• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

"You lie!" - Disrespect or expression of an opinion?

tsst said:
Strawman points.
Click to expand...
No they aren't. They are questions which mean nothing...just like saying, Does Senator Wilson spend his weekends cleaning gravesites? Does he spend Memorial Day reenacting the Civil War?" They are pointless questions, that mean nothing in the scope of his job, and in the scope of his character. They are pointless, and intended to be pointless. A strawman would be attack the SCV for supporting Confederate Heritage, and thereby attacking Senator Wilson for being born in a Southern State. These questions are designed to make you say, "Well...that's pointless..." because that's what they are. So are the questions regarding Senator Wilson's family activities and weekend hobbies.

Wrong these are functions claimed by the SCV group, and more specifically one faction of it. And also validated by external "experts". So if his credibility is being questioned due to membership in the SCV then what subgroup he is tied to is absolutely relevant. I don't give a crap if he uses Crest toothpaste either. But if he supports the slavery benign subgroup then as stated before he gets what ever he deserves. If however he belongs to the subgroup (externally validated by experts and cited even by the leftwing website as existing) that cleans graves and reenacts history then his membership in the SCV is a non issue.
Click to expand...
If the SCV does NOT condone these actions by members of it's own group, than those individuals should be disbarred as members. Otherwise, it is a VERY reasonable assumption that they support, at least to some degree, the ideals that THEIR MEMBERSHIP PROFESS. Until the organization renounces them as members...they are part of the same club.

I am the founder of the Eastern Sierra Herpetology Club. We have very few requirements to be a member of our club...respect and appreciate herps, and show up to a meeting or field trip. However, there are very specific activities that the club frowns upon...poaching, public displays at inappropriate times of reptiles, using reptiles as a means to stress or cause anger, or intentionally scarring people with snakes...any member found to be participating in these activities will immediately be removed as a member of the club. As a member and the founder, I refuse to have MY club associated with behavior that I do not agree with or condone. That's simple enough.n If the SCV does not condone this activity and these ideals, than those individuals should be removed from the club. If they did that...the questions wouldn't be asked.

Instead...they allow them to remain members, and simply state that they don't agree with them. Sorry, but that isn't god enough. If you alow this behavior to be conducted by club members AT club functions, you are, in essence, condoning those activities. The SCV should forbid them from being members, and forbid them from using the Club as a means of public support. Period. If not, than the questions are completely legitimate.

Benign? Under the heading Topics: Racism/Bigotry and only citing questions that imply racism and bigotry. We have a different definition of benign.
Click to expand...
They are benign questions, unless one has something to hide. You can ask me those questions, and they are completely benign because there is nothing in my behavior, history, ideals, or thoughts that give any reason to suspect me such ideals and behavior. They are only malignant if the circumstances MAKE them malignant.

So using this logic it is ok to tie all herpers directly to herpers that misuse, mistreat, and otherwise denegrate herpologists by their actions or inactions simply because they are both registered at a herp society. So we can assume all herpers condone release in Florida because a herp society fringe member released before. And before you say they are not excepted members remember the SCV website also claims they reject those fringe members. So it must be all for one and one for all? I never said it was wrong to raise those questions, I said it was wrong to raise only the questions that favor that side of the SCV group when considering why he is a member.
Click to expand...

For further clarification, please see my herp-related explanation of what "normal" clubs do with members whom disrespect the club and it's ideals.

By YOUR logic, anyone can be a member of any club, and do whatever they pleasee, regardless if those actions are contrary to the club's ideals and goals. That means that I can claim to belong to the Catholic Chruch and run around denouncing the church, murdering, lying, cheating... and nobody has the right to question me about it because the church itself doesn't do those things.

Well guess what...the church that I claimed to be a part of would be the first in line to renounce me as a Christian, unless I chose to comply with their "club ideals". THAT is what the SCV should do, if they truly do not support or condone the actions and ideals of the "fringe". Not defend them as members "with issues"...

So...one more time...why shouldn't I question the ideals of an individual that belongs to a club that supports fringe lunatics and racists? :rolleyes:
 
tyflier said:
So...one more time...why shouldn't I question the ideals of an individual that belongs to a club that supports fringe lunatics and racists? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Just to flip something you pointed out to me the other day... Didn't you say that we should look at both sides the same way?

Under the same mindset you just mentioned, does this mean that maybe the people who accuse BO of being a terrorist, an extremist, and a racist have valid points after all and aren't being extreme in their own right? I mean, he went to a church for 20 years where the pastor spilled absolute filth about the American government and how the 9/11 attacks were something that was owed to our country. He was friends and known terrorists and used them as a staging area for his campaign.

I think that what tsst was trying to say is that ya'll are looking at somebody who looked at a group and immediately went to the extreme in accusing the senator of being in a racist organization. What both of you have been arguing throughout the entire Obama Youth thread was that it was unfounded to make these accusations. Yet, here you are saying that these are founded concerns. You say validity, I say partisanship. If you're going to ask the questions about one side, ask them of the other as well.

I personally don't think that the senator would be able to be affiliated with the extremist side of the organization and not have it exploited by his competition, but then again we've had plenty of KKK members on the hill before. Who knows, but until Wilson is caught burning a cross in a black family's front yard, I'm going to question the validity of the statements made by that website. On that same note, until Obama tries to bring back the Third Reich, I'm going to avoid yelling Hitler at him.

And I agree Dale, Obama was spot on when he called Kanye a Jackass. Did anybody else catch that Southpark played the Kanye West episode last night? Coincidence? I doubt it lol :grin01:
 
tyflier said:
No they aren't. They are questions which mean nothing...just like saying, Does Senator Wilson spend his weekends cleaning gravesites? Does he spend Memorial Day reenacting the Civil War?" They are pointless questions, that mean nothing in the scope of his job, and in the scope of his character. They are pointless, and intended to be pointless. A strawman would be attack the SCV for supporting Confederate Heritage, and thereby attacking Senator Wilson for being born in a Southern State. These questions are designed to make you say, "Well...that's pointless..." because that's what they are. So are the questions regarding Senator Wilson's family activities and weekend hobbies.
Click to expand...
They absolutely are. The debate brought up by the blog site questions whether he is a racist bigot based solely on his membership in the SCV. They themselves recognize there are two extremes in their membership. One of which considers slavery benign and most would consider bad. The other are traditionalists and clean grave sites and participate in reenactments of history. That makes those questions just as relevant as the ones posted on the website. Because if he is a traditionalist and they are his reason for being a member rather than a loonies considering slavery benign then his membership is a non-issue.

Simply posting arbitrary questions for the sole purpose of invalidating a relevant question is a STRAWMAN.


tyflier said:
If the SCV does NOT condone these actions by members of it's own group, than those individuals should be disbarred as members. Otherwise, it is a VERY reasonable assumption that they support, at least to some degree, the ideals that THEIR MEMBERSHIP PROFESS. Until the organization renounces them as members...they are part of the same club.

I am the founder of the Eastern Sierra Herpetology Club. We have very few requirements to be a member of our club...respect and appreciate herps, and show up to a meeting or field trip. However, there are very specific activities that the club frowns upon...poaching, public displays at inappropriate times of reptiles, using reptiles as a means to stress or cause anger, or intentionally scarring people with snakes...any member found to be participating in these activities will immediately be removed as a member of the club. As a member and the founder, I refuse to have MY club associated with behavior that I do not agree with or condone. That's simple enough.n If the SCV does not condone this activity and these ideals, than those individuals should be removed from the club. If they did that...the questions wouldn't be asked.

Instead...they allow them to remain members, and simply state that they don't agree with them. Sorry, but that isn't god enough. If you alow this behavior to be conducted by club members AT club functions, you are, in essence, condoning those activities. The SCV should forbid them from being members, and forbid them from using the Club as a means of public support. Period. If not, than the questions are completely legitimate.
Click to expand...
I agree they should cut ties. Maybe they have and the fringe membership has formed their own faction that won't just go away. Even the blog site states things like ...
This is an organization that has been taken over in the past decade by radical neo-Confederates who favor secession and defend slavery as a benign institution.

In more recent years, the takeover has led to an outright internal civil war. Experts say the divisions within the Sons vary between two extremes. On one side are the traditionalists, members who focus on cleaning up Confederate grave sites and conducting Civil War re-enactments.
On the other side are the so-called Lunatics, up to 2,000 members who deride traditionalists as "grannies'' and belong to camps named after notorious Southern figures such as John Wilkes Booth and Jesse James.
Click to expand...
tyflier said:
They are benign questions, unless one has something to hide. You can ask me those questions, and they are completely benign because there is nothing in my behavior, history, ideals, or thoughts that give any reason to suspect me such ideals and behavior. They are only malignant if the circumstances MAKE them malignant.
Click to expand...
They may be benign to you that does not mean they are benign to everyone. That is a very short sighted statement. If not true but still have an adverse affect on him or his career they are NOT benign.



tyflier said:
For further clarification, please see my herp-related explanation of what "normal" clubs do with members whom disrespect the club and it's ideals.

By YOUR logic, anyone can be a member of any club, and do whatever they pleasee, regardless if those actions are contrary to the club's ideals and goals. That means that I can claim to belong to the Catholic Chruch and run around denouncing the church, murdering, lying, cheating... and nobody has the right to question me about it because the church itself doesn't do those things.

Well guess what...the church that I claimed to be a part of would be the first in line to renounce me as a Christian, unless I chose to comply with their "club ideals". THAT is what the SCV should do, if they truly do not support or condone the actions and ideals of the "fringe". Not defend them as members "with issues"...

So...one more time...why shouldn't I question the ideals of an individual that belongs to a club that supports fringe lunatics and racists? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
See above quotes on how the two sides do NOT support each other.

But to expand on your herp example...

The Eastern Sierra Herpetology Club grows to have thousands of members in many if not all states. Soon those that like scaring people with snakes start calling themselves the John Wilkes Booth camp of the Eastern Sierra Herpetology Club and start calling tyflier's traditionalists "grannies" and refuse to follow your rules what do you do? I suppose you could sue but technically now they are the 'John Wilkes Booth camp of the Eastern Sierra Herpetology Club' so you may have little recourse. Then you are elected as a democratic Representative for Cali. A right wing blog site posts that the Eastern Sierra Herpetology Club scares kids with snakes and you are a member of the radical snake scaring the Eastern Sierra Herpetology Club. When in fact you are a traditionalist that does not support the loony John Wilkes Booth camp of the Eastern Sierra Herpetology Club. The voters of Cali see pictures of the Eastern Sierra Herpetology Club scaring little kids with snakes (in fact they are members of the John Wilkes Booth camp of the Eastern Sierra Herpetology Club). They vote you out as Representative.

You are not scaring kids with snakes but nobody asked if you were among the traditionalists that don't allow snake scaring. And the questions end up NOT being benign because the incorrect info costs you your career.

In closing I don't know what his reasons are for belonging and at this point I tired enough to care even less.
 
Pruddock said:
Just to flip something you pointed out to me the other day... Didn't you say that we should look at both sides the same way?

Under the same mindset you just mentioned, does this mean that maybe the people who accuse BO of being a terrorist, an extremist, and a racist have valid points after all and aren't being extreme in their own right? I mean, he went to a church for 20 years where the pastor spilled absolute filth about the American government and how the 9/11 attacks were something that was owed to our country. He was friends and known terrorists and used them as a staging area for his campaign.
First of all...it doesn't matter whether their points were valid...they were stated, repeatedly and vehemently, as well as reported almost DAILY in the news. So my opinion of their validity is really neither here nor there, and it is totally and completely outside the realm of this particular debate, considering that there are no news breaks, no reports, and no protestors storming Wilson's gates, accusing him of being a racist. Just a tiny little difference there...

Secondly, for someone so fond of defending the First Ammendment, I wouldn't expect you to be faultnig ANYone for freely speaking their opinion in the privacy of their own "club", providing that speech is not intended to incite riots or anger to people outside of the club...which it wasn't...IF what you say is true.

Thirdly...I DO look at both sides the same way. If Barack Obama is a member of an organization that is publicly anti-American, but he doesn't support those sentiments, he should not be a member of the club. As well, if he DOES support those sentiments, than he shouldn't be President of the U.S. ifference is...those questions were asked, and the answers resolved, LONG before he became President. That's why people had to search for other things to use against him...like birth certificates and the fact that he is not a Christian...

So flip it around, because these questions WERE asked of Obama, and when answers were given, they were questioned, and those answers questioned, and on, and on, and on ad nauseum...

I think that what tsst was trying to say is that ya'll are looking at somebody who looked at a group and immediately went to the extreme in accusing the senator of being in a racist organization. What both of you have been arguing throughout the entire Obama Youth thread was that it was unfounded to make these accusations. Yet, here you are saying that these are founded concerns. You say validity, I say partisanship. If you're going to ask the questions about one side, ask them of the other as well.
Click to expand...
I didn't accuse anyone of anything, and neither did the website. It asked questions. Contrarily, conservatives and anti-Obamists across the globe continue to ACCUSE...not ASK, ACCUSE...Obama of al sorts of ridiculous stuff. But this one instance to the converse effect throws you in a tizzy?(not you, personally...you know what I mean...)

I personally don't think that the senator would be able to be affiliated with the extremist side of the organization and not have it exploited by his competition, but then again we've had plenty of KKK members on the hill before. Who knows, but until Wilson is caught burning a cross in a black family's front yard, I'm going to question the validity of the statements made by that website. On that same note, until Obama tries to bring back the Third Reich, I'm going to avoid yelling Hitler at him.
Again...if their is an "extremeist" side and a non-extremeist side of a single organization, it is a completely legitimate assumption that the organization supports those actions, unless they seperate themselves FROM those actions, which the SCV has not done.

Problem is...statements and accusations were not made by the website, or by myself, or Dale. Questions were asked, and we were told we didn't have the right to ask those questions because the "inferred" negativity. Completely different. I am with you in that I will not call Wilson himself a racist until I have a justifiable and proofable reason.

Conversely, see the number of not only questions, but outright accusations that were made without evidence against Obama prior to the election, after the election, and continuing now, with the birther movement and others. Than talk to me about the "validity" of a couple of questions...

And I agree Dale, Obama was spot on when he called Kanye a Jackass. Did anybody else catch that Southpark played the Kanye West episode last night? Coincidence? I doubt it lol :grin01:
Click to expand...

I agree. And no, I don't think it was incidental one bit for the South Park boys to choose that episode to air last night. Those guys are now famous for their impeccable social commentary-like timing.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
There's a whole bruhaha on that too...

refering to the Kayne West/Taylor Swift incident.... I didn't realize others had posted already.
 
tsst said:
They absolutely are. The debate brought up by the blog site questions whether he is a racist bigot based solely on his membership in the SCV. They themselves recognize there are two extremes in their membership. One of which considers slavery benign and most would consider bad. The other are traditionalists and clean grave sites and participate in reenactments of history. That makes those questions just as relevant as the ones posted on the website. Because if he is a traditionalist and they are his reason for being a member rather than a loonies considering slavery benign then his membership is a non-issue.

Simply posting arbitrary questions for the sole purpose of invalidating a relevant question is a STRAWMAN.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but if the loonies are taking over, and he doesn't want to be associated with them...don't associate with the club. If the club doesn't like them...don't allow them to associate, or disassocaite yourself. Seems quite simple to me

Yes...I question whether he is a racist, based solely and entirely on his participation in a club that is being taken over by racists. You're right. Even if it wasn't the case when he joined or when the club started, by your own admission, it is the case now. So if he chooses not to disassociate himself from the club...I question why. Legitimately, I question his motives for remaining associated with a club of this nature.


I agree they should cut ties. Maybe they have and the fringe membership has formed their own faction that won't just go away. Even the blog site states things like ...
They may be benign to you that does not mean they are benign to everyone. That is a very short sighted statement. If not true but still have an adverse affect on him or his career they are NOT benign.
Click to expand...
They become benign the minute he disassociates himself from the "bad eggs".

And I really, REALLY do not want to debate the merits of questioning someone's motives with a conservative right now, and how those questions can often danmage a career and reputation. ONLY conservatives make it "questionable" to be a Muslim in the US. ONLY conservatives make it questionable to choose to not have a baby. ONLY conservatives make it questionable to be homosexual. Conservatives make a LIVING by destroying people's lives and reputations based on associations FAR less dangerous than this one. Cry me a river...



See above quotes on how the two sides do NOT support each other.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen any evidence outside of what you quoted from their website that supports this. I say seperate, or stifle. You can't alloow an association to continue, and than cry foul when you are associated. If I was friends with Charles Manson, and didn't want people questioning whether or not I supported him, I would stop being his friend. I wouldn;t continue to be his friend and than tell people they have no right to question whether or not I support him. He is my friend, it si VERY reasonable to assume I support him.

But to expand on your herp example...

The Eastern Sierra Herpetology Club grows to have thousands of members in many if not all states. Soon those that like scaring people with snakes start calling themselves the John Wilkes Booth camp of the Eastern Sierra Herpetology Club and start calling tyflier's traditionalists "grannies" and refuse to follow your rules what do you do? I suppose you could sue but technically now they are the 'John Wilkes Booth camp of the Eastern Sierra Herpetology Club' so you may have little recourse. Then you are elected as a democratic Representative for Cali. A right wing blog site posts that the Eastern Sierra Herpetology Club scares kids with snakes and you are a member of the radical snake scaring the Eastern Sierra Herpetology Club. When in fact you are a traditionalist that does not support the loony John Wilkes Booth camp of the Eastern Sierra Herpetology Club. The voters of Cali see pictures of the Eastern Sierra Herpetology Club scaring little kids with snakes (in fact they are members of the John Wilkes Booth camp of the Eastern Sierra Herpetology Club). They vote you out as Representative.

You are not scaring kids with snakes but nobody asked if you were among the traditionalists that don't allow snake scaring. And the questions end up NOT being benign because the incorrect info costs you your career.

In closing I don't know what his reasons are for belonging and at this point I tired enough to care even less.
Click to expand...

And to repeat myself yet again...disassociate yourself. If the club I started grows into a club that I do not want to be associated with...I disassociate myself. It's really that simple. Doesn't matter what questions they ask me because I am no longer associated. Why am I no longer associated? Because I do not believe in or support the actions of that group. It's really, really that easy. If I continue to alloow myself to be associated with a "bad group"...whatever "punishment" I get from the public for that is purely and entirely my own fault for allowing the association to continue.

It all boils down to one very simple thing...it is HIS responsibility to disassociate himself from the fringe lunatics, not MY responsibility to "ask the right question".
 
tsst said:
Sorry I had to! :grin01:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH5ixmT83JE
Click to expand...

So...what's the deal? He didn't say God Damn America because America is evil and needs to be destroyed. He said God Damn America for passing unjust laws. And I agree with him.

So...that relates to being a member of a society that advocates the enslavement of a different race, seeks to "purify" the white race, and seeks to stamp out "injustice" by ridding the world of "lesser" races how? I fail to see even the most remote correlation.

Contrary to what you might believe, I don't have to agree with everything about America to love America. And if I disagree with something this country is doing, I have every right to state that as my opinion, both publicly and privately.

Show me a clip where Obama and this minister are drawing a map, plotting an attack, and piecing together bombs in order to launch a terrorist attack, and I'll believe they are a terrorist organization. Don't show me a clip of a man that is angry at an unjust law, and try to convince me he is anti-America. That's just ludicrous. Typical...but ludicrous none the less...
 
jazzgeek said:
Saw that last night, and I ROFL'd as well!!!

And I think that President Obama has finally said something that we can ALL agree on, regardless of what side of the aisle you're on.....

Kanye West IS a jackass. :cheers:



Dale
Click to expand...
I know Kanye is a pop culture icon, and at the forefront of a musical genre that is frowned upon by many who just do not understand, but I feel for him. People have seen him recently have some public incidents, but I think it's a deeper outcry than just being desperate for attention. Some people may not know, but he lost his mother not that long ago to complications during surgery, and he has been a drastically different person since that point. I know that certain people can tolerate certain situations better than others, but he was VERY close to his mother, and this has a lot more to do with his behavior than just being a jackass.
I try not to judge people too harshly based on their main stream popularity, for better or worst. I love Kanye's 1st album, one of the greatest albums I've listened to. I consider myself a fan of his, but have noticed a great decline in the music he's been producing lately. He has expressed this erratic behavior on stage, on the TV, and through the drastic change in style of his music. I think it's a deep issue, and I really kind of feel bad for him, and think Obama should have been more careful about that issue, having been someone to unexpectedly lose their mother, just my opinion.
 
tyflier said:
I'm sorry, but if the loonies are taking over, and he doesn't want to be associated with them...don't associate with the club. If the club doesn't like them...don't allow them to associate, or disassocaite yourself. Seems quite simple to me

Yes...I question whether he is a racist, based solely and entirely on his participation in a club that is being taken over by racists. You're right. Even if it wasn't the case when he joined or when the club started, by your own admission, it is the case now. So if he chooses not to disassociate himself from the club...I question why. Legitimately, I question his motives for remaining associated with a club of this nature.
Click to expand...
One of the things I have been trying to say has been that they seem to be trying to disassociate those fringe members. If his membership was to do what the traditionalist side does why should he have to quit.

tyflier said:
They become benign the minute he disassociates himself from the "bad eggs".
Click to expand...
Again it appears they are trying to do that.

tyflier said:
And I really, REALLY do not want to debate the merits of questioning someone's motives with a conservative right now, and how those questions can often danmage a career and reputation. ONLY conservatives make it "questionable" to be a Muslim in the US. ONLY conservatives make it questionable to choose to not have a baby. ONLY conservatives make it questionable to be homosexual. Conservatives make a LIVING by destroying people's lives and reputations based on associations FAR less dangerous than this one. Cry me a river...
Click to expand...
Who are you talking about?

tyflier said:
I haven't seen any evidence outside of what you quoted from their website that supports this. I say seperate, or stifle. You can't alloow an association to continue, and than cry foul when you are associated. If I was friends with Charles Manson, and didn't want people questioning whether or not I supported him, I would stop being his friend. I wouldn;t continue to be his friend and than tell people they have no right to question whether or not I support him. He is my friend, it si VERY reasonable to assume I support him.
Click to expand...
Most of those quotes were NOT from the SCV website. All of the quotes about internal civil war and grannies and taken over, etc were from the external "experts" on the blog site jazz posted.

tyflier said:
And to repeat myself yet again...disassociate yourself. If the club I started grows into a club that I do not want to be associated with...I disassociate myself. It's really that simple. Doesn't matter what questions they ask me because I am no longer associated. Why am I no longer associated? Because I do not believe in or support the actions of that group. It's really, really that easy. If I continue to alloow myself to be associated with a "bad group"...whatever "punishment" I get from the public for that is purely and entirely my own fault for allowing the association to continue.

It all boils down to one very simple thing...it is HIS responsibility to disassociate himself from the fringe lunatics, not MY responsibility to "ask the right question".
Click to expand...
And to repeat myself it seems that is what they are trying to do unless statements like internal civil war, reject, etc are just warm fuzzy meeting minutes. Or are you saying the founders should just give up their org because of a rouge faction that formed and calls itself the John Wilkes Booth camp. Maybe your right that would be the easy way out to just give up on why the group was founded. Not to mention that is a naive thought about politics if you think it is that simple. How many politicians have failed or lost due to past ties no matter if they still exist.
 
Who really cares about Kanye's idiocy? Oh wait, I do... baaaah... baaaah... ooh! wait! There's a shiny thing over there!... baaaah... baaaah...
 
Roy Munson said:
That's ok. The sooner deism, tooth-fairy-ism, santa-clausism, pink unicorn-ism, and teapot-orbiting-Jupiterism dies, the better off we'll all be.
Click to expand...
Hey! You better learn to play the fat man and the winged fairy goddess pretty damn soon, baby!
 
LBoz said:
Hey! You better learn to play the fat man and the winged fairy goddess pretty damn soon, baby!
Click to expand...

The fat man and the tooth fairy don't give out gift cards, Hon! Don't try to instruct me in that game! There's no school like the old school... ;)
 
Roy Munson said:
The fat man and the tooth fairy don't give out gift cards, Hon! Don't try to instruct me in that game! There's no school like the old school... ;)
Click to expand...

Oh, but this is the new school and the new rule....learn it, live it, love it....or else....
 
Roy Munson said:
Who really cares about Kanye's idiocy? Oh wait, I do... baaaah... baaaah... ooh! wait! There's a shiny thing over there!... baaaah... baaaah...
Click to expand...
Hey, I don't care if you are a mod or not (whatever you decide this week anyway). I'm in charge of the sheep imagery around here and if you're going to try and horn in on my little corner of the website there's gonna be hell to pay. Not sure how or with what, but you better 'reconize! :devil01:

;)
D80
 
LBoz said:
Oh, but this is the new school and the new rule....learn it, live it, love it....or else....
Click to expand...

You crazy kids...

Hey, I don't care if you are a mod or not (whatever you decide this week anyway). I'm in charge of the sheep imagery around here and if you're going to try and horn in on my little corner of the website there's gonna be hell to pay. Not sure how or with what, but you better 'reconize! :devil01:
Click to expand...

I was born and mostly raised in Vermont, Brent. No matter how much Ewe try to Ram your exclusivity rights to sheep imagery down my throat, you can't pull the Wool over my eyes.
 
Pruddock said:
Under the same mindset you just mentioned, does this mean that maybe the people who accuse BO of being a terrorist, an extremist, and a racist have valid points after all and aren't being extreme in their own right? I mean, he went to a church for 20 years where the pastor spilled absolute filth about the American government and how the 9/11 attacks were something that was owed to our country.
Click to expand...

So, I'm not to "attack" your Christian faith, but it's fair game for you to attack Reverend Wright's Christian faith? Hypocrite!

Let's look at the context of Reverend Wright's (in)famous lines through the eyes of another black minister, who has a "mega-church" much like Wright's in Chicago. That minister is Reverend Kirbyjon Caldwell.

Who is Kirbyjon Caldwell, might you ask? He's the pastor of Houston's 14,000 member Windsor Village United Methodist Church, the largest United Methodist congregation in the country. In an interview with the ecumenical website beliefnet.com, Caldwell states:

BELIEFNET: Can you give an example of something Wright said that was “blown up” by the news media?

Caldwell: This whole G.D. America piece, that’s a great example. First of all, right after he says that, the next sentence, which they never play, says, “And that’s in the Bible.” Now, it’s not written that way in English, but the Hebraic expression basically says this: if America makes itself and views itself as God, and not Yahweh, or the Lord God Almighty as God, then America basically is committing adultery, and then America is darning itself.

He never said “I would D. America.” He was saying that when the government begins to worship itself, then there is a price to be paid, and you basically fall into that category whether you want to or not.

BELIEFNET: It sounds like you agree with the point he was making.

Caldwell: It’s not my role to agree or disagree with him, but I think it is my role to contextualize what, in fact, he was actually saying. No Christian that I know would agree that idolatry is acceptable to God, and clearly that’s a breach of the Ten Commandments, among other things. So, as I understand it, the point that Pastor Wright was making is that when America places itself--its own self in an idolatrous position, then you are basically positioning yourself for bad news….

Whenever you take a snippet here or a snippet there of anybody’s sermons or messages over a 20-, 30-year period, it’s real easy to mischaracterize them, including Jesus. If you just looked at part of his ministry and him hanging out with the so-called prostitutes, if you would, and saying, "Woe to the Pharisees," and, "The first shall be last, the last shall be first," you just pick up a lot of those snippets and miss the "Love your neighbor as yourself." You can pretty much pick and choose sayings of Jesus that present him any way you want to, going all the way back to his very birth. I mean, you could make his mother look like a woman of ill repute. You know, who is this 13, 14, 15-year-old girl running around here walking the streets at night by herself, talking about the Lord gave her a baby?
Click to expand...
In that light, I don't think Wright is "America-hating"....when you say "America, don't idolize yourself, or Yahweh will humble you", you're not "hating"....you're warning.

For the full interview with Caldwell on beliefnet.com, click here.

Full disclosure: Reverend Kirbyjon Caldwell, pastor of Windsor Village United Methodist Church, endorsed Barack Obama in the 2008 US Presidential election. Reverend Caldwell also introduced candidate George W. Bush at the 2000 Republican National convention, and delivered the benedictions at both the 2001 and 2005 Presidential Inaugurations. Reverend Caldwell was also the officiant at the wedding of President Bush's daughter, Jenna.


Dale
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top