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