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