Tuesday, January 29, 2008

SOTU Inspires Dyssomnia, Dipsomania

Every year I watch the State of the Union address, as well as the Super Bowl and the Academy Awards. Even this year, I'll watch the Super Bowl even though I couldn't tell you right now who's playing in it. I don't think I've watched one football game all the way through this year -- some years I watch a lot, I guess I was just busy this year. The Academy Awards, same thing, I see maybe three movies in a year, but I turn on the show, I cringe at their fake-surprise speeches. Actually, even though I don't see the movies I'm pretty good at predicting the winners -- it has as much to do with hype as actual content. I used to watch the Country Music Awards, back when. I guess I've missed it the last few years. Well, I don't even know who half of those people are any more.

So last night I tuned in the President's speech. I propped up my pillows against the headboard, pulled the heavy wool Navajo blanket up to my neck (for some reason I was freezing all day yesterday, anybody else?), and prepared to hear about the state of our great country. On TV I saw a guy in a suit smirking like he'd just shot the teacher in the butt with a spit-ball, and I think I heard some stuff about challenges ahead of us, and then I opened my eyes again and he was walking out of the room, shaking hands with people. I slept through the whole thing.

What could he have said? I saw a bumper sticker once that said something like, "Drunk Frat Boy Drives Country Into Ditch." Like, have you seen this chart of Bush's legacy, put out by Congressman Rahm Emanuel? CLICK HERE. Says it all, doesn't it? No, actually it doesn't say it all; it doesn't say anything about torture, warrantless wiretapping, habeas corpus, attacking and destroying random countries without provocation, the string of lies about everything under the sun, election dirty tricks, bribery and corruption, undermining science ... at least the chart cites the sources, so you can go back and see where the information came from.

Looking around the blogs this morning, it looks like just about everybody slept through this one. Oh, over at AmericaBlog they drank through it. Advice from A.J. at AmericaBlog after the speech:
Have a good night, and don't forget to drink lots of water before you go to bed tonight.

Hope you did. These have been some painful times.

At least I ended up getting a good night's sleep out of it.

31 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oops! I may have been wrong. Looks like TTF should be worried about CRC. Look at this from yesterday:

"We have 9300 raw signatures in hand !

Together we are showing the county council that it is not wise to ignore the will of the people who elected them."

This bathroom thing is getting big.

Huge.

January 29, 2008 1:54 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Jim said "for some reason I was freezing all day yesterday, anybody else?".

-37 this morning in Saskatoon Jim. Fortunately I don't have to go outside.

January 29, 2008 2:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I doubt they will lie to 3200 more people by February 4th. However, these people lie to get anything. I mean, they have lied to thousands of people already. I wonder what the public would think of you (and by you, I mean your CRW, Anon) if they knew you lied to them in order to get their signatures to promote and make hate legal.

Why don't you just move to Westboro, Anon? Maybe Montgomery County is too educated for you.

I mean, Montgomery County thinks, therefore is Democrat and BLUE.

January 29, 2008 3:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I doubt they will lie to 3200 more people by February 4th. However, these people lie to get anything. I mean, they have lied to thousands of people already. I wonder what the public would think of you (and by you, I mean your CRW, Anon) if they knew you lied to them in order to get their signatures to promote and make hate legal."

Well, what do they think of the lies that MCPS teachers are now required to tell?

The voters will tell the County Council a big truth if this thing gets voted on.

January 29, 2008 3:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon, MCPS teachers are not required to tell any lies. The Sex-Ed Curriculum is factual. The Bible does not have any place in the public school.

That is all you and your freak posse want to do: break the true division between Church and State to have your religious views part of the curriculum. You won't prevail. I know this, teachers know this, students know this and YOU know this.

Maybe you should join up with the freaks in Westboro. I am sure they could only help you and your ill-caused agenda.

Yes, if the transgender bill is voted on, it will be WORDED CORRECTLY AND TRUTHFULLY and the MC population will throw it right back into your face as it calls you and your freak squad flat-out liars.

January 29, 2008 3:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon, MCPS teachers are not required to tell any lies. The Sex-Ed Curriculum is factual."

No, it isn't.

"The Bible does not have any place in the public school."

Actually, it probably does. A student ignorant about one of the major forces in our history and world today is not prepared to take their place worthily in society. Still, no one is proposing teaching sex ed from the Bible.

"That is all you and your freak posse want to do: break the true division between Church and State"

Uh, Mr TM, the whole idea of seperation of Church and state was firstr introduced to the world by Jesus. He said things like "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and "My kingdom is not of this world." Most Christians agree with Jesus on this.

"to have your religious views part of the curriculum."

You know, this is interesting. As Jim pointed out the other day, TTF has actually received grants from churches. Why is their point of view not considered religious and CRC's is? Truth is, this whole thing has nothing to do with religion other than allowing freedom of religion.

"You won't prevail. I know this, teachers know this, students know this and YOU know this."

Perhaps. But why do you guys always seem so scared then?

January 29, 2008 3:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scared? TTF? Nope. We are not the ones running around like chickens with our heads cut off trying to trick people into signing a hate-based petition.

TTF also does not set up a hoax to scare people. Perhaps CRW(eridos) should try taking after G.W. Bush by using fear tactics and lies to gain respect. Sickening.

January 29, 2008 4:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We are not the ones running around like chickens with our heads cut off trying to trick people into signing a hate-based petition."

No, you're the ones lurking in the shadows following these headless chickens around.

January 29, 2008 4:22 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Red Baron said "Actually, [the bible] probably does [have a place in the school].

You don't need a bible in the school to teach people about the evils caused by religion. The bible doesn't deserve a place in schools over and above the koran or Hinduisms holy text.

January 29, 2008 4:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You don't need a bible in the school to teach people about the evils caused by religion. The bible doesn't deserve a place in schools over and above the koran or Hinduisms holy text."

Well, yes it does because it explains how our society got to be what it is. Islam amd Hinduism should be studied too but not in as much depth because they are as not as key to the development of our civilization.

It's unbelievable that any atheist would have the nerve to discuss the evils of religion when the twentieth century is a case study for what happens when human nature is left unrestrained by religious influence. It's a good thing ghosts aren't real or else you'd be haunted by the souls of the hundreds of millions murdered by the three big atheists: Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

January 29, 2008 4:36 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Hitler was a Christian you liar. The Nazis had "Gott mit uns" (god with us) on their belt buckles. Stalin's and Mao's atheism didn't motivate them to murder anyone any more than their being men motivated them to murder people. Most of the people who died under Mao's and Stalin's reigns weren't murdered, they died of starvation because of misguided agricultural reforms. Only the religious murdered in the name of religion and Hitler was chief amongst them:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm


My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922


It matters not whether these weapons of ours are humane: if they gain us our freedom, they are justified before our conscience and before our God.

-Adolf Hitler, in Munich, 01 Aug. 1923

We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls.... We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Passau, 27 October 1928, Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

Take a look at these photos showing the deep Christian beliefs of Nazis and the Catholic churches whole-hearted support of Hitler. Note in particular the signing of the Concordat between the Vatican and the Nazis and Catholic Biships giving the Nazi salute in honour of Hitler.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm


Note these photos of the Nazi "god with us" belt buckle and the Nazi medals prominantly displaying the Christian cross

http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm

And you've got the nerve to try and lie like that and try to blame Hitler on atheists when his Christian heritage is so prominent and well documented. You have no shame, truth and honesty mean nothing to you its clear. You're a classic liar-for-jesus. There's too much evidence for you to re-write history, Hitler was a Christian and the anti-science church persecuted Galileo.

January 29, 2008 4:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would still like an answer to my question.

Does TTF feel that Barney Frank is the new religous right ?

Yes or no ?

Theresa

January 29, 2008 5:00 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Red Baron said "Well, yes [the bible] does [belong in schools] because it explains how our society got to be what it is. Islam amd Hinduism should be studied too but not in as much depth because they are as not as key to the development of our civilization."

Religion has overwhelmingly been a negative force in the world. Religion is at the heart of virtually all global conflict. We don't need to study religion per se, but merely to make children aware of it as cautionary tale as to what happens when you believe without evidence and place imaginary characters in higher esteem then your fellow human beings. That's why people fly planes into buildings.

January 29, 2008 5:01 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Theresa, Barney Frank is a traitor to trans-people everywhere.

January 29, 2008 5:02 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

And Theresa, you haven't answered my question. If you claim to be against promiscuity why don't you support marriage for same sex couples. And don't give me this lie about marriage having declined in those countries that have same sex unions - that's a lie, the opposite has happened:

"There is no evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry weakens the
institution. If anything, the numbers indicate the opposite. A decade after
Denmark, Norway and Sweden passed their respective partnership laws,
heterosexual marriage rates had risen 10.7% in Denmark; 12.7% in Norway; and a
whopping 28.8% in Sweden. In Denmark over the last few years, marriage rates
are the highest they've been since the early 1970s. Divorce rates among
heterosexual couples, on the other hand, have fallen. A decade after each
country passed its partnership law, divorce rates had dropped 13.9% in
Denmark; 6% in Norway; and 13.7% in Sweden. On average, divorce rates among
heterosexuals remain lower now than in the years before same-sex partnerships
were legalized."

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/11/gay_marriage_helps_straight_ma.php

January 29, 2008 5:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And you've got the nerve to try and lie like that and try to blame Hitler on atheists when his Christian heritage is so prominent and well documented. You have no shame, truth and honesty mean nothing to you its clear. You're a classic liar-for-jesus. There's too much evidence for you to re-write history, Hitler was a Christian"

Actually, he wasn't and that fact has been clearly documented. As has been consistently revealed by all memoirists who knew him privately, he hated Christianity and, like Randi, consider it weak. He sought to replace it with something called "positive Christianity" which wasn't related to Jesus anymore than the Muslims who misappropriate his name.

As Hitler concedes in his book, Mein Kampf, his public statements were all propaganda to consolidate power. All these statements pulled out by atheists using Christian symbolism all preceded his full assumption of power. You won't find anything like it after 1937.

"and the anti-science church persecuted Galileo."

As we have already discussed, the church admired and respected Galileo. He got into trouble not because of his scientific theories but because he ridiculed the Pope and tried to write theological treatises about the extent of literalism in scripture without clearing it with the church. The church at the time was trying to compete with the claims of rising Protestantism and was nervous about new interpretations of scripture.

In any case, his treatment was mild. His sentence was house arrest of a kind but he was allowed to travel and continue to research, write and publish papers. The real point was he was forbidden to promote heliocentrism.

BTW, his proofs of heliocentrism were inaccurate. The church was right when he ruled he didn't have proof. It's a fallacy to judge a historic figure by what we know now instead of what was known then. And while it may seem harsh to forbid someone to teach an unproven theory, isn't that exactly what liberals say they have done to a teacher in Dover, Pennsylvania who dared to teach a theory he personally believed, intelligence design? What would be the difference?

January 29, 2008 5:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

.R. 2015: Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007


3) CERTAIN SHARED FACILITIES- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
establish an unlawful employment practice based on actual or perceived
gender identity due to the denial of access to shared shower or dressing
facilities in which being seen fully unclothed is unavoidable, provided that
the employer provides reasonable access to adequate facilities that are not
inconsistent with the employee's gender identity as established with the
employer at the time of employment or upon notification to the employer that
the employee has undergone or is undergoing gender transition, whichever is
later

SEC. 6. EXEMPTION FOR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) In General- This Act shall not apply to any of the employment practices
of a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society
which has as its primary purpose religious ritual or worship or the teaching
or spreading of religious doctrine or belief.
(b) Certain Employees- For any religious corporation, association,
educational institution, or society that is not wholly exempt under
subsection (a), this Act shall not apply with respect to the employment of
individuals whose primary duties consist of teaching or spreading religious
doctrine or belief, religious governance, supervision of a religious order,
supervision of persons teaching or spreading religious doctrine or belief,
or supervision or participation in religious ritual or worship.
(c) Conformity to Religious Tenets- Under this Act, a religious corporation,
association, educational institution, or society may require that applicants
for, and employees in, similar positions conform to those religious tenets
that such corporation, association, institution, or society declares
significant. Under this Act, such a declaration by a religious corporation,
association, educational institution or society stating which of its
religious tenets are significant shall not be subject to judicial or
administrative review. Any such declaration made for purposes of this Act
shall be admissible only for proceedings under this Act.


The "shared nudity" language was suggested by Barney Frank. So he is the new religous right for suggesting this language ?

I take Randi says he's a traitor.. Jim paints us as "wanting to keep discrimination in place"...

we are just asking for the privacy rights of womens and girls to be protected and some good ole common sense. did you konw that it is against a Muslim women's religion to expose herself to any male ... even to wash ? So you have just violated the religous rights of Muslim women across the county to accomodate 30 trans folks. Yep, seems fair to me... there are what - probably 6000 Muslim women ?

If a person has a penis, and is biologically male, ladies do not want them in their changing areas.
the council should have spelled that out. They didn't. We define "men" - as male chromosones and a penis - though I realize that is terrible old fashioned and unenlightened of me.
And we are not lying about the signature count.

I won't be replying again because I am little busy right now.

Theresa

January 29, 2008 5:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's think for a minute.

Why is it that TTF believes men who like to dress like women should be able to use the girls' room? It's basically because they feel uncomfortable using the men's room.

Why is it that CRC believes men who like to dress like women should not use the women's room? It's basically because it would make girls and young women feel uncomfortable.

So, the issue is: whose feelings of safety and comfort is more important: guys who like to dress like girls or young girls?

I've got a hunch which way the voters will go if given a chance to vote.

What does everyone else think?

January 29, 2008 5:52 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Red Baron said "As has been consistently revealed by all memoirists who knew him privately, he hated Christianity and, like Randi, consider it weak.".

Nonsense. Again and again and again Hitler affirmed his Christianity throughout his life.

Red Baron said "As Hitler concedes in his book, Mein Kampf, his public statements were all propaganda to consolidate power.".

Another baseles assertion, no surprise you don't have anything to back up this wild claim.

Red Baron said "All these statements pulled out by atheists using Christian symbolism all preceded his full assumption of power. You won't find anything like it after 1937.".

You couldn't be more wrong. Why don't you actually read something about Hitler besides Christian propaganda?

National Socialism is not a cult-movement-- a movement for worship; it is exclusively a 'volkic' political doctrine based upon racial principles. In its purpose there is no mystic cult, only the care and leadership of a people defined by a common blood-relationship.... We will not allow mystically-minded occult folk with a passion for exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement. Such folk are not National Socialists, but something else-- in any case something which has nothing to do with us. At the head of our programme there stand no secret surmisings but clear-cut perception and straightforward profession of belief. But since we set as the central point of this perception and of this profession of belief the maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by God, we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a divine will-- not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship, but openly before the face of the Lord.... Our worship is exclusively the cultivation of the natural, and for that reason, because natural, therefore God-willed. Our humility is the unconditional submission before the divine laws of existence so far as they are known to us men.
-Adolf Hitler, in Nuremberg on 6 Sept. 1938.

The National Socialist Movement has wrought this miracle. If Almighty God granted success to this work, then the Party was His instrument.
-Adolf Hitler, in his proclamation to the German People on 01 Jan. 1939

I] never lost my belief, in the midst of setbacks which were not spared me during my period of struggle. Providence has had the last word and brought me success.

-Adolf Hitler, speech of 23 Nov. 1939


It would be easier for the Devil to go to church and cross himself with holy water than for these people to comprehend the ideas which are accepted facts to us today.

-Adolf Hitler, 10 Dec. 1940, in Berlin

Only when the entire German people become a single community of sacrifice can we expect and hope that Almighty God will help us. The Almighty has never helped a lazy man. He does not help the coward. He does not help a people that cannot help itself.

The principle applies here, help yourselves and Almighty God will not deny you his assistance.

-Adolf Hitler, in a broadcast from Berlin, 03 Oct.1941

The Lord of the Universe has treated us so well in the past years that we bow in gratitude to a providence which has allowed us to be members of such a great nation. We thank Him that we also can be entered with honor into the ever-lasting book of German history!

-Adolf Hitler, on 11 Dec.1941 before the Reichstag

May therefore God give us the strength to continue to do our duty and with this prayer we bow in homage before our dead heroes, before those whom they have left behind in bereavement, and before all the other victims of this war.

-Adolf Hitler, in prayer at the end of a radio address on 15 March 1942.

Few people can begin to imagine the fate which would have overtaken Germany had the assassination attempt succeeded. I myself thank Providence and my Creator not for preserving me - my life consists only of worry and work for my People - I thank him only for allowing me to continue to bear this burden of worry, and to carry on my work to the best of my ability.


-Adolf Hitler, speaking about the attempt to kill him, in a radio broadcast on 20 July 1944


In vowing ourselves to one another, we are entitled to stand before the Almighty and ask Him for His grace and His blessing. No people can do more than that everybody who can fight, fights, and that everybody who can work, works, and that they all sacrifice in common, filled with but one thought: to safeguard freedom and national honor and thus the future of life.

-Adolf Hitler, in a radio address, 30 Jan. 1945

Obviously the claim that Hitler was ever an atheist is an outrageous lie. The Christians, understandably so, don't want to accept one of their own as the evil Christian tyrant he was.

Red Baron said "As we have already discussed, the church admired and respected Galileo. He got into trouble not because of his scientific theories but because he ridiculed the Pope and tried to write theological treatises about the extent of literalism in scripture without clearing it with the church.".

Another lie. The Pope had an international group of consultants, experienced scholars of theology and canon law, who advised it on specific questions. In 1616 these consultants gave their assessment of the propositions that the Sun is immobile and at the center of the universe and that the Earth moves around it, judging both to be "foolish and absurd in philosophy," and the first to be "formally heretical" and the second "at least erroneous in faith" in theology. This assessment led to Copernicus's De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium to be placed on the Index of Forbidden Books, until revised and Galileo Galilei to be admonished about his Copernicanism. It was this same body in 1633 that tried Galileo, condemned him for a "grave suspicion of heresy", and banned all his works. Galileo died under house arrest.

The Church most definitely wasn't on the side of science, science is open to questioning conclusions and the churchs actions were the very antithesis of this. Scientists don't convict people they disagree with of heresy and imprison them. Scientists don't order people they disagree with to recant their ideas as the church did with galileo, scientists don't bar people from promoting their ideas as the church did with Galileo, Scientists don't ban the publication of theories they don't agree with and they don't ban the publication of any future works by someone they disagree with, all actions taken by the church. The church most certainly wasn't on the side of science.

The Inquisition's ban on reprinting Galileo's works was lifted in 1718 when permission was granted to publish an edition of his works (excluding the condemned Dialogue) in Florence.[67] In 1741 Pope Benedict XIV authorized the publication of an edition of Galileo's complete scientific works[68] which included a mildly censored version of the Dialogue.[69] In 1758 the general prohibition against works advocating heliocentrism was removed from the Index of prohibited books, although the specific ban on uncensored versions of the Dialogue and Copernicus's De Revolutionibus remained.[70] All traces of official opposition to heliocentrism by the Church didn't disappear until 1835 when these works were finally dropped from the Index.[71]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei


Red Baron said "And while it may seem harsh to forbid someone to teach an unproven theory, isn't that exactly what liberals say they have done to a teacher in Dover, Pennsylvania who dared to teach a theory he personally believed, intelligence design? What would be the difference?".

Big difference. The church forced Galileo to recant his ideas under penalty of death. The teacher in Dover was only prevented from presenting his theory in schools whereas Galileo was banned from presenting his theory to anyone, had ALL his non-related work banned, and prevented from publishing any future work and was imprisoned to boot. Not even close to the same thing. Unlike Galileo's heliocentric theory "intelligent design" doesn't make any testable predictions and isn't falsifiable, therefore by scientific standards it isn't science.

January 29, 2008 6:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As Jim pointed out the other day, TTF has actually received grants from churches. Why is their point of view not considered religious and CRC's is?

TTF's point of view is not considered religious because it isn't religious! There is no "Faith Positions" section on the TTF website but there is one on CRW's. TTF supports "a 21st century sex education curriculum for MCPS students. While continuing to stress the importance of abstinence for teens, we support a new curriculum that will expand upon the old one by providing our students with current knowledge about how to protect themselves, based on the latest science and advice from the medical and scientific communities. Also, based on mainstream science, we support a new curriculum that recognizes that sexual orientation is not a choice, and that homosexuality is not a disease. " There's nothing religious about those points of view, unless maybe you think like Anon does that Christianity is responsible for the fact that science exists at all. The view that homosexuality is not a choice or a disease is held by the AMA, both APAs, AAP and most other medical and mental health professional organizations.

Theresa, whose role is apparently to play the pouter today (not the outraged female at Rio) whined I would still like an answer to my question.

Does TTF feel that Barney Frank is the new religous right ?

Yes or no ?

Theresa


Theresa, in case you haven't figured it out yet, TTF is here to support the revision of MCPS's sex education curriculum, not to opine about Barney Frank.

Anon said And while it may seem harsh to forbid someone to teach an unproven theory, isn't that exactly what liberals say they have done to a teacher in Dover, Pennsylvania who dared to teach a theory he personally believed, intelligence design?

No. As Judge Jones stated, ID is not a scientific theory but a religious argument and that's why he ruled 1. A declaratory judgment is hereby issued in favor of Plaintiffs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 such that Defendants’ ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Art. I, § 3 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
2. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, Defendants are permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District.


http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

January 29, 2008 6:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Theresa, I can tell you one thing: I think you are the face of the presence of evil on this earth. Judge and ye shall be judged.

I think the new religous right has a LOT to do with your friends in Westboro. You guys should join up and have a little "God Hates Fags" party. Isn't that what you people do on the weekends? I personally tend to grade papers or go out to see a movie or observe new exhibits at museums. I am just trying to understand your special "being".

I tend to be a pretty happy guy not hating on minorities on the weekend. You should try it, Theresa, et. al.

January 29, 2008 6:29 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Theresa said "we are just asking for the privacy rights of womens and girls to be protected and some good ole common sense".

That's a red herring. You're not concerned about this in the slightest, its just the only plausible sounding excuse you could come up with for promoting discrimination against trans-people.

What your demanding would see female to male transgenders, people with beards and presenting as men in your changing areas and we know you would hate that. You aren't concerned about it because just as with trans-women you know the odds are that you're NEVER going to encounter a transperson in the ladies changing area.

January 29, 2008 6:33 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Theresa,

I come back to you with the same points --again. You're an engineer; you should know how to think.

"Biologically male" -- define that for me. Having a penis doesn't make you male. There are males without penises, and females with them, depending on how you define "biological."

You choose to believe that anyone with a penis is a male, but medicine and science disagree with you. More importantly, you seem to think that persons with vulva and without penises are women, so I dare you to admit that you're ok with trans men using the women's locker room. You can't, because it would twist you into knots. I've challenged you on this time and time again, and you've ignored me.

You know there is no threat to women anywhere, unless it is a threat you've (crudely) manufactured. Trans women simply don't expose themselves to other women or men. End of story.

The law as it is written is no different than Barney's exemption. Period. Transitioning women arrange temporary accommodations until transition is complete. You know this, but you're just interested in being hateful.

As for Muslim women, I have no desire to make their lives difficult. You are the one doing so, by calling trans women "men." Spread lies, and you harm those whom you purport to defend. If a Muslim woman chooses to ignore science and recoils from a trans woman, she can ask for her own accommodations, which I am sure Rio Sport and Health will be happy to provide.

I know you're busy. You're not stupid, just willfully ignorant, so you know that if, indeed, you have 9300 raw signatures (which I don't believe for a moment) you would have no more than 6500 valid signatures. That means you have five days to double your output, and then another two weeks to do it again. And I'm sure the Board of Elections, in the midst of primary season, must be thrilled at your shenanigans.

All this over 30 trans women, the vast majority of whom don't belong to health clubs. Wow! I never knew we had such power.

January 29, 2008 6:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I completely agree, Dana.

Strange how Theresa is obsessed with seeing people naked. Kinda wacko..but then again, we are talking about CRW(ackos). Makes sense.

January 29, 2008 6:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Obviously the claim that Hitler was ever an atheist is an outrageous lie."

But he was, Randi. It has been attested to by everyone who knew him. He made repeated private remarks about how he wanted to destroy Christianity because it was weak with its ideas of compassion and equality. He drew on and combined the ideas of Darwin and Nietzke to formulate a morality of the strong deserving to win.

Thanks for proving my point that he only feigned Christianity for public consumption in order to consolidate power. As I stated, he only used Christian nomenclature early in his career to help consolidate his power and conceded that his public statements were propaganda for this purpose. Every quote you provided was in a public address and only referred to a kind of general monotheism. He agreed with Nietzke that religion was doomed and man would return to an animal state were the strongest would win. His attempt to spread his materialist point of view was probably the greatest outbreak of evil in the history of the world. He was a materialist who deeply believed in the power of science to save the world. Just like you.

January 29, 2008 7:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Red Baron said "As Hitler concedes in his book, Mein Kampf, his public statements were all propaganda to consolidate power.".

Another baseles assertion, no surprise you don't have anything to back up this wild claim."

Randi

See the Houghton Mifflin 1999 edition of Mein Kampf, page 65.

January 29, 2008 8:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea-not anon
so RECALL/SHOWER got 9300 people to sign petitions. Some are bigots, some are dumb,some have no idea what they signed(and I bet some can't vote in MC). Montgomery County voters will not fall for this crap. There are some number of Republicans in MC(and I know most of those won't fall for this nonsense)- they haven't been able to get anyone elected for some time. This election won't be any better for them and certainly much worse for the pathetic bigots of Shower Recall.

January 29, 2008 8:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Theresa said, "I won't be replying again because I am little busy right now."


______

Theresa a little busy reading or considering posting here again?

http://www.digg.com/users/theresa4586/history

Theresa Rickman (theresa4586)
A 45 year-old lady from Kensington, MD (US) who joined Digg on November 2nd, 2007

http://www.digg.com/users/theresa4586/


Ted

January 29, 2008 9:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Fine Print
With President Bush, you always have to read the footnotes.

Just before Monday night’s State of the Union speech, in which Mr. Bush extolled bipartisanship, railed against government excesses and promised to bring the troops home as soon as it’s safe to withdraw, the White House undermined all of those sentiments with the latest of the president’s infamous signing statements.

The signing statements are documents that earlier presidents generally used to trumpet their pleasure at signing a law, or to explain how it would be enforced. More than any of his predecessors, the current chief executive has used the pronouncements in a passive-aggressive way to undermine the power of Congress.

Over the last seven years, Mr. Bush has issued hundreds of these insidious documents declaring that he had no intention of obeying a law that he had just signed. This is not just constitutional theory. Remember the detainee treatment act, which Mr. Bush signed and then proceeded to ignore, as he told C.I.A. interrogators that they could go on mistreating detainees?

This week’s statement was attached to the military budget bill, which covers everything except the direct cost of the war. The bill included four important provisions that Mr. Bush decided he will enforce only if he wants to.

The president said they impinged on his constitutional powers. We asked the White House to explain that claim, but got no answer, so we’ll do our best to figure it out.

The first provision created a commission to determine how reliant the government is on contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, how much waste, fraud and abuse has occurred and what has been done to hold accountable those who are responsible. Congress authorized the commission to compel government officials to testify.

Perhaps this violated Mr. Bush’s sense of his power to dole out contracts as he sees fit and to hold contractors harmless. The same theory applies to the second provision that Mr. Bush said he would not obey: a new law providing protection against reprisal to those who expose waste, fraud or abuse in wartime contracts.

The third measure Mr. Bush rejected requires intelligence officials to respond to a request for documents from the Armed Services Committees of Congress within 45 days, either by producing the documents or explaining why they are being withheld. Clearly, this violates the power that Mr. Bush has given himself to cover up an array of illegal and improper actions, like his decisions to spy on Americans without a warrant, to torture prisoners in violation of the Geneva Conventions and to fire United States attorneys apparently for political reasons.

It’s glaringly obvious why Mr. Bush rejected the fourth provision, which states that none of the money authorized for military purposes may be used to establish permanent military bases in Iraq.

It is more evidence, as if any were needed, that Mr. Bush never intended to end this war, and that he still views it as the prelude to an unceasing American military presence in Iraq.

January 30, 2008 7:24 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Red Baron said "But [hitler] was [an atheist], Randi. It has been attested to by everyone who knew him.".

The preposterous nature of your lies makes it obvious that they are just that, lies. The only anti-Christian statements purportedly made by Hitler are in the highly questionable "table Talk" which was edited by the anti-Christian Borman. Not one of Hitler's table talk conversations were recorded or captured by audio tape, film, or broadcast over radio airwaves and none of the original transcripts survive.

Hitler reluctantly allowed Martin Bormann to pick stenographers (Heim, Piker) to record the conversations. It was Bormann's idea to record Hitler's thoughts in the first place. In a facsimile written after the last of Hitler's recorded table talk, Bormann wrote a directive that stated:

"Please keep these notes most carefully, as they will be of very great value in the future. I have now got Heim to make comprehensive notes as a basis for these minutes. Any transcript which is not quite apposite will be re-checked by me."

"Apposite" means, fitting; suitable; appropriate. Exactly what Bormann means by "re-checked" can only be speculated upon. However, it bears importance here that neither Heim nor Bormann could hardly be in a position to determine what deems apposite, considering Bormann's biased views against Catholicism. Should we take it as simply coincidence that the church denouncements by Hitler in the Table-Talk parallel the anti-church sentiments of Martin Bormann, but nowhere else?


Bormann secretly worked against the Catholica behind Hitler's back and without Hitler's permission. The fight against the church organizations were Bormann's projects. In spite of Bormann's repeated attempts to persuade Hitler to act against the Churches, Hitler never did. He only acted against Christians who opposed him.


Nowhere in Table Talk did Hitler denounce Jesus, in fact in places he speaks glowingly of him and no where did he renounce his Christianity. Dr. Picker regarded his own recording as authentic and insisted that "no confidence can be placed in Bormann's editing of it." Indeed, he writes, rather testily, of "Bormann's alterations, not authorised by me." [Trevor-Roper, p.viii]. Unfortunately, we do not have the unaltered version of Dr. Picker's or Heim's recordings.

Table Talk wasn't published until 1952 well after the war and Hitler's death. It was published by Francois Genoud a Swiss banker who claimed to be a Nazi, but his real motivations are highly questionable. He was known to peddle in many so-called Nazi texts, not a few of which have proven to be complete forgeries. He claimed he bought the manuscript from an Italian official in 1948, who purportedly acquired it from Bormann's wife Gerda, who went to Italy after the war.


The Table-Talk reflects thoughts that do not occur in Hitler's other private or public conversations. Table-Talk does not concur with Hitler's actions for "positive" Christianity. Hitler was consistent about being a Christian and never in any reliable source claimed to be an atheist.


Red Baron said "Every quote you provided was in a public address and only referred to a kind of general monotheism".

No, many of the quotes speak of Jesus - go back and read the link - all of it. And atheists don't speak of a "general monotheism". Hitler was obviously not an atheist. Your pathetic shameful denial of the truth emphasizes your dishonesty.

Red Baron said "He was a materialist who deeply believed in the power of science to save the world. Just like you.".

He was clearly a Christian. And I don't believe science is going to save the world. If anything does it will be the philosophy of "Do whatever you want as long as you don't interfere in anyone else's right to do the same".

Red Baron said "See the Houghton Mifflin 1999 edition of Mein Kampf, page 65.".

Why that edition and not any other? Show me a link from a non-christian source with the full text of the quote - until then you're nothing but hot air.

January 30, 2008 1:01 PM  
Blogger David Stark said...

Great piece of writing, I really liked the way you highlighted some really important and significant points. Thanks so much, I appreciate your work.
Nashville Addiction Treatment

May 26, 2022 12:23 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home