[Masthead] Mostly Cloudy ~ 75°F  
High: 85°F ~ Low: 63°F
Thursday, July 24, 2014

Using Tragedy for Personal Gain

Posted Tuesday, January 11, 2011, at 10:31 AM

I am sure you all are aware of the shooting that took place in Arizona over the weekend, where a lone gunman killed six people, including a nine year girl, and wounded fourteen others. Do you also know that many people, which included some politicians and the sheriff of Tucson, immediately began pointing fingers at groups such as the Republicans and the Tea Party, saying that their negative comments of our government were the cause of this tragedy? Why? Do you think these people are concerned with the real reason this tragedy happened and want to take steps to try to avoid future similar incidents or are they merely jumping at a prime opportunity to thrust themselves into the spotlight so that their opinion can be heard? I believe they just want to be heard and gain recognition. They have no concern for the people involved; they are only interested in self gain. What do you think?


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

I had posted this on the other blog, but it seems to have more revelence here.

The news clip that they refuse to show on Fox News is the interview with Rep. Gabrielle Giffords where she voiced her concerns about Sarah Palin targeting her with the crosshairs of a gun scope.

We can all agree that the guy that shot Giffords was crazy. But when political leaders use gun analogies and gun imagery as a metaphor when they make their political points, it can have consequences.

Giffords Tea Party opponent, Republican Jesse Kelly, actually had a rally where he invited his supporters out to shoot a M-16 assault rifle to "Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office".

Sarah Palin asks her supporters to "Don't Retreat, Reload" as she points rifle crosshairs at Giffords district.

The windows of Rep. Giffords office had been shot out. And people still wonder where this guy got his crazy idea to shoot her?

-- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 10:37 AM

When people spout violent reference towards others in a climate such as political one we have now, if they do not have the wisdom to realize that it is possible that some mentally challenged person may take action on their words, they have no right to be a leader they show lack of judgment. Weather or not this guy acted on the cries to violence from the tea party and some key figures (or for that any other person right or left who would make those violent references) it is only a matter of time before some one does act on their cry to use the 2nd amendment,to lock and reload, to take out targets or what ever violent action they actions suggest. There are unstable people, always will be - there are better intelligent ways to cal people to support you that do not have to use violent possibly deadly methods. We should be above the if you can't beat them kill them ,battle cry - come together and work things out folks don't call for war tactics.We are above the mentality of countries like that and should not be lowering ourselves to their level.

I wonder if this man would have or did have access to mental heath care?

-- Posted by wonderwhy on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 10:59 AM

"When people spout violent reference towards others in a climate such as political one we have now, if they do not have the wisdom to realize that it is possible that some mentally challenged person may take action on their words, they have no right to be a leader they show lack of judgment." - wonderwhy

You're absolutely right, so the person that said "Republican victory would mean 'hand to hand combat'" shouldn't be a leader either, in your opinion?

-- Posted by Thom on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 11:21 AM

I believe the cross hairs of the gun scope targeted the district itself and not specifically Rep. Giffords and while this might not have been the brightest idea, I still don't see how we can place blame on others for the action of someone who appears to be mentally unbalanced. Reports indicate that Mr. Loughner meet Rep. Giffords at a 2007 event where he asked her a question and did not like her response and has held a grudge about it since.

-- Posted by Rodney Simmons on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 11:22 AM

Thom, don't be foolish, he did not put a target, he did not call for weapons - your grasping at republican straws to cover the fannies of some of your very foolish leaders who intentionally meant to make violent comments to sound like tough gun toting big shots. You know very well the difference in the intent of each of the comments you are not a stupid man, so do not lower yourself to sounding like one. There is a big difference from what Obama said and some guy taking out a assault weapon and shooting it while referring to take some one out of office.

-- Posted by wonderwhy on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 11:55 AM

We may never know the real reason that this wacko (Loughner) went on his shooting spree and specifically targeted Rep. Giffords.

But, you would have to agree that this "call to arms" rhetoric from conservative political leaders does not help.

You asked why people may point fingers at Republicans and Tea Party members?

Besides the two examples that I gave in my first post, let me give you a few more.

How about Rep. Michele Bachman (R-Minn.), who now leads the tea party caucus in the House, who called for her supporters to lead a "revolution" and be "armed and dangerous"?

Or the Chief of Staff for Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), a tea party candidate, telling his supporters that "I've never in my life thought that the day would come that I would tell individual citizens that you are responsible for being the militia that the Founding Fathers designed -- they were very specific".

"If ballots don't work, then bullets will."

How can anyone be suprised that a tragedy like this could happen when you have elected officals practically calling for it?

While Sharron Angle was running for the U.S. Senate seat held by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) last year, she raised the prospect of armed insurrection: "If this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies".

When President Obama was holding town hall meetings on healthcare, right-wing nuts started showing up with assault rifles.

It was just a matter of time before this rhetoric triggered some nut-job to act out. I'm not saying that this is what caused the shooting in Tucson, but nobody knows for sure.

And this kind of talk surely doesn't help. These words can have terrible consequences.

-- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 12:12 PM

I can't see how anyone can blame someone else for their own actions. The path of responsibility for this incident is clear and it ends with the shooter.

I think the silence from the media on the shooters motivation speaks volumes. The first question anybody would have when something like this occurs is., why? I am sure that answer has been obtained from the shooter at this point already, although it may not have been an answer that they want to report.

There are many comments and analogies made by everyone who has an opinion. That is the nature of free speech. These types of events are often pointed to and used for justication in increasing government control. The loss of life and the suffering of the family and friends of these victims can never be erased. Similarly, the loss of freedoms that those who rationalize a govt. solution cannot be replaced either.

To place the blame for one persons action onto another (with the possible exception of a chain of command)is to perpetuate injustice. The old saying that "two wrongs don't make a right" is true. It only deepens and empassions the problem.

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 12:17 PM

April 12, 1861 should be a date or at least year the everyone in this country should know. It was the date of the start of the Civil War, the war know as the "war between the states." I keep reading comments that politics are more violent now than ever in our history, we need more gun control, or speech control. I personally don't think politics are any different now than when we fought a 4 year war over states rights over 150 years ago. During this war at least 618,000 were killed, and many more were injured, not including property that was destroyed. We also have always had mentally unbalanced people around that do stupid things (not usually homicidal), that we can't blame on politics. Will we ever really know what this young man was thinking, most likely not. Will our politicians quit jumping on the bandwagon or placing themselves in the spot light? I doubt it, if our history is any evidence.

-- Posted by Sharon22 on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 12:18 PM

wonderwhy - So it's ok when democrats use violent rhetoric, but not when republicans use it? Sorry, but "hand to hand combat" has a certain violent ring to it. Just because Obama didn't have a weapon in his hand when he said it, it's the same thing. I'm not saying the person that took people to a range while saying they must get her out of office are any better, I'm just saying they're not worse. She was a gun-rights advocate and gun owner, herself. By the way, EVERY weapon is an "assault weapon". It's ridiculous to say that one is more of an assault weapon than another since they all serve the same purpose. Stop using your liberal slant on everything.

The fact is that this man, whatever his political leanings, acted on his own and the liberals are trying to accuse the republicans and the Tea Party of being accomplices to this tragedy.

-- Posted by Thom on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 1:00 PM

O.K., so let's say that all this "call to arms" rhetoric coming from Republican leaders was not the cause of the shooting in Tucson.

Still, what can the effect be when Rep. Giffords Republican opponent holds a rally to shoot an M-16 assault rifle to "Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office"?

Another Republican congressional candidate did the same thing in Florida.

When Robert Lowery ran for congress against democrat Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, he held a "Republican target shooting event" where he fired an assault rifle at a silhouette with her name on the head.

And then something like this happens in Tucson and some people are suprised?

Do you really think that this kind of stuff doesn't effect people?

-- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 1:12 PM

Why don't we just blame Hollywood and all those violent video game makers for all the violence in the country? Don't these have the same suggestive substance, and even more, as campaign rhetoric?

People are influenced by other people, true!. Yet it is the responsiblity of each for his own actions. "The pen is mighter than the sword" they say, but how many have died by the point of the pen? Rather it is he that wields the sword that is responsible for the action of the sword. Unless that person (such as a soldier) is taking commands from the one who holds the pen. Who commands the soldier but the one with the pen? But if the sword bearer is not ruled by the one with the pen, then who bears the responsiblity?

Does it ease the minds of some to place blame where they would like it placed, instead of where it belongs? Have the politicians and media so divided this country that all that can come from a terrible incident like this is fault finding and blame on their perceived opposition?

Where can condemnation of free speech lead but to the abolition of free speech? If there is censure, then who is to censore? By what degree? What punishment? Etc., Etc., Etc.,

These are but a few questions that have to be answered when legislation begins to take hold of our freedoms.

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 1:52 PM

Valentine and Wonderwhy -

You two have made reasonable and important points. The admission that the shooter was transparently unstable is a tacit fact. All parties agree. Conservatives (adittedly generalizing) are characteristically unreasonable on such issues. The position that culture, society, and celebrity notables DON'T have any influence on people's actions is ignominiously wrong. To what degree do these aspects affect individuals? Well, in short, we can't say with any objective certitude. But people in a position of power or authority should always be aware of their actions. People will not always agree, but all parties involved should nevertheless approach any vocal decision with care.

The vitriolic nature of the bipartisan landscape is legitimately out of control. We are all rational adults are we not? (Well...clearly NOT. All parties still at least *pretend* that there is a celestial skydaddy watching over us all - they just can't decide whether or not he (not she, of course) carries guns and waves the American flag *insert sarcasm*). We need to take a step back an take some responsibilities for our own actions (obviously including the shooter).

-- Posted by Jazzy on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 1:56 PM

What better way to get attention from the voters on gun control laws and freedom of speech than to use a Gun site to aim at the districts against freedom of speech and the right to bear arms?

Whoa! Are we to believe that we must pass laws denying the Politicians, Congress and House Representatives the right to their "Freedom of Speech" to use posters with IMPACT?

I saw no other district being raided, broken into or destroyed that was included in the 20+ districts. This was just one man in one place acting on his own, just like a disgruntled postal worker. It has no connection to any other district or persons. He used his right to free speech in a negative way and now must pay the price. It is just a shame innocent people had to die and get injured. The Devil works in Demonic ways!

So now I am to understand, Congress wants to pass stiffer gun control laws (don't know how they can be any stiffer) on one hand, yet on the other hand, want to pass laws stating that Congressmen and representatives and state legislators can carry guns everywhere they go for self defense. (I thought that was already a constitutional right under the right to bear arms.)

The Congress, House of Representatives and State Legislators want to take our right to bear arms away from us (and it IS coming), and give them the right to bear arms to keep the Government from becoming a run away Government. (Can you see how much nonsense that makes?)

History alone should tell these idiots that the bad guys will always have illegal weapons no matter what or how many gun control laws they pass.

The Congress, House of Representatives and State Legislators ALREADY have enough USURPED Power over the people because the people won't demand their politicians to obey the Constitution. (Without the people knowing their Constitutional Rights, the people don't know when the legislators have taken their rights away nor how they did.)

The Congressmen have admitted that they need to stop and rethink how they do things. Now is the time to write your representatives and demand that they obey their Oath of Office and legislate the way they are suppose to. We have their attention from this tragedy, Take advantage of it and keep them rethinking with your letters.

We make the laws, not congress! We tell Congress what laws we want and they must determine if those laws are in violation of the U.S. Constitution. If they aren't, they pass them or at least vote on them. Legislators are suppose to do what we authorize them to do.

I do not agree with any violence against legislators and while they are rethinking things (even if it is in fear) we need to give them some things to re-think about. Every body needs to forget about Republican and Democrat and re-think PEOPLE and our Rights!

The U.S. Constitution and State Constitutions do NOT give us any Rights! GOD gave us our Inalienable Rights! These same constitutions can not take our rights away. They can only secure them if the Government will obey them. Let your Representatives know that you expect them to obey their oath of office and they can be prosecuted in their "individual" capacity for not obeying their oath of Office.

We have a right to freedom of speech and the right to bear arms and freedom to choose any religion we want to or don't want to.

The Federal Government has limited Authority in the States and Congress needs to be reminded of this. This unconstitutional excrement of Congress and State Legislators passing any laws they want to needs to STOP! The time for that is when the Anti-Christ appears and it will be done by him not congress, which will no longer exist.

Legislators are passing laws that give them more power than the constitution allows them to have. They are getting carried away. STOP them (or at least slow them down) with your Right to Freedom of Speech. Write your letters and tell your representatives and Senators how you feel about what they are doing. STOP SPENDING and Start Conserving. Stop passing laws every time something comes up. Think about what they are doing. Once something becomes law we can only DESTROY their new laws by Jury Nullification. (which most people don't understand nor will go against the judge)

-- Posted by Unique-Lies on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 2:00 PM

Liveforlight -

We should in fact cast some blame to culture (which includes Hollywood and video games etc). I think we might agree that cultural "memes" (social version of genes - replication and natural selection etc) are infectious, and that culture and globalization cannot be controlled to any great degree. We would also apparently agree that the individual should in fact take responsibility.

But sole castigation to any particular individual, without considering societal terms is, quite frankly, lazy. Because there is no easy answer doesn't mean we close our eyes.

Where I completely disagree with you - and I think you have used faulty logic here - is that if an order is somehow "commanded" then no personal justification in necessary. Did I justifiably present your position? If not please clarify. Is it ok for a commanding general, or say "God", to axiomatically declare genocide? Would one not, in the gravitas of this philosophically and scientifically palpable age, question such orders? If it is ok for someone to command you (anyone!) to do something you find immoral, then you should by all means question said command.

There seems to be some sort of ill-bred double stadard here.

-- Posted by Jazzy on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 2:15 PM

Why don't we just blame Hollywood and all those violent video game makers for all the violence in the country? Don't these have the same suggestive substance, and even more, as campaign rhetoric?

-- Posted by Liveforlight

Because hollywood is largely in the pocket of liberals and the powers that be know which side of their bread is buttered.

----------------------------

Where is the outcry from wonderwhy and rocket valentine over the democrat use of "targets" on republican districts?

http://www.verumserum.com/media/2010/03/...

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/265...

Surely there isn't a liberal double standard.

-- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 2:17 PM

Uniquelies -

That was probably the most sane argument - peppered with moments of egregious irrationality - I have ever heard.

Politicians (who exist) who have a voice that does indeed affect impressionable (or gullible if you prefer) minds DON'T share any responsibility, but the "devil" does??? That is the pinnacle of irrationality!! When you say things like "God gave us our rights", you immediately drop out of the rational race, and thereby condemn any future or previous valid point.

-- Posted by Jazzy on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 2:26 PM

Quietmike -

I spoke to this a few posts ago. I agree.

I'm also liberal (at least socially). I fight for team rational above all else.

-- Posted by Jazzy on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 2:29 PM

quietmike, Really? That's all ya got? You compare one obscure map with bullseyes to all of the Republican rhetoric enciting violence that I gave examples of on this blog?

Michele Bachman calling for people to be "armed and dangerous" and start a "revolution"?

Republican candidates firing assualt weapons at silhouettes of Democratic congress members?

Crazy-ass Republicans showing up at town hall meetings with guns where President Obama is speaking?

Sharron Angle calling for "Second Amenndment remedies"?

"If ballots don't work, bullets will"?

Tell me when any Democrat showed up at a Bush rally with an assualt weapon.

Republicans leaders having been using this "fear" and call for violence rhetoric ever since President Obama took office.

Then something like what happened in Tucson takes place and it's all just a coincidence.

I'm not buying it.

The same thing happened when Bill O'Reilly went after that abortion doctor, George Tiller.

Like most people, I'd never heard of the guy until O'Reilly started his campagin against Tiller on his show. He called him "Tiller the Baby Killer" and demonized him almost nightly on his Fox News show. Sure enough, not long after, Tiller was gunned down and killed while attending church with his family.

But just another coincidence according to the right-wing.

Republicans promote this hatred and fear and then think that there will be no consequences from the lunatics that they preach to. Amazing.

-- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 3:30 PM

Jazzy- Blaming culture for the acts of the individual only makes sense to me if that individual was raised in a foreign culture and transferred here. Even so, THEY should be responsible for their actions in the culture they now reside in.

In short, it is unjust to hold someone responible for the actions of another.

Now to my point about soldiers.

No double standard, and yes I agree that a soldier under the command of another has a moral responibility to do what is right. However, having served as a soldier, I was fully committed to my service(by oath) and was under such an influence of intense training that I was taught that what is "right" was to obey my commander. In that respect, I obeyed and believed the commander had information that I did not and that I was to carry out his commands to fulfill my oath.

Hypothetical; If, as a soldier, you are ordered to shoot a child, you are placed in a no-win situation where either choice you make will be wrong. At that point (maybe only a split second) one has to decide which choice HE will choose to accept the consequences of. Suppose this hypothetical child, that I chose not to shoot, then was to walk into the tent of your friends, fellow soldiers, and commanders, and detonate a bomb, killing themselves and everyone inside including other small children?

The soldier is trained to act on command without question. Therefore the responsibility is transferred to his commander. The blame, or the glory, goes to said commander.

In the case of Tuscon, there was no chain of command, only vague interpretation and manipulations of the circumstances, primarily by the media, to try to attach blame to specific parties while making no attempt to report the truth about the one responsible or his beliefs and motivations.

People then grasp these devisive opinions and shout "SOMETHING MUST BE DONE". The legislator is only to eager to comply as he requires, only a small, surrender of freedom to DO SOMETHING.

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 3:47 PM

You compare one obscure map with bullseyes to all of the Republican rhetoric enciting violence that I gave examples of on this blog?

Tell me when any Democrat showed up at a Bush rally with an assualt weapon.

-- Posted by Rocket Valentine

First off, I linked two maps, I could probably find more, but a quick google search found these.

Second if you want to get into a tit-for-tat comparison of right wing vs. left wing nut jobs, we could be here for a while. The unabomber, Janet Sterno, James J. Lee (shot up the Discovery Channel studio), Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front,Greenpeace, Earth First, Weather Underground, I could go on and on.

Second most liberal democrats trust in the government to protect them and oppose individual gun ownership, believing the militia, mentioned in the 2A only concerns the national guard. So why would one show up with a gun?

-- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 3:55 PM

Jazzy,

Are your right? Maybe you can show me some kind of proof.

I have to assume you don't have a God who endowed you with Inalienable Rights like the rest of us Americans who were born in these Untied States of America or you haven't read the DoI.

If you read your Declaration of Independence you would know this. It is also written in our King James Bible.

The Devil caused the young man to hate the oppressions he was feeling from what was going on around him to the point that he took matters in his own hands and accomplished nothing more than taking the lives of several people.

Regardless of what preachers and ministers say at the grave sides, the devil takes lives not God. God gives life and the devil snuffs lives out.

That is way you see good people die instead of the evil people. Don't take it the wrong way because evil people do die also, but we don't usually mind it so much when they are taken.

God does NOT come down here and take good people home to be with Him! We never lived in heaven so why would anyone think their home is in heaven?

Who do YOU say gave us our rights which are secured by the constitutions? _________________

Proof:

The Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,...

Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1870 pp 622-625:

"It may be said that the Constitution executes itself, This expression may be allowed; but with as much propriety, these may be said to be laws which the people have enacted themselves, and no laws of Congress can either take from them, add to, or confirm them. They are Rights, privileges, or immunities which are granted by the people, and are beyond the power of Congress or State Legislatures... It may be laid down as a universal rule, admitting to no exception, that when the Constitution has established a disability or immunity, a privilege or a Right, these are precisely as that instrument has fixed them, and can neither be augmented nor curtailed by any act or law either of Congress or a State Legislature. We are more particular in stating this because it has sometimes been forgotten both by Legislatures and theoretical expositors of the Constitution."

-- Posted by Unique-Lies on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 4:09 PM

Thom I agree with you, Democrats are just as guilty, especially our president. Remember when Obama was discussing immigration reform in response to the many Republicans that were against his ideas? He said "We're going to punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us." Or if you can recall back to 2008, Obama, when addressing an audience in Philadelphia explained how he would counter Republican attacks, saying "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun, because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I've seen Eagles fans." Can these phrases not be taken literally as well and someone who is not mentally stable act on them?

This is something that has been happening for years and has involved lyrics of a song, content of a movie or TV show, video games etc. People do crazy things and others try to turn the blame to something or someone that they do not like or agree with.

-- Posted by Rodney Simmons on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 4:12 PM

It's cute not one of you can show a true instance where a dem targeted with actual violent intent -- Notice Mikey that the targets where nothing like the ones used to gun down targets, I do think your able to tell the difference but just play dumb to the differences. Yes you can "target" things without violent intent but once you add threats of guns and make it clear that violence is the message your spreading the game changes and the REPUBLICANs did exactly that............Ga back a few posts for a lot of great examples. No way does you silly post even come close, you know it even if your too stubborn to admit it. Like some one said on another post if a muslum had put out the targets and references to gun violence like the ones by your republicans made and someone was killed your whole out look would be different. It is what it is and no slick talk and excuses can change it. They made the threats, they had violent impressions as the intent, and even if This guy was not acting on them this time, there is a good chance some other nut case might in the future. And as of yet I have seen no place that a single one of the threats have been called back.

-- Posted by wonderwhy on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 4:30 PM

Wonderwhy,

I know liberals in general despise logic, and you in particular have shown it to be true.

None of the "threats" have been "called back" because only a liberal desperate to stretch an example to make a point would see them as a threat.

Why not blame the man who pulled the trigger for the massacre? Oh yes, because liberals despise the idea of personal responsibility and accountability, and would "never let a crisis go to waste", especially when it could be used to expand the reach of government.

-- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 5:10 PM

Face it Mike it's over your head.............

-- Posted by wonderwhy on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 5:23 PM

Wonderwhy,

I agree. Their excuses and comparisons might actually be funny if the results of their ignorance weren't so tragic.

-- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 6:16 PM

I bet when it's all said and done:

the shooter was an extreme leftist.

-- Posted by espoontoon on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 6:41 PM

So, what you're saying is that this man is an agent of Sarah Palin and the Republicans? Yep, even though he was a supporter of John Kerry in high school, he didn't like Bush, was an atheist (as we all know the Tea Party and Republicans hate the idea of "God" and "Jesus"), and noted that two of his favorite books were Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto (two very popular right-wing books), he changed all of that during the past election and started following Sarah Palin and watching Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

You people are grasping at straws. You state VEHEMENTLY that this tragedy was caused by Sarah Palin, yet you provide nothing that shows (or even hints) that he was a supporter of Palin. You simply take two, seemingly separate issues and throw them together in a feeble attempt to prove your point. When someone tries to show you that the left does that as well, including Obama, you insinuate that they are just being "stupid". Considering your outstanding command of the English language, I would hazard to guess that you are the typical Democrat supporter...and you can take that any way you would like.

By the way, why don't you look up the following:

John Patrick Bedell

The Black Panthers

Theodore Kaczynski

Daniel Andreas San Diego

-- Posted by Thom on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 7:29 PM

If you want to blame someone else for this mans actions who says the blame shouldn't be placed here?

Appearing on television in November, former Hillary Clinton campaign adviser and current public relations executive, Mark Penn, suggested that President Obama needs a moment "similar" to the tragic terrorist attack on the Oklahoma City federal building, in order to "reconnect" with voters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjO6NFLLE...

The shooter is a Nazi, Communist, anti-christ, registered independent, and didn't vote in the 2010 election. Yet the media immediately, immediately, tied him to the GOP, Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. They offered no information on the actual shooter or his motivations but yet started a firestorm of controversy. Why?

This guy shares more leftist views than right. Is it possible that he tried to give the Obama administration the "similar" event to help him re-connect? From what I have seen it seems to be working.

No! This guy regardless of his motivation is guilty. No one else!! He took innocent lives. This happens everyday somewhere in the world but since it happened to a politician, it is elevated above all others. I suppose there HAS to be some new law to come from this before the ignorant masses can resume their normal apathetic lives.

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 7:37 PM

How about the DailyKos posting just TWO DAYS before the shooting titled "My CongressWOMAN voted against Nancy Pelosi! And is now DEAD to me!", I'm sure that had nothing to do with the shooting either, just another peaceful Democrat.

DailyKos also "put a BULLS EYE" on Giffords' district in June of 2008. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/25/1204/74882/511/541568)

-- Posted by Thom on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 7:59 PM

If you go down Old Fort Parkway in Murfreesboro you will see a big building with a red and white bullseye on it.

If it were to be robbed and someone killed, would Rocket Valentine and Wonderwhy be consistent and blame Target's CEO?

-- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 8:42 PM

I have read about 4 comments and my blood started to boil. You Liberals need to take your rose colored glasses off and look at the world as it really is. You liberals are constantly playing the blame game. That Sheriff over there is nothing but a liberal press houd looking for someone up in Washington to throw him a bone.Its absurd to think that just because Mrs.Palin made a map with crossheirs on it meant that she was trying to provoke violence. What gets me even more upset is the fact that you liberals are pushing for tougher gun laws now. HOW STUPID IS THAT?You can enforce all the gun laws in the world but in the end the bad guy is still going to get access to one and people will be harmeed. The thing is about this shooting is that this guy was a dang nut! No more or less to it.You liberal blood suckers look for anything to exploit your point. All I will say is that ill point the bad guys to you and let them know you arent armed and to go rob your houses and rape your wives and daughters because if the badguys come to mine rest assured they are going to get a several holes put into them via my AR-15! So stick that in your liberal pipe and smoke it!

-- Posted by Michael#54 on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 9:16 PM

Where did anyone "state VEHEMENTLY that this tragedy was caused by Sarah Palin"?

I only stated the fact that Gabrielle Giffords herself, stated before she was shot that she was concerned of the conquences that could occur from such rhetoric coming from such a high profile leader of the Republican party.

I think it's safe to say that 90% of the American people have never heard of the "DailyKos".

For you to compare some underground political opinion website to the former Vice Presidential candidate of the Republican party is pretty weak.

I gave several specific examples of Republicans enciting violence, but never said that this was the cause of the Tucson shooting. I just said that we may never know for sure, but that I'm not suprised that it happened.

-- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 9:16 PM

Rocket Valentine,look,everyone on the news is trying to say that. Dont sit there in your chair and act as if they havent. Of course that is common behavior from a liberals...you all excel to shuck and jive and make sure that the blame is never placed on you. YOU ALL ACT THIS WAY!You never take resonsibility for your actions you always want to place the blame on someone else. Liberals excel at this! Do they pull you guys into a corner and teach you to do this in high school or something? YOU folks amaze me with the depths you will sink in order not to take resonsibility for your actions.

-- Posted by Michael#54 on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 9:29 PM

Michael#54, I'm not sure what "news" channels you've been watching. I haven't seen any news reports put the blame squarely on Sarah Palin.

The only actual news report where I saw Sarah Palin's name mentioned was the interview with Rep. Gabrielle Giffords telling reporters that she was concerned about that kind of dangerous rhetoric coming from Palin.

So if you want to call someone a crazy liberal, I guess you'll have to talk to the woman laying in the hospital bed with a hole in her head.

-- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 9:56 PM

Liveforlight -

I've already conceded the point about personal responsibility (conceded may be a misnomer since I never denied it). The situation in Tuscon is, like you mentioned, a case where we have a mentally unstable individual. I agree HE should be in jail, and not Sarah Palin or tea-party notables. I'm not sure you comprehended my point in its totality. My position is that we should not turn a blind eye to ANY cultural, social, or environmental (familial in this case) issue contemporaneous with such atrocities. That is lazy and unfair. There may not be equitable blame in practice, but I believe there is in theory. As much as I despise Palin (along with willful ignorance and shameful idiocy in general) and Faux news, they should not be penalized for such actions. But they might want to stop and think about their words. As Thom mentioned, there may in fact be no causation or direct link from one thing to another, but it is something to consider - in all cases (Thom presented some interesting information that I am taking at face value. If it is a situation to put partial blame on a Dem, then we should do it!! F**k bi-partisinship).

Concerning your hypothetical "soldier" story, I don't think the situation is too philosophically ambiguous. Do I shoot the child?? NO, NO, NO. Easy answer. If the child is then to point a gun at me and I have no option, then yes. Do I kill a child based on a contingent factor? I sure as hell do NOT. Court-martial me. I'm fine with my commander not "taking the blame" because I dissented. You seem to have contradicted yourself, unless I misunderstood you. You said something to the extent of, "you have the moral responsibility..", and then went on to acquiesce that personal responsibility, putting it on your commander. Which is it?

I know my answer.

-- Posted by Jazzy on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 9:57 PM

Uniquelies -

"I have to assume you don't have a God who endowed you with Inalienable Rights like the rest of us Americans who were born in these Untied States"

You assumed correctly. I have no God (and neither do you, regardless of what your blind fear and indoctrination tell your inner voice).

You claim "God" gave you inalienable rights, and I AM THE ONE who needs proof?? That's not the way the burden of proof works. If I told you that tiny unicorns lived in my back yard, and then proceeded to ask you proof of their non-existence, who would be the one with the issue?

I am going to refer you to the old blog on Dream. I responded to Liveforlight (the very last comment on the page), crushing all hopes of drumming up the notion of a "christian-founded" nation. I have four quotes from John Adams, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin wherein they explicitly state (possibly implicitly in Franklin's case) that this nation was not founded on "christian" axioms or sentiments. "Creator" in that context, refers to a Deist "being". This is basic history. I know Christians desperately want this "creator" to be Yahweh (ignoring there were hundreds of "creators" in history, before the Judeo-Christian story), but this wasn't the case.

Conjuring the Bible for anything is worthless AND abject. A piece of literature started by a tribe of middle-eastern herdsmen who thought the earth was flat, and "for whom a wheelbarrow would have been a breathtaking piece of emerging technology" (quoting Sam Harris). No thanks. it's 2011.

I ignored the rest of you post as it was hocus pocus.

Your last question for me is insulting to history. The Enlightenment, previous government policies, philosophy, err uhh thinking - yep, none of that (or any antecedent history) was the cause of this written document. Our rights "poofed" out of the sky and landed on paper. Perfectly reasonable indeed. You can forgive even the notion of a Deist god at that time. They can be forgiven for not sharing our scientific awareness.

Check the other post for those quotes.

-- Posted by Jazzy on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 10:23 PM

It is still a proven fact that mentally sick people are swayed by high profile people that call them to action. For some one to take out a gun, in this case a m-16 and use it the manner used - to suggest taking out someone, it is not unreasonable to think they may influence a mentally sick person. No that does not mean the person who actually pulls the trigger is not guilty, but it does place the thought into the head of that person.

My question for those here - is it right to insight the violence, do you back the way these people have targeted, and suggested that you resort to guns to get rid of the opposition? If your daughter was shot would you still be so quick to defend their threats?

There are smart ways to get a point across, one does not have to be so simple minded as to say get a gun - that unless they are not smart enough to THINK AND REASON, I expect some of you won;t have a clue what that is though, it's just not bubba enough for you.

-- Posted by wonderwhy on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 10:25 PM

Quietmike and Thom -

You seem to be intelligent gentlemen (separating you from Bubba and Billy Jack who just want "hunt'n" guns to go kill turkeys before church). You also have strong opinions which I can certainly respect. The smart-ass invective and polemics don't suit you two. Both democrats and republicans need to take it easy with the sensationalist theatrics. Even calm ripostes reveal themselves as histrionics. This is the initial problem that continues to plague national politics and message-board vitriol. I think Wonderwhy and RV should also follow this advice. I happen to take the middle ground in this particular instance. And there is a middle ground. To everyone on this blog - politics are NOT black and white because issues are not black and white. Polarizing just creates unnecessary division.

In general the blame game is tiresome.

-- Posted by Jazzy on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 10:42 PM

Jazzy-

So by your own admission, it is wrong to shoot a child. However, you said that if the child has a gun and points at you, have no choice so you would. This to me is a double standard. Either it is wrong to shoot a child or it is not. You may be required to lay down your life and those of others for what you believe. Just because you cannot see the immediate danger does not mean it doesn't exist. To the soldier who has sworn an oath on his life, he has no choice just as you have stated.

I am guessing you have never served in the military or taken an oath to lay down your life for anything. If you believe in moral responsibility, then responsibility to who? You don't believe in God, so who is going to hold you responsible for your moral obligations? Society? What if society routinely shoots children? Then it is OK?

So, your concern about society is that society is responsible for your/our actions, at least to some extent and that we should work to change society and not be lazy? That does not suprise me that you see it that way. If there is no one (God) as you believe, then there is no moral compass that points to what is true and you are reduced to moral relativity.

That being said, and recognizing the need to work to change society, how then do we work to make improvements? Based on what, society? Remember the society of Hitler that murdered millions of Jews? Is that where our moral compass should point,? To the whims of a misslead and ill informed society such as we are seeing with these wild accusations in Tucson?

Man and society, has the integrity of the wind. You can say it blows, or sucks, depending on your own opinion and no one can prove you right or wrong.

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Wed, Jan 12, 2011, at 7:36 AM

Man and society, has the integrity of the wind. You can say it blows, or sucks, depending on your own opinion and no one can prove you right or wrong.

-- Posted by Liveforlight

That's a quotable quote right there.

-- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Jan 12, 2011, at 7:59 AM

Anyone know anything about the Judge that was killed? The spotlight seems to be on Mrs. Gifford who we know by her own admission is a "Blue dog" or conservative Democrat, but what about the judge? Here is a bit of scary info. for you.

A Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) report circulating in the Kremlin today states that the top US Federal Judge for the State of Arizona was assassinated barely 72-hours after he made a critical ruling against the Obama administrations plan to begin the confiscation of their citizen's private retirement and banking accounts in order to stave off their nations imminent economic collapse, and after having the US Marshals protecting him removed.

According to this SVR report, Federal Judge John McCarthy Roll was the Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona who this past Friday issued what is called a "preliminary ruling" in a case titled "United States of America v. $333,520.00 in United States Currency et al" [Case Number: 4:2010cv00703 Filed: November 30, 2010] wherein he stated he was preparing to rule against Obama's power to seize American citizens money without clear and convincing evidence of a crime being committed.

The case being ruled on by Judge Roll, this report continues, was about bulk cash smuggling into or out of the United States that the Obama administration claimed was their right to seize under what are called Presidential Executive Orders, instead of using existing laws. The Obama administration used as support for their claim before Judge Roll, the SVR says, the seizing of all American citizens' gold, in 1933, by President Franklin D. Roosevelt's signing of Executive Order 6102, which was ruled at the time to be constitutional.

Should the Obama administration win their argument to seize their citizen's money by Executive Order without having to abide by the law was made more chilling this past week when reports emerged from the US stating that President Obama and his regime allies were, indeed, preparing to rule America by decree since their loss this past November of their control over the US House of Representatives, and in the words of the Washington Posts columnist Charles Krauthammer: "For an Obama bureaucrat ... the will of the Congress is a mere speed bump."

Since taking office in early 2009, Obama has completely overturned the once free United States through his use of Executive Orders that asserts his power to put anyone he wants in prison without charges or trial forever and his right to assassinate any American citizen he deems a threat.

The most chilling of these powers Obama has asserted for himself, however, are contained in Executive Order 13528 he signed nearly a year ago (January 10, 2010) creating a Council of Governors he has hand-picked to rule over the United States in place of its elected representatives when their next "disaster" strikes and orders them to begin "synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities."

Going from the chilling to the outright scary, about whatever "disaster" the American regime is preparing their people for, is Obama's Homeland Security Department, through their Ready.Gov organization, beginning to air this past week a public service television commercial titled "World Upside Down" that shows a typical family sitting in their home suddenly losing all of its gravity and warning all who watch it to begin preparing.

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Wed, Jan 12, 2011, at 12:16 PM

The most chilling of these powers Obama has asserted for himself, however, are contained in Executive Order 13528 he signed nearly a year ago (January 10, 2010) creating a Council of Governors he has hand-picked to rule over the United States in place of its elected representatives when their next "disaster" strikes and orders them to begin "synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities."

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Wed, Jan 12, 2011, at 12:16 PM

Liveforlight, the council that you speak of here was actually a requirement for the president found in the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, a bill that was brought to the House floor by Rep. Ike Skelton (D) from Missouri and co-sponsered by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R) from California. You should just change your name to Henny Penny, but at the very least maybe you could just get your facts straight before posting about things you don't fully understand.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Wed, Jan 12, 2011, at 12:56 PM

What I find so funny is that those that claim to believe in the US Constitution and would do anything to defend it, don't seem to have any faith in the system that it created. When a bill is brought to the floor of Congress and 435 representatives or 100 senators vote on it, then surely the majority of the votes were cast by people with good intentions. Is your faith in humanity and your elected officials so damaged that you have lost all trust? Even when something unintentional happens as a result of some law being passed, it can be changed. On Thom's blog I really was amazed to see how angry he was about two representatives just starting a discussion. What harm can come from just debating a topic on the floor of the House of Representatives? Do you people only support the Constitution when the party you like has power, because that is what I am seeing. Conservatives seem to see the tree right in front of their face, but easily overlook the forest behind it. Why do you always pounce on one phrase or one piece of information and then try to turn it into an argument that only you find complex? Sometimes when I debate topics with some of you on here, I realize that we don't understand each other, not because we don't see eye to eye. Our problem is almost always that we are arguing about two totally different topics. What I find especially sad is that conservatives are completely ok with kicking the can down the road. At some point Republicans we are going to have to address these problems that we have. I know you don't like it, but it is time to grow up.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Wed, Jan 12, 2011, at 1:13 PM

The comments to this blog post are really giving me a headache due to all its negativity and hateful discourse. The issue is that the shooter had a problem with life in general and was unstable and was not influenced by the likes of Palin or Limbaugh. In fact it was stated that Loughner "didn't even watch the news or watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn't listen to political radio. He didn't take sides. He wasn't on the left. He wasn't on the right."

That should clear up a lot of the lies and accusations that are being thrown around. It is sad though that some people are using such a tragic event for political gain or people like Rocket Valentine who use it to promote their own naive and misguided beliefs.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Wed, Jan 12, 2011, at 1:19 PM

When a bill is brought to the floor of Congress and 435 representatives or 100 senators vote on it, then surely the majority of the votes were cast by people with good intentions. Is your faith in humanity and your elected officials so damaged that you have lost all trust?

-- Posted by nathan.evans

When i look at how far we've drifted away from the original intent of the constitution, yes, I can say I've lost nearly all trust in our elected representatives.

Examples:

Net neutrality.

The fairness doctrine.

Mandatory retirement savings, overseen by government.

Mandatory medical savings, overseen by government.

Government coercion of which products to buy/use through legislation, regulation, and punitive taxation.

Mandating one citizen financially support another.

Every gun, knife, and ammunition law in existence.

McCarthyism.

Patriot Act.

Taft-Hartley Act.

Kent State Massacre.

War on Drugs.

Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005.

2006 NSA wiretappings.

Waterboarding and other forms of torture.

American Protective League.

Sedition Act of 1918.

National Industrial Recovery Act.

Federal Reserve Act.

Revenue Act of 1913.

Food and Fuel Control Act.

Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937.

-- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Jan 12, 2011, at 1:55 PM

Nathan-

The story above are not my words,they were only copied from another story about the Judge. I merely asked if anyone knows anything about the Judge or if there is any legitimacy to the story.

In regards to faith in the system, no I don't have faith in the system since the system is systematically plundering the citizens in the name of "The Law" and plunging us deeper into debt. The Constitution did not create the system we now have., greed and corruption did.

Faith in the constitution, yes, but there seems to be a deliberate effort to ignore, alter, or end-run the constitution to increase the plundering and size of Government. Our national debt is just one symptom. The Constitution limits the size and scope of government and places the balance of power not specifically given to the Feds. in the hands of the States.

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."- Thomas Jefferson

I fear that our political system, not our constitution, is going to cause our country to go bankrupt and collapse. This being caused by corruption and mismanagement by all political parties. Remember the oath is to uphold the CONSTITUTION (against ALL enemies foreign and domestic), NOT the political parties or system.

If you haven't already, download and read "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat. He puts it in simple, straight forward terms. This was in 1850, and we have been moving further away more towards socialism/communism which is doomed to failure because they both violate the principles of freedom that the people will die to regain.

Bastiat explains it better than anyone I have ever heard.

HERE ARE A COUPLE EXERPTS;

Bastiat pinned his hopes for liberty on the United States saying,". . . look at the United States.There is no country in the world where the law is kept more within its proper domain: the protection of every person's liberty and property. As a consequence of this, there appears to be no country in the world where the social order rests on a firmer foundation."Writing in

1850, Bastiat noted two areas where the United States fell short:

"Slavery is a violation, by law, of liberty.The protective tariff is a violation, by law, of property."

The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Wed, Jan 12, 2011, at 1:59 PM

Nathan - When Net Neutrality was brought before Congress, they shot it down. So what did the Obama administration do? They decided to implement this via regulation since the couldn't get it passed. No, I have very little confidence that this (or the previous) administration are very concerned about the Constitution that they swore to uphold when they were elected. The USA PATRIOT Act was a horrible piece of legislation but, because it was submitted right after Sept 11, 2001, it was passed and signed into law based on the emotions of the legislators and their constituents. These Congressmen submit these things immediately after a tragedy in the hopes that they can ride an emotional wave to get these things passed.

The Health Care act of last year is unconstitutional, but it was passed regardless of the constitutionality of forcing the American citizens to purchase a service or face penalties. The congressmen in Washington didn't even read it before they voted on it. Remember Nancy Pelosi's "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it"? That's not a legislator that was looking out for the best interests of her constituents, that's someone with an agenda.

-- Posted by Thom on Wed, Jan 12, 2011, at 2:25 PM

Wouldn't you say that creating and passing a law is only the beginning step in the process put forth by the Constitution? Take the health care law for example. Now that the health care law has been passed, the courts will now take over and determine what parts of it are legal or not legal and then the process will start all over again.

I'm not going to say that the current way of doing business in Washington is not being perverted into something that it was never intended to be, but like it or not it is what we as a people have created. The good news is that when we want things to change we can make it happen, hopefully through compromise and understanding and not violence and bloodshed.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Wed, Jan 12, 2011, at 3:02 PM

I agree Nathan, there needs to be change, and change we can believe in. It can only come through understanding and that is the one thing that has to go beyond party line rhetoric and media biased presentations.

I think we need to get a good basic understanding of "The Law" and what it should, and should not, do. Then people can recognize what is right and wrong the instant it happens. Bastiat does the best job of any I have seen of placing things in the proper perspective and in a verbage that is comprehensible and direct. Our Constitution also does a good job but doesn't spell out the principles as well as Bastiat does. Of course, Bastiat had the Constitution and the various form of Socialism/Communism to reflect on when he did his writing.

"Where there is no vision, the people perish; but he that keepeth the law, happy is he. "-Proverbs 29:18

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Wed, Jan 12, 2011, at 3:35 PM

Nathan-

Creating and passing a law is not the first step in the process. Determining the will of the people is the first step, creating a law that conforms to the Constitution and the will of the people is the second step.

The courts are only there to interprete compliance to the law once the legislators put it in place.

Pelosi's statement "we have to pass it to see what's in it" should only be applied to a stool sample, not "The Law".

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Wed, Jan 12, 2011, at 3:44 PM

Liveforlight -

We should immediately elucidate a few issues.

I don't believe in moral objectivity, per se. I also think cultural and moral relativism is also absurd. Religious moral absolutism is laughable and a losing battle for anyone who tries - all one has to do is actually read the pages of a monotheistic holy book. They are all replete with barbarous atrocities and acrimonious, vindictive axioms, as well as intimidation, bullying, sexism, racism, scientific and historical mistruths. So we sure as hell don't receive some authoritative moral objectivity from those sources.

Child points a gun at me? I know what's about to happen. I (UNFORTUNATELY) shoot first - or disarm the child if possible. Do I kill an unarmed child on what he or she MIGHT possibly do..maybe...sort of..I heard that it could be possible? Answer: no. Contingency is an unacceptable reason for murdering an unarmed child.

Now. I see it obvious we have fairly certain, fairly unshakable standards and moral responsibility. I also see it obvious that these notions are evolved from living in a society. Science, culture, environment, philosophy, and rationality are why we don't walk around killing people. We can simply imagine it done to us. That may not be graceful enough for you - or mysterious enough an origin - but this is certainly more pragmatic than some incorporeal, metaphysical, and despotic objectivity (presumably floating in the air) . The moral compass is obviously guided by a confluence of issues and circumstances (certainly not from the moral monster, Yahweh). That may involve us actually working and thinking a little, but this is reality. Culture, society, environment, science...these can invoke problems and they can be our guiding light. Society in fact does not usually shoot children. Null example.

I take responsibility for myself and answer to myself, as well as society. There will always be madmen. Stalin was a maniacal atheist, and Hitler was a maniacal catholic. Dogmatic authoritarianism is the cause of such aberrations. A turn away from reason is followed by a downfall. Following a "commander" like Hitler (who was bankrolled by the Catholic Church), and not questioning any outcomes is the problem (this is all sounding so familiar).

And no I have never served. It seems at this point to be a non-issue.

Your last little aphorism seems somewhat of a platitude.

-- Posted by Jazzy on Wed, Jan 12, 2011, at 7:04 PM

Incidentally, those who enjoy the liberal usage of the words, "socialism" and "communism" (which are not historically necessarily synonymous with one another): Are you familiar at all with REAL Marxism? Leninism? Stalinism? Maoism? Are those of you aware of the differences between those ideologies?

Are you aware that many people pleaded and gave their life FOR a socialist utopia? Are you aware that it worked for a while (and still somewhat works from some nations)? But America's ego doesn't like history.

For all the "word-putter-in-mouthers" out there, I would like to make clear I personally don't advocate full-blown socialism. Comparing our democratic government with historical socialism (and if you're Beck, conflating many ideologies and ideologues like a complete retard) is yet another non-sequitur. It's one or all, black or white, sensationalist politics. I'm not surprised our math and science scores are atrocious. Our way or the highway...

-- Posted by Jazzy on Wed, Jan 12, 2011, at 7:29 PM

And no I have never served. It seems at this point to be a non-issue.

-- Posted by Jazzy on Wed, Jan 12, 2011, at 7:04 PM

This is obvious. You have no apparent understanding of commitment except to yourself. Your extensive use of vocabulary indicates you are well educated which is admirable. There are bigger things than ourselves and many make commitments to them for various reasons which are also admirable. It is only when they become atrocious that we are given pause to examine those motives whether from an individual, or one acting on behalf of another.

Yes, I am familar with other ideologies, I happen to agree with Frederic Bastiat, in "The Law". Perhaps you have read it also. He (and others) points out that socialism leads to communism not that they are synonymous. A common factor being the surrender and elimination of personal property to the state.

I have seen several of your post about what you oppose/do not believe. So what do you believe in, merely yourself? What ideologies do you subscribe to, or do you have to look around first before you can say where you stand?

"Let us try liberty"- Frederic Bastiat "The Law"

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Wed, Jan 12, 2011, at 8:48 PM

And no I have never served. It seems at this point to be a non-issue.

-- Posted by Jazzy on Wed, Jan 12, 2011, at 7:04 PM

This is obvious. You have no apparent understanding of commitment except to yourself. Your extensive use of vocabulary indicates you are well educated which is admirable. There are bigger things than ourselves and many make commitments to them for various reasons which are also admirable. It is only when they become atrocious that we are given pause to examine those motives whether from an individual, or one acting on behalf of another.

Yes, I am familar with other ideologies, I happen to agree with Frederic Bastiat, in "The Law". Perhaps you have read it also. He (and others) points out that socialism leads to communism not that they are synonymous. A common factor being the surrender and elimination of personal property to the state.

I have seen several of your post about what you oppose/do not believe. So what do you believe in, merely yourself? What ideologies do you subscribe to, or do you have to look around first before you can say where you stand?

"Let us try liberty"- Frederic Bastiat "The Law"

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Wed, Jan 12, 2011, at 8:49 PM

As Thom stated: "The USA PATRIOT Act was a horrible piece of legislation but, because it was submitted right after Sept 11, 2001, it was passed and signed into law based on the emotions of the legislators and their constituents. These Congressmen submit these things immediately after a tragedy in the hopes that they can ride an emotional wave to get these things passed."

This is exactly how Congress thinks!

The USA Patriot Act: A New Bill Introduced in the 110th Congress that would Extend Certain provisions of the USA Patriot Act. House Resolution 1467 would extend the provisions for wiretap orders, and allow the FBI to gain access to books, records and other information.

First of all, it violates our fourth and fifth amendment rights, so it is contrary to and inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution. All laws MUST be in Harmony with the U.S. Constitution or they are Null and Void. (16 Am Jur 2d 177, late Am Jur 2d 256)

Since Congress can Legislate any way they want to without Constitutional limitations and restrictions (For Federal Citizens

who owe their citizenship to the 14th Amendment), Congress CAN pass any laws it wants to via (Article I, Section 8, Clauses 17 and 18 of the US Constitution) which could then be applied (Legally) to federal citizens and (ALSO) any Sovereign Citizen who doesn't know those laws don't apply to him/her.

A Sovereign Citizen who is Patriotic would know his rights have been violated by the government employees (in their individual capacity) and could bring Federal Charges under title 18 of the United States Codes sections 241 or 242 and also sue federal employees under Title 42 of the USC section 1983 etc. for violating their rights under the color of law. Government employees are "Presumed to know the Law" more so than an ordinary person, therefore they can't be sued as

employees but in their personal capacity as if they were acting alone and separate from the government. The government will not give them immunity from prosecution.

When you see the words "Law" or "The Law" by themselves, that is referring to Constitutional Law which is "Common Law" and the laws of the United States made in pursuance to the U.S. Constitution.

Is the "The USA PATRIOT Act" enacted in pursuance to the U.S. Constitution? NO! Therefore it is Null and Void when applied to a sovereign citizen (if) you know your rights and can protect them.

Same holds true with Airport harassment. It is good for stopping terrorists, but not to be used to frighten little children half to death with nonsense. Strip searches? Go ahead and violate the peoples rights then they should bring federal charges against them for violating their rights under the color of law.

I have nothing against reasonable searches on suspicious people but not every US citizen in the airport. I mean, with all the searches and seizures, the terrorists still manage to steal a plane or two loaded with people and crash them or carry explosives on board.

I think... why were all those people put through Hell just to find out someone carried on an explosive device. But then, I understand they use foreigners to do the security at many of our ports.

Open and shut case of misuse of the law, right?

Yeah, but... the government has created a "Strawman" using your birth certificate. Why is that important to know?

Our courts are using a Commercial law against us just like the British used their Admiralty law against the colonies. It is called Statutory Jurisdiction. It is just a sweet name for the Uniform Commercial Code. We are tried by a law of "Contracts". In order for the courts to try us they have to be able to bring up an International contract against us that we signed and Breeched.

Your strawman is an artificial entity (which is a corporation entity). That makes you liable for everything you sign and your

strawman makes everything you sign a business contract thereby giving the courts jurisdiction over you.

Now the only thing(s) with that is... (1). a contract is not legal unless both parties understand all the circumstances and consequences at the time of entering the contract. (2). Under the Trading with the Enemy Act of Oct 6, 1917 as amended in 1933, the U.S. Citizens were included as the enemy to the United States any time this country is at war or in a state of emergency. (Google Proclamations 2038, 2039 and 2040)

Regardless of what people tell you, Presidential Proclamations do not apply to Sovereign Men and Women. Therefore the Sovereign men and women are not included as the enemy to these United States, however U.S. Citizens (the 14th Amendment Citizens) who are under its exclusion jurisdiction were and still are included as the enemy.

If you are a government kiss ass, then you don't know if you are a Sovereign man or woman or not and would be included as an enemy right along with the 14th Amendment Citizens (aka) Citizens of the Federal Territories.

This is another way the courts can assume jurisdiction over an American citizen if he/she doesn't know how to claim their

Sovereignty and inform the courts that they are NOT an enemy (where in these cases, the courts can confiscate or seize all

money/property/children/even spouses or other persons in question).

This would also apply to President Obama's Health Care!

What everyone has to Know is... are you part of the Sovereignty of this country or are you a federal citizen under its (governments) exclusive jurisdiction. Laws can be passed by Congress concerning it's exclusive jurisdiction, BUT, notice how they don't put it in the United States Constitution?

That is because those laws are not Constitutional laws that apply to the Sovereign Men and Women. Therefore they can not be added to the constitution, but written as State/federal statutes and codes which could apply to federal citizens.

A good example is the 16th Amendment. It appears to give Congress new power to lay and collect Direct taxes. It does not! It merely gives another definition to the Indirect Tax. A Direct Tax must be apportioned according to the census. If it isn't it an unconstitutional Direct Tax or a constitutional Indirect Tax.

Here is a rule of thumb PROOF:

"Legislation enacted by Congress applicable to the inferior federal courts in the exercise of the power under Article III of the Constitution CANNOT BE AFFECTED BY legislation enacted by Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution". D.C. Code, Title 11 at p. 13.

See how complicated or confusing that sounds? It is saying that when Congress enacts laws according to Article III (or Constitutional laws), they can not be affected or overturned by legislation (or color of law) of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.

Two different laws, but both can be applied to all citizens. A Sovereign man or woman must know the difference and make the government prove jurisdiction.

Your signature on any contract like a drivers license, loan note, etc, gives them jurisdiction.

However, if you didn't know your signature would place you under all court jurisdiction and you have no say so.... that contract would be void.

If you hire an attorney, you are giving the court jurisdiction over you. If you enter any plea, you are pleaing to the jurisdiction of the court so it then has jurisdiction over you.

There are so many fraudulent tricks the government uses to get jurisdiction over the people.

And we also have to consider the one world government with its Anti-Christ who will just bypass any contract or rights with Martial Law. We already have a One World Judicial System... the Uniform Commercial Code!

I do not hate the government. I only try to inform people of the different governments we have that people don't realize are controlling us.

The original colonies established a government and gave it a very limited power over the people, but let it have jurisdiction over its lands, possessions and territories and Naval bases and ships. That is the ONLY government we thoght we had.

Congress freed the slaves with the 13th Amendment. What was Congress going to do with all these new citizens who were not citizens of any country?

Well, Congress created a Corporate Government using the exact same government employees, so as not to let the people know what it had done. Congress actually created a new class of citizens with the slaves. Since the citizens of the U.S. Territories were citizens of their own Islands and Territories, Congress included them in this new class of citizens. They became Congress's new U.S. Citizens (Federal Citizens) and would be under its exclusive jurisdiction. Before this, Congress had no sovereignty over the people. Now it had Sovereignty over these new citizens and could legislate anyway they want to for these new citizens because they do not have the same Sovereign Inalienable rights as the rest of the people in America.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 gives Congress this power to be the Sovereignty over its citizens, but not we the people.

Congress has the constitutional right to enact laws under Article III which are the laws of the United States, made in pursuance of the U.S. Constitution.

Congress also has the right to make all the "color of law" statutes, codes and laws in order to govern the people by the authority given to them in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.

All laws are constitutional when you look at them, because Congress has the authority to make all laws governing the citizens of the United States who are under (its) exclusive jurisdiction. (14th Amendment citizens)

Congress doesn't have to separate the laws by citizens. It is up to the PEOPLE to determine if the law applies to them, then object in a timely and specific manner or be assumed guilty as charged by the courts. Yes, once you are charged, if you don't object in a specific and timely manner you lose your opportunity to acquit yourself.

And what is the charge? It must be definite and specific or the case can be thrown out. Where does it say, in what code, statute or law that YOU...?

Socialism:

When a person goes in the service the first thing they do is strip everyone of their personalities. Everyone wears the same uniform the same way and anyone who stands out from the others gets extra duty or volunteers for special duties. Socialism!

That is what they are doing to your school children. Making them wear special uniforms that the parents have to purchase and maintain, so every child will look the same with no personality of their own. They all get a trophy so no child is left out regardless of his abilities or lack there of. (A Violation of 1st Amendment right - "Freedom of Speech".)

I see Socialism in the Zombie movies.

Communism or socialism, is like putting everyone on food stamps and a welfare check to work for their room and board. No TVs, Computers, Cell Phones, Cars or Homes. Only the special will receive special items like homes, cars, TVs and etc..

Hey, I know what. Why not just give everyone something like a Mark in their right hand or on their forehead. That way everyone would start out the same way with the same amount of money, but have to use this mark in order for the anti-christ to keep track of what they spend and the work they do? Or did someone else already come up with that? Seems like I read it somewhere!

That's not what God wants for us.

The bible tells us that these things must happen before Christ can return, so we must let them take place. Can we prevent it from happening? No! Can we postpone it? I don't see how. It will happen as God has it planned.

All we can do is reject the Anti-Christ, the Beast and the False Prophet. Are you going to be able to stand up for Christ or bow down to the people in control?

I think the people are looking for a sci-fy creature that looks like a horse with a head like a lion and a tail like a serpent coming to punish the people, because they will be raptured up.

Anyone who is planning on being in a rapture better get rid of their stuff cause it won't be long.

-- Posted by Unique-Lies on Wed, Jan 12, 2011, at 11:10 PM

"I don't believe in moral objectivity, per se. I also think cultural and moral relativism is also absurd. Religious moral absolutism is laughable and a losing battle for anyone who tries - all one has to do is actually read the pages of a monotheistic holy book. They are all replete with barbarous atrocities and acrimonious, vindictive axioms, as well as intimidation, bullying, sexism, racism, scientific and historical mistruths. So we sure as hell don't receive some authoritative moral objectivity from those sources."

-- Posted by Jazzy on Wed, Jan 12, 2011, at 7:04 PM

Jazzy,

(I want to apologize beforehand to Mr. Simmons for taking the blog off course). I have pretty much tried to ignore your attacks on God and Christianity for the sake of keeping the blog on subject, but I cant't anymore.

I am not sure why you find you have to attack peoples beliefs in almost every post. I do not mind someone having beliefs that differ from my own, but theres no reason to try to belittle someone for it. Most of the time in my experience when someone has that kind of attitude it normally means they don't understand what they are talking about. Just recyling what they have heard with no real abilities to think for themselves. Or (this is where I think you fit in) they are deeply afraid of the consequences of the opposing view.

I find no reason why religious moral absolutes are laughable. There can be no doubt that there are objective moral values. There are certain things that are just morally wrong, regardless of culture, "confluence of issues, or circumstances". We can deny to ourselves and others that these absolutes exist, but denial of something does not make it less true. Also if there are no objective moral values, then we live in a very oppressed society, because behaviour comes down to taste. Without these moral absolutes, then how can we tell anyone not to rape, or murder. We may not like it, but without moral absolutes, its not wrong, its just in poor taste. Furthermore if there are objective moral values, then there must be a moral law giver. That would be said moral monster Yahweh.

As far as your views on the "monotheistic holy book" are concerned. I think you have either read very little or you have just pulled the high points you want to off of some evangelical athiest website, book or forum. I can not speak for any other book besides the Holy Bible, because I have only skimmed through some of the others.

Apparently you have missed the parts about peace, love and caring for the poor, needy and your neighbor. Also if we lived in a society wherein the only law was the Ten Commandments and everyone followed them, we wouldnt need police, lawyers, jails, locks or militaries. I agree there are some harsh parts of the Bible. Before Jesus took the penalties of sin upon himself the punishments for breaking the law were extreme. God used the Jewish people to commit great acts of war upon non-believers. At the same time he used unbelievers to commit great acts of war against the Jewish people when they disobeyed. He also stayed his hand when someone interceded and extened piles of mercy upon groups of people throughout history.

Lastly I dont understand your view that scientific and historical untruths run rampant throughout the Bible. The Bible has time and again proven to be extremely accurate when it comes to history. It has been proven through archaeology, and outside historical documents.

If you care to debate any of this further I am more than willing to. You can email me at anytime bumper.45acp@yahoo.com

I now return you to your regularly scheduled blog.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Thu, Jan 13, 2011, at 1:05 PM

I will take everyone individually.

Liveforlight first -

I am committed to my family, scientific truth, and maintaining an open mind. Those are my ideologies. I am opposed to any form of supernaturalism and irrationality. I am well read in science, philosophy, and history (and i'm good at playing music and mixed martial arts - that's about all I claim to be good at!)

I believe in mankind. I believe in working for the answer. I believe in questioning ourselves as much as others. I believe in being fair. I believe in being rational at the cost of being personally uncomfortable. Is that enough to satiate? I realize your set-up. Atheists don't believe in an invisible "entity" who exists outside of time (which is a truism), so it must follow that we believe in "nothing". No middle ground. This is the problem with irrational thought. There is a continuum of "wrongs" and responsibilities that fit no perfect position. How about believing in the real world? Real answers that are in fact be difficult to come by.

You want to address the person who doesn't have ANY opinion. I would join you in addressing those persons.

-- Posted by Jazzy on Thu, Jan 13, 2011, at 2:24 PM

Unique-lies -

I reiterate my previous sentiment. You have a very interesting take on history. You are VERY well spoken and knowledgable on government issues. But you are far from dispassionately fair. You misrepresented socialism - not egregiously so. There is definitely some merit in your response, but you have summarily misrepresented what historical socialism philosophically represented. Zombie movies? You just sound paranoid, and unjustifiably inveterate.

I will admit I didn't sift trough ALL of your message. It was a bit too loquacious for my tastes.

For all your merit, you then bury it six feet under following your "Doom & Gloom", hocus pocus talk. It goes to show that intelligent people throw up partitions in the brain and compartmentalize their irrationality. Quoting from an ancient, defunct text is hardly consequential.

-- Posted by Jazzy on Thu, Jan 13, 2011, at 2:36 PM

Greasemonkey -

I find it interesting you challenge me publicly, but then you manage to throw me to your private e-mail for a continuation. I will apologize to Simmons for the following statement: I am going to respond. Maybe it's something small town USA should heed.

I am going to take you paragraph by paragraph if it suits everyone.

"I am not sure why you find you have to attack peoples beliefs in almost every post. I do not mind someone having beliefs that differ from my own, but theres no reason to try to belittle someone for it. Most of the time in my experience when someone has that kind of attitude it normally means they don't understand what they are talking about. Just recyling what they have heard with no real abilities to think for themselves. Or (this is where I think you fit in) they are deeply afraid of the consequences of the opposing view."

Am I attacking? Pointing out logical fallacies and irrational leaps are hardly "attacking". There is just a prevalent religious taboo. No one is complaining about these "political attacks". Do you know why? Because there is a rational, evidential foundation for which parties can argue. Any party can represent a political position which is far from inscrutable. Religion is easily assailable and THAT is what bothers religious folks. You might possibly have to think about your beliefs. I have spent years debating this issue, and i assure you...I am well-read. I grew up in a Christian household. As usual, atheists just know more about the Bible (or Torah or Qur'an or Bhagavad Gita etc). Afraid of opposing views? I think we both who is afraid to contemplate the implications. It takes no courage to blindly follow, but enormous amounts to separate from the flock.

Your second paragraph (I won't copy/paste to save room) I have already answered. Re-read my post. Denial of the facts do not make them less true - excellent sentiment. Denying the fact that the "Golden Rule" was posited centuries before the Judeo-Christian story was fabricated. And it was posited by many (Confucius, Buddha, Epictetus, Zarathustra etc) which proves my point exactly. It's an evolved necessity for functioning in society. Extremely uninvolved notion. Very easy.

So you have in fact cherry-picked any positive axiom from the Bible (again, pilfered from antecedent history) and ignored the bellicose atrocities. Anyone on the planet could improve the 10 commandments in seconds. No mention of Rape of Genocide or Incest, but make sure we don't build idolatrous statues, or pick up stick on the weekend??? THIS is what the almighty ruler of the universe wants? This is the best he can muster? Sounds more like a petty, jealous teenager.

Your last paragraph is patently false. I've read much on it. There is zero archeological evidence, zero biological evidence, zero evidence from chemistry or physics, and very little historical accuracy (there is NO independent verification of the historicity of Jesus, period - to say nothing of the divinity.)

If you would NOW like to continue this privately, we can surely proceed.

-- Posted by Jazzy on Thu, Jan 13, 2011, at 3:08 PM

Jazzy- I didn't think you had No opinion, (everyone has one) just wondered from what perspective you present yours. I value many of the same ideas that you do. The difference, I suppose, is I believe those ideas were placed there by an omnipotent being who knows more about us than we do.

Supernaturalism to me is nothing more than not having the answer/truth right now. I suppose a flashlight would have been seen as supernatural a thousand years ago. I do believe in God, or as you call him "Sky-Daddy" (I kinda like that one)

Since you are well read in science, philosphy, and history what explanation do you accept as the origin of man?

The Topic is "Free To Speak" and I admit I am off of that ,,my apologies.

Mr. Simmons, just say the word and I will respect your topic and cease my rambling.

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Thu, Jan 13, 2011, at 3:38 PM

Jazzy,

I responded to you publicly because you were making statements publicly. The reason I asked you to continue via email was to keep from this very thing happening, but whats done is done so....Again, I apologize to Mr. Simmons. Maybe at some point we will have another blog focusing on religion.

Yes I do consider it "attacking" whenever you portray your opinion to be the only possible truth. All the while telling us you "keep an open mind" and you are "well read". I can say the same things about myself. I have studied what other religions believe and have actually questioned things that are in the Bible, and so far I have always found an answer. I am not afraid to question my beliefs nor am I afraid to defend them. I also am not worried about the consequences of opposing views. If you are right (which I am quite sure you are not) then I have absolutely nothing to fear. There would be no consequences for disobeying God. My life would simply end and that would be that. Also I am not just "blindly following", I spend alot of time studying and making sure that what I believe is the logical choice for truth. I do not go to church regularly, so I am not sure which "flock" you are talking about.

Regardless of the "rules" (Golden or otherwise), there is still an objective moral law. You mentioned that other faiths, teachers and philosophers teach similar morals. I say that gives proof to the fact that there are objective moral values, because everyone seems to understand the same thing regardless of religious background. Its funny how they all come to the same conclusion. Who care if there is a functioning society, if there are no objective moral values then all man needs to worry about is surviving and reproducing. Murder would not be wrong or rape. If killing your neighbor meant more food for you, then by all means club him in the head. If you wanted to reproduce, what would it matter if the woman you wanted said no. If you were hungry and the neighbors baby looked good then by all means put it in a pot and cook it up. This is the world without objective moral values, they are undeniable. Regardless of your denial.

My choice of "cherry picked positive axioms" were the yin to your yang so to speak. I was just using them as an example to show that without looking at the Bible as a whole and actually understanding context and culture of the times, you can't make statements like you did earlier. It becomes a very weak argument, and one that shows your agenda.

As far as the 10 Commandments go, I think they are pretty hard to improve. You mentioned rape: I think number 7 and number 10 have that base covered, and well I guess number 8 too. Incest: Number 5 and Number 10 Genocide: Number 6. The Almighty ruler of the universe has our best intentions in mind, regardless of whether you hold a high opinion of him or not.

I almost fell out of my chair laughing at that last paragraph. To say that there is ZERO evidence is to completely ignore thousands of pieces of archaeology and manuscripts. To do so would mean that there were no dead sea scrolls, no house of david inscription from tel dan, no ossuary of caiphais, no inscriptions of pontius pilate, actually to list examples could take all night so I will stop there.

To say there is no independent verification of the historicity of Jesus is just flat out lying. Period. So there was no Josephus, no Tacitus, no Julius Africanus or Justin Martyr, again several WELL attested examples, and this is by no means an exhausted list. By independent I am guessing you mean extra-biblical. Although I dont understand why you have to have extra-biblical testimony to back up the best attested ancient document we have. There is zero reason to doubt its authenticity or to doubt its accuracy.

Im not sure what biological evidence you are looking for? Blood sample from Jesus maybe? Actually thinking about it I havent found any biological evidence that Jesus didnt exist.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Thu, Jan 13, 2011, at 7:04 PM

greasemonkey,

Christianity doesn't teach morality. It teaches obedience to an authority figure as a substitute for morality. True morality requires a rational examination of the consequences of your actions, and how those actions affect others.

If murder and rape are only wrong because God says they are wrong, then what if God said murder and rape were moral actions? Would you go around raping and killing people?

-- Posted by Richard on Thu, Jan 13, 2011, at 7:45 PM

Jazzy,

Why don't you just say that you don't believe in anything morally right or wrong?

You must want to believe because you no doubt have read many religious books of one kind or another. In my opinion there is one bible for me and that is the King James Bible and the God who is my creator.

You on the other hand believe as all science knowledgeable persons believe. Christianity in moot. You can't believe in it so you can't argue it in logic because you have no answers.

My Bible contains barbarous atrocities and acrimonious, vindictive axioms, as well as intimidation, bullying, sexism, racism, perversion, murder, rape, revenge, stupidity, pride, humiliation, love, hate, forgiveness, justice and injustice, impossible feats and logically explained heresy, along with one miracle after another.

Every country and religion has a similar book which contain stories that are believed and worshiped by their countrymen. Why say the flood didn't happen when all the other books describe a similar flood. Even the lost books of the bible and other writings that were not allowed in the bible and the ones that were not even written before the bible was printed mention miracles printed in the KJV.

Why have scientist discovered that the parting of the red sea was done by strong winds and not Mosses if scientists don't believe in the word of God. Why do scientist even argue about the Burial Shroud or the fact that Noah's Ark doesn't sit on Ararat Mountain.

How can scientists be so inaccurate on carbon dating if it is so popularly used as proof of exact age of things?

Why would they even try to prove something mentioned in the bible exists or not when scientist can't prove it doesn't and will never say it does.

As for the scientific and historical mistruths... what are you talking about? Pick up 10 different books that explain the historical event back in xxBCE. Each of the 10 books will have a different BCE time period for the same events. It is the scientists and their carbon dating that is inaccurate and mistruths.

Even having a Roman Historian living back at the time of these events, he did not record the events accurately when they happened. The KJV of the Holy Bible appears to be more accurate than what man has added or calculated.

You say, "So we sure as hell don't receive some authoritative moral objectivity from those sources."

The Bible says the son inherits the father's sins. Can you not see these sins today that came down the generations. If it wasn't for the moral knowledge of believing in morally good, this world would have already been devoured by the Beast and anti-christ.

Socialism:

I gave a damn good idea of what Socialism will be like. My Zombie example was just a comical exaggeration, but nether the less a good example of how people will think for themselves and react. A people (Zombies) all working together (the dead walking) as a Thriving community (Eating everyone in site to stay alive). All for one and one for all. No one better than the other.

When you compare this to the One World Order ruled by the Anti-Christ, and the mark or the beast...

Maybe you should have read all of my boring loquacious comment. Today's and yesterdays events are all lining up with what the KJV has been telling us. It is just a shame the preachers won't teach the truth.

Oh well, can't expect them to be any better than the Government they borrow from.

My unjustifiably inveterate comes from years of study or experience. I purposely used a loquacious comment to explain what has happened over the years, so you might learn what is scientific and historical mistruths and what the real truth is.

Here is another good example for you. Science has taught us that an aspirin a day is good prevention for heart disease. Tonight on TV a report said aspirin and Ibuprofen products are bad for the heart.

Our trusty Government and Scientists put our lives in danger with drugs they recommend then tell us they are dangerous for us. Speaking of "Mistruths"!

If you do nothing else, please tell me what your books tell you about how the world goes on forever!

-- Posted by Unique-Lies on Thu, Jan 13, 2011, at 7:49 PM

Jazzy- I can appreciate your views and intellect. I would like to hear how you answer the question about the origins of man.

As you have said, you try maintain an open mind, I realize that you have an answer based on your belief systems in science, philosophy, history or whatever other learned arts there are.

I simply suggest you maintain that open mind to things that you cannot define, test, measure, or verify and the possibility that God does exists and has placed in each of us a moral compass that we either recognize and choose to follow, or not.

Death will come to us all, and if I die to find I was wrong about God, then I have still lived a good, full, moral, life with no regrets because my heart and character have been changed by the one I believe in. The renewal cannot be described by words or measured with instruments but I know it is real.

"Using Tragedy for Personal Gain" That is what the crucifixion was for all of us. That is all I have to say.

BE BLESSED!

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Thu, Jan 13, 2011, at 8:30 PM

greasemonkey,

Christianity doesn't teach morality. It teaches obedience to an authority figure as a substitute for morality. True morality requires a rational examination of the consequences of your actions, and how those actions affect others.

If murder and rape are only wrong because God says they are wrong, then what if God said murder and rape were moral actions? Would you go around raping and killing people?

-- Posted by Richard on Thu, Jan 13, 2011, at 7:45 PM

Richard,

Thats my point. Even without the Bible or Christianity, objective moral values still exist. The Bible teaches that the law of God is written on our hearts. We were created with objective moral values that cut across cultural, AND religious boundries. Again I restate my point, if there is a moral law, there MUST be a moral law giver.

Now we can play the what if game all day long, but there is no logical argument there, just grasping at straws.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 9:31 AM

BREAKING NEWS.....this just in...

Fox News Reports No Link Between Matches, Gasoline and Fire

Beck Busts 'Mainstream Media Myth'

NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report) -- The Fox News Channel today attempted to bust what it called a "mainstream media myth" by reporting that there was no link between matches, gasoline and fire.

"Gasoline and matches don't start fires," said Fox host Glenn Beck. "People start fires."

Mr. Beck went on to say that there was no link between "oxygen, hydrogen and water."

Elsewhere, Verizon trumpeted its new iPhone, announcing, "For the first time, consumers will have a choice of which wireless carrier drops their calls."

-- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 10:02 AM

Isn't that nice? Someone just learned how to copy and paste.

What do you expect from a blogger that "reports" on who has possession of the President's testicles?

By the way, you can soak a match in gasoline until it falls apart but if there is no heat source or friction applied to the match it will not light.

-- Posted by Thom on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 11:05 AM

Yes Thom, it's called "humor". Something that escapes and often confuses republicans. But what can we expect when the conservative definition of humor consists of Dennis Miller.

-- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 11:42 AM

Oh, I get it now, it's like logic to the democrats. I understand.

-- Posted by Thom on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 11:44 AM

LOL, Touche'! I stand corrected. Maybe there's hope for you yet.

-- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 12:03 PM

Can someone explain the Questioning Statement that scrolled across my TV set today that said, "Rationing Health Care?"

Sounds like the Forced Health Care Plan or Administration just might be making adjustments now that everyone must get health care.

There is no doubt who will benefit from Rationing Health Care and it won't be us.

-- Posted by Unique-Lies on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 2:06 PM

The windows of Rep. Giffords office had been shot out. And people still wonder where this guy got his crazy idea to shoot her?

-- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 10:37 AM

During his campaign Obama said. "If they bring a knife we will bring a gun". He also on his campaign web site had a US map with the red states in Gun cross hairs. This is where Palin got the idea for the map on her web site. So the stones can be thrown both ways. A Liberal radio host stating, that he wanted Dick Chaney to meet God, he didn't what him to go to hell, he just wanted him to die. So like a bunch of monkeys this crap is being thrown from both sides of the isle, and it needs to stop.

-- Posted by docudrama on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 2:46 PM

Oh, you mean like they did during the whole Health Care "town halls" when the "news" outlets were reporting all of the threats and violence against the democrats. They threw in that one Congressman's office windows were shot out. They never bothered to mention that it was a republican's (Eric Cantor) office windows, they were perfectly content to let people believe that it was the Tea Party people shooting out the windows of a democrat.

-- Posted by Thom on Fri, Jan 14, 2011, at 3:14 PM

Ok, so here's what's going to happen now. I'm going to post a comparatively short response to all of you on our topic. I read all of it but don't have the energy to comment on it all (and I have a book's worth of answers to everything that everyone said).

Quite a rebuke. But no avail, unfortunately.

Let's see. Origin of man is 100% fact. Evolution by natural selection. In short order: You were an archaic homo sapien (erectus or ergaster), preceeded by habilines (homo habilis), preceeded by Australopithecus, moving onward a bit....a split from chimps (and bonobos), proceeded by Gorillas, then Orang Utans, then Gibbons, then Old and New World Monkeys, then Tarsiers, Lemurs and kin, Tree Shrews, Rodents and Rabbitkind, Laurasiatheres, Xenarthans, , Afrotheres, Marsupials, Monotremes, Sauropsids, Amphibians, Lungfish, Coelcanths...

I could continue until our family tree reaches the first self-replicating molecule several billion years ago. All you have to do is read folks. Just read. It's out there. And if you, Liveforlight, were referring to a cosmological origin (since that is all that is disputable here), I can talk about the energy of "nothing" (which indeed has energy), quantum fluctuations, multi-verse theory, M-theory (and 11 dimensions) or the laws of thermodynamics. I have all that covered. Debating this shit for years lol.

Greasemonkey -

The entire Christian belief system is predicated on a circular argument. There is objective morality, so it MUST come from a supreme being. Firstly, realize how illogical your VERY FIRST step is in that "argument". I AGREE that moral relativism is absurd (using all of your hyperbolic examples). If you will please read my earlier posts you will see that I mentioned we have "fairly certain, fairly unshakable" morals. I DON'T agree with complete moral absolutism. I think it is obvious there is a continuum.

Who would not agree they would feel worse killing a human more than a dog? What about a dog more than a beetle? Are Burkas for muslim women conducive to womens' intellectual and social flourishing? What about women in a strip club? Any room for compromise in there? Easily, yes.

Grease...you are backing out of your Christian absolutism. You are absolutely right about one thing. These principles were apparent to all of these scholars and philosophers simply because they work (and I have already explained why; i'm tired of repeating myself). Not because it rained from a God cloud - and if it did, you have already conceded it could be the Shakta and Shiva Hindu cloud (etc etc).

Grease -

I will give you a million dollars if you present a scientifically reputable case, peer-reviewed, corroborated, and accepted among anyone not a Christian, that there is ANY evidence that the Bible has accurate archeological evidence. Someone built a boat? Someone THOUGHT there was a God and made something in veneration? Where is your proof of God in there? The answer is, nowhere. I also feel the need to direct you to the science of statistics. Someone thought there was a God and built a statue - ipso facto- there is a God!- My God no less! It all makes sense in my circularly operating brain! I'm sure indoctrination had nothing to do with it. As far as the "extra-biblical" comment. OBVIOUSLY. I'm sorry, but that is f*****g stupid. That is like opening a Harry Potter book and claiming that "DUH!, Harry potter did that thing in chapter 4 because they mention it chapter 10! *yawn*...

Grease and Light -

Tell me specifically why YOUR religion is right and others wrong. It is, in fact, an accident of geography. If you lived in India, you would be Hindu, and if Pakistan, a devout Muslim. If you lived in Japan for a majority of its history, you would practice Shinto. That would be your moral authority - the one and only answer. Well isn't that nice.

Lastly - Pascal's Wager is offensive (Blaise Pascal - that's the origin of the "better safe than sorry" copout, if you are all interested on where you get your work). That's a justification for *feigning* a belief in a God. And if your God is of the omniscient type, He will know better! And you better hope you are not greeted by Baal in the afterlife - who may possibly be just as petty and jealous as his old rival, Yahweh - for Baal will send you to his version of Hell. The sheer number of potential gods and goddesses vitiates that entire logic; you might as well bet on no god to guess about, for fear of pissing the wrong of the wrong one. Better safe than sorry? What a childish, fearful way to live.

I am NOT important in geological time. I will die and my body will remain for the flora and fauna. trust me I know it doesn't sound great. But I choose truth over "feeling good". I'm making this life better and enjoying it while I still have it.

Unique - sorry, I ignored you pal. I kind of stopped paying attention after you swam into deep waters. Good luck out there.

-- Posted by Jazzy on Sat, Jan 15, 2011, at 12:51 AM

Btw, millions and millions of people live good, wonderful lives without a god. And billions do the same without YOUR god. That is an incontrovertible fact. Check* and *Mate

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet should take back some of that dirty atheist money of theirs. Only Jesus money does the trick (especially in the tax-exempt churches where the holy priests touch little boys. Yay, go abstinence!)

-- Posted by Jazzy on Sat, Jan 15, 2011, at 12:56 AM

Jazzy, Let me begin by stating that I am also an atheist who values a well examined life, but that is where our similarities apparently end. It is condescending and trifling people, like yourself, who make me ashamed to profess the doctrine which I am compelled to accept. Your vitriolic hyperbole literally makes me nauseous.

It is not that you are equally as guilty as those who have a theist world-view. You are worse than the most dogmatic of them, as you do not even aspire to elevate anything more than this insignificant transient existence. Your only obvious motivation is to ridicule and belittle others, for nothing more than the satisfaction of doing it, and more specifically, the ego boost that accompanies that narcissistic accomplishment.

I am guessing that you are either relatively young, or alternatively, you have developed a serious complex of inferiority somewhere along the way. Perhaps your lack of faith created a resentment of those who sought to proselytize you. Either way, as educated as you must be, you must have realized by now that none of us have all the answers, not even you. As a matter of fact, "Origin of man is 100% fact." depends entirely upon what you choose to classify as "fact".

Science is not comprised of fact; it is comprised of assumptions and inferences based upon empirical observations through largely ignorant lenses. What we experience today is almost entirely revolutionary science, and is closer to a religion of faith than anyone who advocates its merits may indicate.

If you hope to be taken seriously, decide what is worth fighting for. Fighting just to win is really no better than not fighting at all. It is only an act of desperation from a weak minded individual, irrespective of the knowledge they possess.

For example, why don't you explain where this universal morality that you speak of comes from, instead of simply insisting that it does not come from someone's God? Lots of things "work" but have little or no morality. My question is not rhetorical; I would really love to know. I have spent years examining various moral theories, and evaluating a believable "state of nature", but I have come up with nothing that resonates with what I perceive around me. Do you really have any answers?

-- Posted by memyselfi on Sat, Jan 15, 2011, at 6:18 AM

memyselfi: Priceless, absolutely priceless. I have avoided commenting in the blogs for sometime simply for my own peace of mind, but you have just expressed my thoughts on jazzy's comments so well I could not restrain myself from complimenting you.

-- Posted by devan on Sat, Jan 15, 2011, at 7:51 AM

memyselfi

That reminds me of what God told Job and Jobs friends. He wasn't condemning them but putting them in their place. Talk about raving on!

I almost felt bad for jazzy, but I know you weren't condemning his beliefs or any of the great contributions he is working towards making this a better world.

We do have to admit that what he said was in fact a part of life for many. Every country has their own god in which they can believe or not.

-- Posted by Unique-Lies on Sat, Jan 15, 2011, at 12:35 PM

jazzy,

Don't go away! If I can find the proof I am looking for I would like your opinion on it. I may not be able to find it, but will try.

-- Posted by Unique-Lies on Sat, Jan 15, 2011, at 12:38 PM

memyselfi - As much as we disagree on a number of topics, I have to say you are dead-on on this one. Thank you so much for saving me the time of writing a response.

I have no problems with people of any religion (as long as they're not sacrificing people or animals), but I think it petty of anyone to strive to tear down another's religion simply because they don't worship the same. That's why they call it a "belief" or "faith". There is no proof necessary. I have always though it was interesting that a certain group of atheists takes atheism to such an extreme that it becomes a "religion" of sorts.

Jazzy - I believe your use of profanity in a public forum such as this is not helping you get your point across. Trust me, I'm an ex-sailor and I thoroughly believe that I have the right to swear as much as anyone. I also know when there is a possibility that kids or others that might be offended by my language around that I should hold back quite a bit. I'm not saying that you don't have a right to express your opinions, as that would be the epitome of hypocrisy, just please try to do so without using socially unacceptable terms.

-- Posted by Thom on Sat, Jan 15, 2011, at 12:42 PM

Jazzy,

I am moving my argument to Thoms "Religion" blog.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Sat, Jan 15, 2011, at 5:55 PM

Rodney,

I want to apologize again, for taking part in steering your blog way off topic. I know you took the time to research and think about your topic, and we hijacked it. Sorry.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Sun, Jan 16, 2011, at 11:39 AM

It is easy to start a debate on one topic and it lead to another, I have found all of the comments very interesting.

-- Posted by Rodney Simmons on Sun, Jan 16, 2011, at 5:27 PM

The origin of man? If I am to believe Darwin, then somewhere about a kajillion years ago there was this little puddle of ooze. It sat there for about another bajillion years and all of a sudden it started vibrating. Nobody knows how long it vibrated, but then all of a sudden a single celled ameoba decides to split itself in two and in another couple of billion years it flopped itself up out of that ooze and then in another million years or so, here we are...human beings. Nope...I ain't buying it. But, I do have just one question for the for those Darwinites...Just where did that all powerful puddle of ooze come from?

-- Posted by Tim Lokey on Sun, Jan 30, 2011, at 12:35 PM

Scientists are a group of College Students who are making a salary from Government Grants to "explore" ideas.

They claim there aren't any meteors, planets nor asteroids that are heading towards or even aimed at earth, yet they claim it is a possibility that the earth could be destroyed by one.

Last year the experts discovered that the Sun was getting hotter and is going to explode soon. You don't hear anymore about it.

Scientists earned their grant money and moved on to other subjects.

Talking about man being from Apes or Monkeys is like talking about the Mayan Civilization.

None of it makes any sense yet the bible explains everything.

-- Posted by Unique-Lies on Sat, Feb 26, 2011, at 3:46 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


Rodney Simmons is a life long resident of Bedford County. He grew up in the Halls Mill area and graduated from Community High School. Rodney's career has primarily been in the construction industry and he holds a degree in Construction Management. Some of his hobbies include fishing, reading and writing. He presently lives in Shelbyville with his wife and two teenage children.
Hot topics
Parking on the Square
(5 ~ 5:16 PM, Nov 1)

No White House Tours for You!
(39 ~ 5:02 AM, Apr 7)

Gun Control
(60 ~ 11:11 AM, Jan 28)

Black Friday
(6 ~ 12:39 PM, Nov 20)

A Wheel Tax - For or Against?
(100 ~ 4:56 PM, Oct 2)