....or kennie or davie or freddie or stevie or.....the diminutive
member? It actually makes you feel like you deserve it, right?
Doesn't it? You see the problem?

Giles,

First off, I love you too.

Second off, what in the world are you talking about?

Personal question for you. Don't answer if yo do not
like. Question: if I were on fire, and you had the means to
save me, would you? (I would you, by the way.)

-T

No fish
 

I would certainly **** on Wolfgang the goatboy
but you kniow on 2nd thought - **** him let him burn
Grilled goat is a delicacy in Afghanistan

Charles Atlas

No fish
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

Todd, do you actually fly fish ?Or did you just pick roff at
random for proselytizing ? In any case I wish you'd take up
golf or bowling or macrame, anything but fly fishing. It's bad
enough sharing a country with a nitwit like you without sharing
an avocation as well.

Out in these parts, virtually every fisherman or meet is
a Christian. The Fly shop owner is a Christian. All the
Duffers who hang around the shop are Christian. There
are some that are not and they don't care if we are.
They are respectful of others. I had not the slightest
clue that your would freak out the way you did at
the mention of God. Fisherman are *REALLY NICE GUYS*,
except maybe you, but you are showing signs of loosing
up.

There was no intention to offend you. I apologize for
doing so.

By the way, "nitwit" is my favorite. Not vulgar, not
too offensive. And kind of fun to say.

-T

p.s. I do not presume to say how you think trout
were created, random mistakes maybe, I will wait
for you to say, but you do have to admit that
the design (trout) is one awesome achievement.

No fish
 

On Sep 14, 8:04*pm, Todd wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Todd, do you actually fly fish ?

Yes, I fly fish.

Or did you just pick roff at
random for proselytizing ?

Only the two who exploded all over me over my
belief that God created Trout.

Now, now, Turd, you're blowing things WAY out of proportion. No one
in this group has contested your recent revelation that trout are god-
given. Your trouble is that you've picked a Semitic god who never got
within thirty degrees of latitude of the blessed salmonids. No, it
was undoubtedly a Nordic or Yakut or Chinese or Inuit or Cree or
Celtic or some such god that gave us the holy trout, not some louse
ridden illiterate from "trans"-Jordan or some such pestilential den of
pedophiles and snake oil.

By the way, the imagery you project in your felicitous phrase, "the
two who exploded all over me" has doubtless raised freddie (or parts
of him, anyway) to a fever pitch.

By the way, instead of using
your technique of slander and name calling, I shared with
them something that was important in my life.

While assuming that anything important in your life would necessarily
be something that someone else (let alone everybody else) would
naturally and inevitably give a **** about, eh?

And, then got slandered some more.

And I got a shiny new nickel says that ain't over yet.

I responded to them with friendship

Assuming someone or other might be interested, huh?

and not your technique of slander, vulgarity, and name calling.

You're a liar.....and too stupid to realize that even the perennial
idiots here are aware of it.

You, by the way, sought to twist my friendship to them all in
knots into something other than what it was.

Ooh....sweaty, slithery, voluptuous knots! Almost makes a boy wish
he'd been an acolyte.

Same way you are
attempting to twist my remark about white hookers.

Well, kennie IS an insensitive asshole. The good news is that you've
got an eager and appreciative audience here. Why don't you just go
ahead and explain why you felt it was necessary from a narrative point
of view (or any other, for that matter) to point out that they were
"white" hookers? Take your time. :)

In any case I wish you'd take up
golf or bowling or macrame, anything but fly fishing. It's bad
enough sharing a country with a nitwit like you without sharing
an avocation as well.

"nitwit"? *Well, you are improving.

No he isn't. He's still an ignorant racist cracker piece of ****.
The good news is that he appears to be following a family tradition in
fomenting his own early demise. The bad news is that he isn't nearly
good enough at it. Well.....practice makes perfect, they say.

Loved the picture of that giant brown trout.

Finless......right?

g.

No fish
 

Todd wrote:

Are you able to use google? Do a search on "martin luther
king hookers".

Here you go (some of these really hate the guy, so be careful):
http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com/keytopics/MLK.shtml
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/mlking.asp

I went to the snopes site. The quote from the site, listed below, states
clearly that King was not involved in affairs with white prostitutes. It
does not support your arguement one bit. The site states

"Ralph David Abernathy did acknowledge in his 1989 autobiography, And
the Walls Came Tumbling Down, that Martin Luther King engaged in
extramarital affairs (evidence of which was somtimes recorded by the FBI
through hotel room bugs), but he says absolutely nothing in his book
about King's supposed "obsession with white prostitutes," King's using
"church donations to have drunken sex parties," or King's hiring "white
prostitutes and occasionally beating them brutally." In fact, Abernathy
states quite emphatically that he never knew King to have any sexual
involvement with white women at all."

This hardly supports your accusation that King had regular affairs with
white prostitutes. You seem quite willing to point fingers at people
without a shred of evidence, and either deliberately misinterpret and
distort the truth, or carelessly accept the rumours perpetuated by
others, without any thought on your part. Neither is not a good habit.

Tim Lysyk

No fish
 

On Sep 14, 7:05*am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Todd wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Todd, I wouldn't cross the street to **** down your throat if
your stomach were on fire. You are an ignorant and dangerous
moron and I am appalled that we live in the same country.

This is a moral difference between us.

You bet your sweet ass there is, you pathetic simpleton.

You see, Turd? Even kennie is capable of swallowing his pride long
enough to pay you what he believes to be a compliment!

g.

No fish
 

Todd wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Or did you just pick roff at
random for proselytizing ?

Only the two who exploded all over me over my
belief that God created Trout.

It wasn't your belief folks found objectionable. Indeed, many
here have expressed the same belief in their own personal way.

By the way, instead of using
your technique of slander and name calling, I shared with
them something that was important in my life. And, then
got slandered some more. I responded to them with friendship
and not your technique of slander, vulgarity, and name calling.

Todd, your "friendship" is as phony as your christianity. And
when someone observes that you are an ignorant moron and a racist
buffoon that's not slander, merely the painful truth.

You, by the way, sought to twist my friendship to them all in
knots into something other than what it was. Same way you are
attempting to twist my remark about white hookers.

Well, untwist it then. Explain why you felt it necessary to post
a racist lie about Dr. King and white hookers.

--
Ken Fortenberry

No fish
 

Tim Lysyk wrote:
Todd wrote:

Are you able to use google? Do a search on "martin luther
king hookers".

Here you go (some of these really hate the guy, so be careful):
http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com/keytopics/MLK.shtml
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/mlking.asp

I went to the snopes site. The quote from the site, listed below, states
clearly that King was not involved in affairs with white prostitutes. It
does not support your arguement one bit. The site states

"Ralph David Abernathy did acknowledge in his 1989 autobiography, And
the Walls Came Tumbling Down, that Martin Luther King engaged in
extramarital affairs (evidence of which was somtimes recorded by the FBI
through hotel room bugs), but he says absolutely nothing in his book
about King's supposed "obsession with white prostitutes," King's using
"church donations to have drunken sex parties," or King's hiring "white
prostitutes and occasionally beating them brutally." In fact, Abernathy
states quite emphatically that he never knew King to have any sexual
involvement with white women at all."

This hardly supports your accusation that King had regular affairs with
white prostitutes. You seem quite willing to point fingers at people
without a shred of evidence, and either deliberately misinterpret and
distort the truth, or carelessly accept the rumours perpetuated by
others, without any thought on your part. Neither is not a good habit.

Tim Lysyk

Hi Tim,

I heard otherwise several places. I thought it was Rev. Abernathy
that I actually heard it from. But, I would trust Rev. Abernathy
word over all the rest. So, just prostitutes. I appreciate you
pointing it out.

It was not my intention to slander Rev. King, but to
point out that one should judge one by their words in the arena
of ideas. A good example would be the mountain of manure
that got dumped on me over when I mentioned I listened to Rush
by those who don't. Don't criticize unless you actually listen to
what he says. Have you heard those who say you shouldn't listen
Thomas Jefferson because he owned slaves? This was the point
I was trying to make, not what race someone's prostitutes were.

I do admire Rev. Kings words and all the crap he had to go
through to point out a huge moral blind spot that should have
been obvious to anyone. I do not admire him cheating on his
wife, beating the hell our of his prostitutes, plagiarizing
other people's work, cavorting with communists.

I hope I have made my point clear. Thank you for correcting
me on the prostitute front.

-T

No fish
 

Todd wrote:
The separation of church and state is founded in Constitutional law
and based, in part, on the first ammendment "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof." So this goes much further than the "establisment
of a state religion."
And oh, by the way, look to the Flushing Remonstrance against Peter
Stuyvesant in 1657 (had to look it up, been a long time) as probably
the first call for separation of church and state in the colonies.
By the way, Jefferson made more than "a remark" about it. In 1779,
Jefferson wrote and instantiated into Virginia law (it became law in
1786) the "Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom" which says, in
part, "that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious
opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that
therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public
confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices
of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that
religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges
and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a
natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that
religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of
worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and
conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not
withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the
bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his
powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or
propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a
dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty,
because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his
opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments
of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that
it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for
its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts
against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and
will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient
antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless
by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument
and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely
to contradict them."
Frank Reid


Hi Frank,

I love Thomas Jefferson. Thank you for sharing.

What two of us did as vets was to defend the freedom
"of" religion, not freedom "from" religion.

Todd, you hit a hot button of mine. I respectfully disagree with you
-- and if it matters, I am a vet too (Vietnam, longer than the minimum
required time).

Disclaimer: the following is a logical comment, and should not be
construed as any indication of my own values, religious or otherwise.

Religious freedom means all religions (not just Christian faiths). It
also means that you are not hindered even if your preference is agnostic
or atheist.

The religious right assertion that the Founding Fathers had just the
Christian religion in mind just does not hold up when reading such
things as the Jefferson quote above. Not to mention common sense --
there were prominent Jewish men in the Revolution, and surely the
framers of our nation did not intend to exclude them.

Jefferson's phrase "our civil rights have no dependence on our religious
opinions" certainly seems clear enough to me.

It is
a good thing that people bring their morality to government
and not check it at the door.

A strong moral code is absolutely a good thing to insist on. My problem
is with those who insist on equating good moral character with a
professed belief in a Christian God. I was appalled at the questions
political candidates were asked in this past election about their
religious beliefs. While the questioners were within their rights (they
could also choose to vote only for people who think the sky is green, if
that floats their boat), insisting on a religious qualification for
political office is un-American and nothing I ever fought for.

Furthermore it does not even necessarily work -- the result is to favor
a hypocritical candidate who says what he knows the questioners want to
hear over a strongly moral one who has enough strength of character to
be honest about his beliefs. Kind of like why intelligence due to
torture is highly suspect.

There are devout, or at least professing, Christians who totally lack a
moral compass. There are atheists who have an enormously strong set of
moral values.

It is good to ask that a candidate bring a strong moral sense to
government; it is obnoxious to demand that the only way to demonstrate
that is to profess a belief in a Christian God.

That this irritates
others at times is unfortunate. No one is every going to
get elected on the platform for establishing
parts of their religion on every one else.

Unfortunately, you are clearly mistaken. They certainly are, and that
is exactly the problem.

There is no issue with non-controversial things, such as murder, theft,
etc -- everyone believes those are wrong, even without any religious
teaching. Legislating against them is just fine.

The problem comes when one person's religion believes strongly in
something that others, both religious and non-religious do not. There
is a terrible temptation to legislate what that person "knows to be
right". Not because his religion says so, but because it is "right"
(forgetting that his belief in its rightness comes from his religion).

One example is abortion -- many anti-abortion people say that they are
basing their conviction on their religion. They are perfectly happy to
legislate that particular religious belief, even though other strongly
moral people of a different (or no) religion disagree.

I realize that the abortion opponents believe they have the moral high
ground -- but many reasonable people disagree. When a "moral" issue is
that contentious, perhaps we should do some serious thinking before
legislating it, not just insist that my religion / God says it is wrong
so make a law against it.

In any case, regardless of your beliefs on abortion, anti-abortion
legislation is a clear example of attempting to legislate someone's
religious beliefs.

Would you not want to have your candidate
thumb through the ten commandments and
say, this one, not this one, not this one,
I like my mistress too much, this one,...?

It would give you a real good indication of how
he would react to situations and how he would
govern.

Just out of curiosity, do you follow the
reasoning of some that Thomas Jefferson's
words should be completely discounted because
he owned slaves?

-T

No fish
 

Todd wrote:
Giles wrote:

Am I missing something, or did you change the subject as to
Jefferson's slave ownership?


You see the problem with someone like Frank being nice to someone like
you.....or kennie or davie or freddie or stevie or.....the diminutive
member? It actually makes you feel like you deserve it, right?
Doesn't it? You see the problem?


Giles,

First off, I love you too.

Second off, what in the world are you talking about?

You don't understand, Todd. Wolfgang's art is in being the most
obnoxious, self-important, asshole dick on ROFF that he can possibly be.
In a way it's a beautiful thing. Nearly perfection.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

No fish
 

On Sep 14, 8:22*pm, Todd wrote:
Frank Reid wrote:
Inherint in freedom of religion is freedom from religion for those
that wish it. *Reread Jefferson's words.

Would you copy and paste the exact phrase you are
talking about.

Who is forcing religion down your throat? *This country has
freedom of religion. *It is impossible not to hear it
spoken of every so often. *Just be polite and ignore them.
All part of being tolerant of other's beliefs. *No one is
trying to establish a state religion. *None of us wants
the DMV to run our churches or interfere with us in any
other manner. *Just be tolerant of others.

There are those that would not be as tolerant of someone who is a
Muslim, Jew, Buddist or Atheist. There are many that would bring
prayer, specifically Christian prayer back into our schools. IMHO,
the best way to be tolerant is to avoid this.

And, as with these stirring words and Jefferson's slave ownership,
context is important.
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a
heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions."
Frank Reid

You made me look up "sigh". *I assume you are quoting yourself
here. *When we sing to the Lord, there is great joy in our hearts.
I have never seen "sigh: to lament with sighing". *Never seen it.
I assume you are just trying insult us here.

Am I missing something, or did you change the subject as to
Jefferson's slave ownership?

No, I'm teaching a lesson on context. Those words... "Religion is the
sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the
soul of soulless conditions." Are followed by "It is the opium of the
people.” These are the words of Karl Marx, often misquoted and
summarized "Religion is the opiate of the masses."
In the context of words coming from someone of religion, the first
part may sound like high praise for a religious life. Adding in the
final phase, it is instantly recognized as the words of someone who
sought to destroy God and supplant him with the State. Context.
It is the context that allows one to change ones mind. To see the
whole picture. Jefferson had seen what religion and government
together under one ruler could do. He had lived under it. He sought
to change it. Later, it would take the words of those who had lived
under slavery to change that. Context.
To preach tolerance with your heart you need context. To have been
derided, chastised and beaten for your religion is the context that
many have seen and fear. To be allowed to be different is the dream
that many have.
There are many that would have the government make laws based upon
their religious beliefs. Stem cell research is one that is a
flashpoint for many in religion. Had stem cell research not been
fought tooth and nail by many religious organizations across the
nation and its restriction put into federal law to appease these
organizations, my daughter may not have died two months ago. She died
because the basic research to save her life was banned by the
government, to appease religious organizations. Context.
Frank Reid

No fish
 

On Sep 14, 9:18*pm, Todd wrote:
Giles wrote:
Am I missing something, or did you change the subject as to
Jefferson's slave ownership?

You see the problem with someone like Frank being nice to someone like
you.....or kennie or davie or freddie or stevie or.....the diminutive
member? *It actually makes you feel like you deserve it, right?
Doesn't it? *You see the problem?

Giles,

* * First off, I love you too.

That's sweet.

* * Second off, what in the world are you talking about?

Metaphysics.....or an oil change.....something like that.

* * Personal question for you.

O.k., I'm ready.

Don't answer if yo do not like.

Tut tut, I don't mind.

Question: if I were on fire, and you had the means to
save me, would you?

Extremely unlikely as I have no idea where you are, and the odds are
that wherever that may be I couldn't get there in time.

(I would you, by the way.)

I doubt it, for the same reasons given above.

g.

No fish
 

On Sep 15, 2:06*am, rw wrote:
Todd wrote:
Giles wrote:

Am I missing something, or did you change the subject as to
Jefferson's slave ownership?

You see the problem with someone like Frank being nice to someone like
you.....or kennie or davie or freddie or stevie or.....the diminutive
member? *It actually makes you feel like you deserve it, right?
Doesn't it? *You see the problem?

Giles,

* *First off, I love you too.

* *Second off, what in the world are you talking about?

You don't understand, Todd. Wolfgang's art is in being the most
obnoxious, self-important, asshole dick on ROFF that he can possibly be.
* *In a way it's a beautiful thing. Nearly perfection.

It is an art. Unfortunately, I am forever doomed to be an avid
amateur. Like the erstwhile concert violinist, I have to actually
read the music in order to offer my own interpretations. I live in
perpetual awe of those who can do so without ever having heard or seen
it.

g.

No fish
 

Inherint in freedom of religion is freedom from religion for those
that wish it. *Reread Jefferson's words.

Would you copy and paste the exact phrase you are
talking about.

"that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions,
any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the
proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public
confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices
of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that
religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges
and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a
natural right;

How's that.
Frank Reid

No fish
 

On 15-Sep-2009, rw wrote:

You don't understand, Todd. Wolfgang's art is in being the most
obnoxious, self-important, asshole dick on ROFF that he can possibly be.
In a way it's a beautiful thing. Nearly perfection.

Art
I think not
He is like a child playing w his own excrement
Wolfie is just a pathetic buffoon and a fool.
And even more importantly - a apthetic creep

Just killfile the moron

Fred

No fish
 

Bob Blean wrote:
In any case, regardless of your beliefs on abortion, anti-abortion
legislation is a clear example of attempting to legislate someone's
religious beliefs.

Hi Bob,

Thank you for the excellent response.

I did not mean to imply that only Christian religious beliefs
were valid. I do think it is a good thing to bring your
moral values to the arena of ideas, where ever you get them
from.

On the abortion front, the "Thou shalt not murder" would
be my religious value. If you do not agree this with
this or simply think is does not applied to small people,
then state so. If you would like an argument for
non-believers, watch a video on an unborn child being
murdered: they try to scream with their unformed
mouths.

There is no issue with non-controversial things, such as murder,
theft, etc -- everyone believes those are wrong, even without
any religious teaching. Legislating against them is just fine.

Actually, not everyone believes these are wrong. They could
make the case that your are trying to ram your religion/moral
beliefs down their throats. (The majority disagrees, so too bad.)

That the majority should be respectful of the minority's rights
goes without saying. Barring one from politics because
of the religious beliefs is a receipt for tyranny.

-T

No fish
 

Bob Blean wrote:

I am a vet too (Vietnam, longer than the minimum required time).

Hi Bob,

You put your ass on the line for people you did not even know.
I greatly appreciate and respect your service. You are a hero.

There is no issue with non-controversial things, such as murder, theft,
etc -- everyone believes those are wrong, even without any religious
teaching. Legislating against them is just fine.

I keep thinking about your letter. All of the things you
list above can be traced back to someone's religious values.
Typically the ten commandments. Atheist's values float, so
they do not apply here.

Somewhere along the line, religious folks convinced you and
a lot of others to "share" their moral values. Bear in mind,
that when others disagree with us on these (the above you listed)
moral values and act out on them, we throw them in prison.
Talk about forcing one's values down others throats. (Too bad.)

I am also not trying to convert, by sword or otherwise,
you to my religion, I am trying to convince you in the arena
of ideas, that my "moral" belief is something that you
should share with me. Convince, not force. I want/need
you to join with me in fighting to protect those
who can not protect themselves (abortion). It is my
job to convince you of my point. As it is yours to
disagree with me to pull me over to your point of view.

The cramming my religion down your throat argument is a
distraction to keep us from hearing each other's words.

By the way, you write very well.
-T

No fish
 

Todd wrote:

I keep thinking about your letter. All of the things you
list above can be traced back to someone's religious values.
Typically the ten commandments. Atheist's values float, so
they do not apply here.

As a converted Pastafarian I subscribe to the eight "I'd Really Rather
You Didn'ts" that are the basis for the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti
Monster:

1.I'd Really Rather You Didn't Act Like a Sanctimonious Holier-Than-Thou
Ass When Describing My Noodly Goodness. If Some People Don't Believe In
Me, That's Okay. Really, I'm Not That Vain. Besides, This Isn't About
Them So Don't Change The Subject.

2. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Use My Existence As A Means To Oppress,
Subjugate, Punish, Eviscerate, And/Or, You Know, Be Mean To Others. I
Don't Require Sacrifices, And Purity Is For Drinking Water, Not People.

3. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Judge People For The Way They Look, Or
How They Dress, Or The Way They Talk, Or, Well, Just Play Nice, Okay?
Oh, And Get This In Your Thick Heads: Woman = Person. Man = Person.
Samey = Samey. One Is Not Better Than The Other, Unless We're Talking
About Fashion And I'm Sorry, But I Gave That To Women And Some Guys Who
Know The Difference Between Teal and Fuchsia.

4.I'd Really Rather You Didn't Indulge In Conduct That Offends Yourself,
Or Your Willing, Consenting Partner Of Legal Age AND Mental Maturity. As
For Anyone Who Might Object, I Think The Expression Is Go F*** Yourself,
Unless They Find That Offensive In Which Case They Can Turn Off the TV
For Once And Go For A Walk For A Change.

5. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Challenge The Bigoted, Misogynist,
Hateful Ideas Of Others On An Empty Stomach. Eat, Then Go After The B******.

6. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Build Multimillion-Dollar
Churches/Temples/Mosques/Shrines To My Noodly Goodness When The Money
Could Be Better Spent (Take Your Pick):

Ending Poverty

Curing Diseases

Living In Peace, Loving With Passion, And Lowering The Cost Of Cable
I Might be a Complex-Carbohydrate Omniscient Being, But I Enjoy The
Simple Things In Life. I Ought To Know. I AM the Creator.

7. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Go Around Telling People I Talk To You.
You're Not That Interesting. Get Over Yourself. And I Told You To Love
Your Fellow Man, Can't You Take A Hint?

8. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do
Unto You If You Are Into, Um, Stuff That Uses A Lot Of
Leather/Lubricant/Las Vegas. If The Other Person Is Into It, However
(Pursuant To #4), Then Have At It, Take Pictures, And For The Love Of
Mike, Wear a CONDOM! Honestly, It's A Piece Of Rubber. If I Didn't Want
It To Feel Good When You Did IT I Would Have Added Spikes, Or Something.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

No fish
 

How's this one. With my first wife, we had a choice. We found out
during her 7th month of pregnancy that she had a birth defect that if
she gave birth to the baby, it had a 50% chance of killing her.
I chose not to tell her, because I believed she would choose an
abortion. I, a man, not the woman, made the choice for her. She gave
birth and died.
So, you're telling me that a man should make that determination of
life or death for a woman? Have you ever made that choice for someone
you loved based upon moral principle? I did. My wife died. I WILL
not let you or any other man make that decision for a woman. If your
religion (an show me one that isn't headed up by a man) wishes to do
that, then I'm against it.
Frank Reid
(oh, and if you think I'm making this up for the sake of the argument,
you're wrong there too)

No fish
 

Todd wrote:
I did not mean to imply that only Christian religious beliefs
were valid. I do think it is a good thing to bring your
moral values to the arena of ideas, where ever you get them
from.

I am glad to hear you say that. Unfortunately some mean exactly that --
which is why I got so disturbed by the religious questioning of
political candidates in that last election. It appeared to me that a
candidate had little chance to get elected unless the candidate was
willing to profess a strong belief in a Christian God. That is not the
way things should be.

That the majority should be respectful of the minority's rights
goes without saying. Barring one from politics because
of the religious beliefs is a receipt for tyranny.

Yes -- and that is what the founding fathers had in mind. They had too
much recent experience with problems of that kind.

Todd wrote:
I keep thinking about your letter. All of the things you
list above can be traced back to someone's religious values.
Typically the ten commandments. Atheist's values float, so
they do not apply here.

It seems to me that some values are important for a stable society.
Those values have existed for a long time, in societies even before the
Ten Commandments. In those times, pretty much everyone was religious,
so I suppose that many common core values can be said to descend from
religion of some sort.

In other words, I am not convinced that the Ten Commandments (aside from
the monotheistic imperatives) are all that original. For example, while
there are exceptions, most societies found it expedient to prohibit
murder and stealing within the group (outsiders were apt to be another
story, though).

I would want any political candidate to have a firm grasp on a set of
core values that are needed for a stable society; I reject the concept
that he needs to be a professing religious person to have good values.

I am also not trying to convert, by sword or otherwise,
you to my religion, I am trying to convince you in the arena
of ideas, that my "moral" belief is something that you
should share with me. Convince, not force. I want/need
you to join with me in fighting to protect those
who can not protect themselves (abortion). It is my
job to convince you of my point. As it is yours to
disagree with me to pull me over to your point of view.

The cramming my religion down your throat argument is a
distraction to keep us from hearing each other's words.

I like your point on convincing -- to me the proper way to deal with
such controversial issues is to convince the other side, not to
legislate your beliefs.

I am not trying to argue one way or the other about such topics as
abortion and stem cell research. What I *am* trying to point out is
that for many people, their position on such things is a religious
belief -- many people take their positions on those items as a result of
what they believe their religion (or pastor/minister/reverend/...) says
on the subject.

That results in them trying to legislate their religious belief, even
knowing that many honorable and well-meaning folks, and even other
religions, may disagree with them.

One of my worries when people try to legislate their religious beliefs
is that those beliefs are seen as non-negotiable moral absolutes, not
subject to reasoned discourse.

By the way, you write very well.

Thank you.
-T

No fish
 

"Todd" wrote in message ...
Would you not want to have your candidate
thumb through the ten commandments and
say, this one, not this one, not this one,
I like my mistress too much, this one,...?

sort of akin to how Jefferson created his version of the Bible?
Tom

No fish
 

"Todd" wrote in message ...
Atheist's values float, so
they do not apply here.

says who?

Tom

No fish
 

"Todd" wrote in message ...
I heard otherwise several places. I thought it was Rev. Abernathy
that I actually heard it from.

I'm utterly shocked that Ralph Abernathy converses with you.


But, I would trust Rev. Abernathy
word over all the rest. So, just prostitutes. I appreciate you
pointing it out.

(regarding Rush) Don't criticize unless you actually listen to
what he says.

ok. I've listened to him(riding home from Penn's, a couple of times). He's a
drug-addled loony hypocrite, who wouldn't know the truth if it came up and
bit him on the ass. Fair enough?



I do admire Rev. Kings words and all the crap he had to go
through to point out a huge moral blind spot that should have
been obvious to anyone. I do not admire him cheating on his
wife, beating the hell our of his prostitutes, plagiarizing
other people's work, cavorting with communists.

maybe you should stick to his words, because, while he clearly(and
admittedly) cheated on his wife, the other stuff you cite as 'fact' is a bit
suspect.

Tom

No fish
 

Tom Littleton wrote:
"Todd" wrote:
(regarding Rush) Don't criticize unless you actually listen to
what he says.

ok. I've listened to him(riding home from Penn's, a couple of times). He's a
drug-addled loony hypocrite, who wouldn't know the truth if it came up and
bit him on the ass. Fair enough?

I listen to his show occasionally when I happen to be in the
car between 11 and 2. The guy is a classic snake oil salesman
who knows his audience and how to push their buttons.

I knew Todd was a phony when he started in with the christian
crap calling Obama evil because of some votes he made in the
Illinois Senate. No one who truly understands Christian values
could listen to a whole week of Limbaugh hate-mongering and
not be disgusted.

It's really too bad Todd came along when he did. I'm a happy
camper who has had wet wading boots on the back porch for the
last two weeks and I'm just chock full of the milk of human
kindness. Better that Todd had showed up during cabin fever
season when he would have been given the roffian welcome he
so richly deserves. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry