Raving Lunatic
I was recently studying hanchetts first antichrist site, bushisantichrist.com and apparently it is not. this is his first antichrist site.
http://mirrors.meepzorp.com/geocities.com/george-bush-antichrist/
Why am I telling you this? Because his message on this site is a little different. heres the title on bushisantichrist.com :
"submit to you that George Walker Bush is the ANTI-CHRIST. The violence and destruction that began when Bush first entered office, is now certain to culminate in the apocalypse, as predicted in the Bible over 2,000 years ago."
and here's the message on his older one.
"I submit that George Walker Bush is the
ANTI-CHRIST !
And finally I have accumulated more-than-enough proof!"
Now, whats wrong with this? Ill tell you. Its this "And finally I have accumulated more-than-enough proof!"
So apparently, he thought that Bush was the antichrist, but had no proof. People called him crazy, people called him a lunatic. So he said "I'll show you! Ill show you all! Someday, Ill have proof, and my own website! Ill have many followers, and we will impeach bush!" And now he has accumulated more-than-enough proof!
On his newer site though, he changed it so that it was less raving lunatic and more wise prophet. But this old site shows his true colors. He puts on the "Im just a normal guy trying to find the truth" face, but Im not falling for it.
http://mirrors.meepzorp.com/geocities.com/george-bush-antichrist/
Why am I telling you this? Because his message on this site is a little different. heres the title on bushisantichrist.com :
"submit to you that George Walker Bush is the ANTI-CHRIST. The violence and destruction that began when Bush first entered office, is now certain to culminate in the apocalypse, as predicted in the Bible over 2,000 years ago."
and here's the message on his older one.
"I submit that George Walker Bush is the
ANTI-CHRIST !
And finally I have accumulated more-than-enough proof!"
Now, whats wrong with this? Ill tell you. Its this "And finally I have accumulated more-than-enough proof!"
So apparently, he thought that Bush was the antichrist, but had no proof. People called him crazy, people called him a lunatic. So he said "I'll show you! Ill show you all! Someday, Ill have proof, and my own website! Ill have many followers, and we will impeach bush!" And now he has accumulated more-than-enough proof!
On his newer site though, he changed it so that it was less raving lunatic and more wise prophet. But this old site shows his true colors. He puts on the "Im just a normal guy trying to find the truth" face, but Im not falling for it.
45 Comments:
nobody cares. Post something that matters. Like an explanation for why the Guantamino detainees should be denied legal council.
anonymous said: "Nobody cares. Post something that matters." Wrong... I care! Many other people would as well. This site that BushCheney08 is referring to is so blatantly ignorant and ridiculous it boarders on total insanity. One of this dingbat's points: "Bush's name adds up to 666 in Hebrew." Great argument, right? Anyone falling for this has got to not be rowing with both oars. In fact, the author of that site not only lost both oars, he has holes all over his canoe. I can see Bush's mother now, talking to her husband: "Dear, there has to be a way to name our precious baby boy so that his name will equal the number 666 in Hebrew. I simply will not settle for anything else. I want our baby to be the next AntiChrist." Boy, are the Bush's crazy, or what?
Of course, I can see why Anonymous doesn't think it matters. It's a liberal website BC08 is blogging about. Anything against our President, no matter how stupid or radical, is obviously okay with Anonymous.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
One more thing: The site BCO8 is referring to is doing nothing to enhance the liberal position. If I were a liberal I would be even more furious with him than I am as a conservative: He is only making liberals look bad. You people who say you are liberals should be ranting and raving at him instead of BC08.
Anonymous said...
nobody cares. Post something that matters. Like an explanation for why the Guantamino detainees should be denied legal council.
If you're being sarcastic then go to my blog. I wrote one about why they are denied rights. Mostly because they're enemies of the US and dont deserve them.
http://darksaturos.blogspot.com
anonymous: nobody cares? I think that you know thats not true. I think when you say "nobody cares" by that you mean "I dont care". Self centeredness perhaps?
While I don't necessarily agree with everything Hanchett has to say, it isn't as though the name adding up to 666 was his only bit of evidence. It is a very small piece of a very large amount of information that he has gathered over the years, and he himself says that it isn't conclusive.
This whole of this post is to make Hanchett out to be a lunatic by proving that he wrote his views in a more extreme way and then changed them later on - are you denying the ability of people to change or are we stuck exactly as we are at birth and cannot ever move beyond the mentality and mindsets of the past?
A lot of your previous posts make you look like a snotty, ignorant moron, but as you like to point out, you are trying not to be that way as much anymore. Well, sorry, you were like that once upon a time so now you are cursed to be like that forever, no matter what you say!
As for the bit about Hanchett's proof - everyone has hunches or feelings about things. Every scientific discovery or fact started with someone's hunch and that person set out to find evidence that the hunch was correct and either succeeded (thus, the laws of physics and every other scientific fact we take for granted) or failed.
Hanchett had the feeling that GWB is the anti-christ, and instead of just sticking to his hunch despite facts (as you and yours seem to prefer) he did the only responsible thing he could, in light of the seriousness of his hunch, he set out to prove or disprove his theory. And honestly, he did a pretty damn good job of it.
So quit trying to take apart Hanchett's evidence - the overall conclusion may or may not be the truth, but at least he took it seriously enough to do his research and to really dig into all of the ways he could possibly support the claim. He ended up with so much evidence he was able to publish a book about it. When you can say the same, then you might have something to say about Hanchett's work. Until then, stick to posting about things that you know marginally more about - otherwise its like a Grade 10 physics student laughing at Albert Einstein's theories - "What? He thinks E=MC Squared? He expects us to believe that when he couldn't prove it immediately and had to actually do research!!? What an idiot!".
Needless to say, in that scenario it is the high school student and not the genius physicist who looks like an idiot.
BC08 -
When I suggested that you start a blog, it was to encourage you to do constructive things with your life.
It certainly wasn't intended as a suggestion to simply be contrarian.
There are extremely horrible injustices occuring in this world in our name. I find it disturbing that the most you can do is complain that the Liberals are making Bush look bad.
I also find it disturbing that you only spent 4 paragraphs on the Katrina disatster. Bush screwed up, A lot of people screwed up. People DIED because of this.
I really don't care that much about the Antichrist speculation. I care about inequality and injustice.
However, as too many Americans have proven to me (I am American, BTW), it appears that America is way too spoiled to care about anyone but themselves and their own self-interest.
Why would I say that, you ask? Simply look at the justification for invading Iraq. We invaded a sovreign nation because they could possibly present a threat to US in the future. This is why they call it "Pre-emptive" war. THE US STARTED THE WAR IN IRAQ! WE ARE THE AGGRESSORS. WE ARE THE BAD GUYS. WE ARE THE PROBLEM!
Please don't blame them for 9/11 - they had nothing to do with it. Don't Justify the killing of over 100,000 Iraqi civilians. Please wake up and smell the reality.
If you wish to continue to waste your time on writing your exhortations of a fascist government (Fascism: A social and political ideology with the primary guiding principle that the state or nation is the highest priority, rather than personal or individual freedoms.) please do not thank me, because I obviously didn't communicate my encouragement to you effectively.
Please explain to me why the "Liberal model" is a bad idea?
----
Why Toyota chose Canada over Alabama/Mississippi.
by wegerje Daily Kos
Fri Jul 8th, 2005 at 21:03:52 PDT
(From the diaries. More evidence that an educated workforce and
government-subsidized health care are the best forms of economic development
-- kos)
They got a $125 Million is subsidies from the Canadians. But that wasn't
what sealed the deal, because several southern states offered nearly double
the subsidies. What sealed the deal was the quality of education that their
potential workers in Canada possesed.
The extra subsidies offered by the U.S. state would have been eaten up by
the need to train and educate the workers in those states to the standards
of a modern mechanized and digitized automobile plant. CBC news reports:
The factory will cost $800 million to build, with the federal and provincial
governments kicking in $125 million of that to help cover research, training
and infrastructure costs.
Several U.S. states were reportedly prepared to offer more than double that
amount of subsidy. But Fedchun said much of that extra money would have been
eaten away by higher training costs than are necessary for the Woodstock
project.
He said Nissan and Honda have encountered difficulties getting new plants up
to full production in recent years in Mississippi and Alabama due to an
untrained - and often illiterate - workforce. In Alabama, trainers had to
use "pictorials" to teach some illiterate workers how to use high-tech plant
equipment.
"The educational level and the skill level of the people down there is so
much lower than it is in Ontario," Fedchun said.
It's ironic that those southern states were willing to fork over the money
to get the plant, but not to spend the same money to raise the educational
standards in their schools. It's a classic penny-wise, pound-foolish
approach.
But what about a northern state with better education. Well too bad northern
states, you also are being "penny-wise and pound-foolish".
Only now it's health care that is a show stopper"
In addition to lower training costs, Canadian workers are also $4 to $5
cheaper to employ partly thanks to the taxpayer-funded health-care system in
Canada, said federal Industry Minister David Emmerson.
"Most people don't think of our health-care system as being a competitive
advantage," he said.
Tanguay said Toyota's decision on where to build its seventh North American
plant was "not only about money."
"It's about being in the right place," he said, noting the company can rely
on the expertise of experienced Cambridge workers to help get Woodstock up
and running.
========================================================
This is a printer-friendly version of an article from www.news-record.com
To print this article open the file menu and choose Print.
"THE US STARTED THE WAR IN IRAQ! WE ARE THE AGGRESSORS. WE ARE THE BAD GUYS. WE ARE THE PROBLEM!:
tch thc, so short sighted. Of course we started the war in iraq! That does not make us the bad guys however. Which one would you have, war in iraq(along with freeing opressed iraqi citezens), or the terrorist attacks on america, THEN the war in iraq. Its your choice. I, for one, choose the option that would save more lives in the wrong one. With terrorists, we have to be the aggressor, we have to keep them on the run. Otherwise, they will regroup and attack the country they hate. To the narrowminded of the world (the UN, most islams, you, the liberals of america, and a whole bunch of other people) it does look like were the bad guys, but Im all for rooting out the evil from this world. Why arent you? why is this so hard to take in? Why cant you broaden your horizons?
Thoughts, living positive, have more than 3 dimensions. they have more dimensions than the narrow-minded could possibly imagine.
typo I meant "in the long run" instead of "in the wrong one"
anonymous: I never said that the liberal model was a bad Idea, I havent read that article, Im not much for cars.
"Narrowminded" does not mean "you don't agree with the way I view the world." It means that one is not willing to accept the possibility that other people can have their own opinions on how things should work. There are several other options to how the world can live together without blowing them to Kingdom Come. There are other options to running the government without letting the Corporations own the country. There are lots of people out there with better ideas, and trust me for you, that isn't saying much.....
I wouldn't normally pull out the age thing, but it is extremely obvious that you have a lot of growing up to do.
Speaking of narrowmindedness, did you stop to think just once that your precious government is feeding you a line of lies.
Did you stop just once to look at something other that Fox "News" and the mass media to see what is going on?
Did you realize that right here in the good ol' US of A there is a Police State on the roll?
You can continue to insist that I am narrow minded, but at least I am "narrow-minded" and just.
BTW as I have said so many times before, you can justify our attacking Iraq all you want, but it does not make it right by any stretch of the imagination. It has been proven time and time again that Iraq was of no threat to the US, and that Iraq was in fact denying the "terrorists" access. The insurgents only cropped up after we invaded, thank you very much, and the insurgents are actually more akin to rebels than terrorists since what they consider themselves doing is trying to repel and occupying force, much like the USSR did in Afghanistan.
If you would, just for a second, stop being so geo-centric and try to see the the US is in fact the agressor. Agression is unjustifyable under any conditions.
Raising the "terrorist" flag of convenience is exactly what Hitler did in WWII to justify attacking his neighbors to keep them from attacking Germany first.
Finally, if by "broadening my horizons" you mean condoning world domination, I think I'll pass.
I'm done. Why? because I know that because of our "Great Divider" GW, and PNAC and the "Religious" right, we will not be able to find common ground on this issue. they could run the country into the ground and you would still love him. The administration is months away from running this country in to bankrupcy and you worship the ground he walks on. (BTW when we talk about a "deficit" it means we are borrowing money to keep our country running.)
Saint said: "A lot of your previous posts make you look like a snotty, ignorant moron, but as you like to point out, you are trying not to be that way as much anymore. Well, sorry, you were like that once upon a time so now you are cursed to be like that forever, no matter what you say!"
Cursed to be like that forever???? Sounds like "Saint" believes in witchcraft.
"Saint" isn't a very good handle for this guy. Perhaps he needs to change it.
They are really pulling out all the stops on this one, BC08. I would say you have upset their applecarts!
right on living postive
no matter what we say you( bushchey08) will just cite the evil liberal ideology, bush-haiting, narrow mindedness, or just call everyone hippies if you don't get your own way in order to avoid the real issues and answering any questions.
I have no respect for you because unlike many right wing bloggers that I appreciate, you don't actually say anything new, improved nor original you just interpret fairly rational right wing thought, and turn it into some the has no grounding neither in fair political discourse nor it seems in the bible nor Jesus' teachings.
I won't be back.
Living Positive:
You're not narrow minded. You're just wrong.
"as I have said so many times before, you can justify our attacking Iraq all you want, but it does not make it right by any stretch of the imagination"
Forget about how Saddam got caught, how we saved the lives of countless Kurds and Shiites, forget the fact that they are a free nation, something we take for granted. Forget all that, we were the AGGRESORS. That is your whole argument right? It doesn't matter how many lives we saved, or countries we freed, if we started it, we're bad.
I'm going to end this with an analogy.
The war in Iraq is like kemo therapy.
You are feeling fine, but you have cancer and don't know it. When you find out you have cancer they put you on kemo therapy. Then you feel really crappy. Even though it's helping it feels bad. You could stop kemo therapy and die of cancer, or you could finish it, and live.
Oh yeah, and what you said about FOX, you're dead wrong. There is NOTHING wrong with fox! It's not like I go around all day saying CNN is evil and lies and all that bull, you know why? because I know I would be wrong. Now stop putting down FOX, there's nothing wrong with it.
Anonymous said...
right on living postive
no matter what we say you( bushchey08) will just cite the evil liberal ideology, bush-haiting, narrow mindedness, or just call everyone hippies if you don't get your own way in order to avoid the real issues and answering any questions.
WE do that? Yeah, right. Ted Kennedy was just on TV and he couldn't answer any questions wihtout blaming Bush. I never said liberals are narrow-minded. Just ignorant.
"Forget about how Saddam got caught, how we saved the lives of countless Kurds and Shiites, forget the fact that they are a free nation, something we take for granted."
A FREE NATION? What on earth are you talking about? Do you watch the news? EVER? I'm pretty sure that even FOX hasnt gone to that exteme yet. Watch the violence that happens there every second of every day. Do you worry about that here in the US? No, and THAT is what freedom means.
"Speaking of narrowmindedness, did you stop to think just once that your precious government is feeding you a line of lies."
Yes I did consider that, but then I realized that kind of thing is an outrageous story plot that you only see in the movies.
"A FREE NATION? What on earth are you talking about? Do you watch the news? EVER? I'm pretty sure that even FOX hasnt gone to that exteme yet. Watch the violence that happens there every second of every day. Do you worry about that here in the US? No, and THAT is what freedom means."
Do you think we had it easy when becoming a free nation. Look at how bloody the revolutionary war was. That's the period Iraq is in right now, and they WILL be free when we're finished.
"Cursed to be like that forever???? Sounds like "Saint" believes in witchcraft."
Forgive me for asking this Gayle, but I have to know: Do you know how to read? I guess we have to assume you do have to have at least a basic literacy to be able to post on here - but reading comprehension? Did you take any english in high school? Did you even GO to high school?
This really is evidence of how willing some people are to twist and misquote people to make them look bad - you obviously completely missed the point (or you purposefully misconstrued what I was saying, which wouldn't surprise me either).
One of the main points of Jayson's post was basically saying that because Hanchett was a certain way in the past this invalidates any attempt by him to change his M.O. or improve his attitude. I responded to that by pointing out the implications of this kind of logic on his own life.
For some strange reason you didn't jump down his throat for "believing in witchcraft" - probably because he didn't use a spiritual buzz-word like "curse". Oooohhh aaahhhhh.. I said the word curse, I must be a witch!
Well incidentally, I do believe in curses, in fact curses are an entirely Biblical concept. It is made very clear throughout the Bible that there are three kinds of curses - God can curse people, people can curse other people and a person can curse themselves. This has nothing to do with 'witchcraft', and even if it did, Jayson would be guilty in the meaning of his post, with or without the word 'curse'.
You remember what Jesus called the pharisees - "Whitewashed tombs" - they look great on the outside, but inside is nothing but death. Well guess what Gayle - you have just proven something about yourself - you are entirely preoccupied with the surface of things - maybe its the words a person uses or how nicely wrapped in leather their Bible is, but you don't have any interest in looking deeper, either at yourself or at others. Jayson and I both made statements that basically pronounced a curse on another person, but you chose to jump all over ME because I used a word that you decided was inappropriate, whereas Jayson didn't. The meaning of those statements (ignoring the fact that mine was purely for ironic value, while Jayson's was deadly serious) was exactly the same, but you had no interest in pondering the deeper meaning, and chose instead to be smug and self-righteous. Great work!
"how we saved the lives of countless Kurds and Shiites"
and are now leading them to civil war.
"They are a free nation"
Stuck in their own homes afraid of U.S troops and Iraqi insurgents
It was never America's intention to save the Iraqi people, but now they are stuck with this problem. They just wanted to make sure Saddam didn't have any bombs, why the hell would they care about some Islamic state when they don't seem to care about civil rights.
And there is a lot of with Fox. The pro-Bush bias. The Jeb Bush involvement, the fact that it is in Murdoch's intrest to keep Bush in power?
" I realized that kind of thing is an outrageous story plot that you only see in the movies". Yes, that's what they want you to think. The fact is governments lie. Liberal Governments lie. Right Wing governments lie. Communists lie. The important thing to realise is that governments can't be trusted nor left to roam free with any critism.
""how we saved the lives of countless Kurds and Shiites"
and are now leading them to civil war."
Wrong. The suniis are the antagonists because with Saddam in power they got extra money. And America is leading them OUT of a civil war, we're training Iraqi police officers so by the time we leave they will have both government and law enforcement, two things that are ESSENTIAL for having a civillized community.
"We're training Iraqi police officers" who are showing massive imcompetance becuase thy arrested two British marines who the brits say were innocent, and the police offices are getting carbombed on a weekly basis. A hell of a lot of police well have to be trained extremly quickly to calm down a situation that shows no sign of aggrement.
I agree that a civilised community requires law enforcement and government but if this isn't effective something has to be done. The government needs to be able to exert more power because in my opinion the American influence on political decisions is too great for the Kurds, Shi-Ites and Sunnis to trust a system of government they have never experienced.
I have also seen Hanchett's first site that was quite insane, really. I have debated him many times in the past on scripture and politics, never once getting a decent answer that didn't include name calling and Biblical quotes that were way off,... which is a sin in itself.
Hanchett as a typical liberal cannot reason with facts, but instead resorts to emotional gossip and made-up innuendo and wild conspiracy theories that has no basis in truth. Hanchett is much like the liberal rumor mills about dead corpses, canniballism, child rapes, sharks etc. et al, that were in buzzing around during and after Katrina. Nearly all of that crap has proved to be false, but was reported by the media's hysterical-liberal misfits anyway. Hanchett likely believed every word and still does!
Hanchett has the same M.O.. Get everyone ginned up to believe something insane and keep feeding it until people believe it. Hanchett does it becuase he's full of intense hatred for Bush, using religion as cover to spew it. You can imagine how sinful that is!
Somewhere along the way, Bush must have done something to Hanchett personally to create such deep resentment and hate in him that has literally driven him over the edge, much like Cindy Sheehan. Heck, they may be one and the same lunatic!
Those who believe Hanchett are just as insane because they are not willing to separate their hatred based on lies about Bush, from reality based on facts and common sense.
These are some of the reasons I stopped wasting my time with Hanchett, for it's truly impossible to reason with someone who thinks reason, truth and facts aren't real because they don't jive with his pre-conceived notions derived from Micheal Moore, MoveON or (bankrupt) Airhead America.
BC'08, keep up the truth!
Saint: It looks like I flipped your trigger. :) Good! And you have flipped mine! This is definitely the last time I respond to anything that comes out of your mouth. You don't know how to have a civil conversation and are, as far as I can tell, only interested in being insulting. Your arrogance and attitude are unbelievable. You call me names constantly, disparage my education; make comments like "can you even read?" which is simply stupid, and throw insults out all over the place. I don't have to put up with your arrogant little boy attitude, and your smug, self-righteous conviction that you are better than everyone else. And, if you believe in curses, as you say you do, you are really setting yourself up by pissing off so many people. Someone could put a curse on you. I can't, because I don't believe in that crap. Wish I could! Now go ahead and rant and rave and call me every name in the book, because it won't matter as I no longer will read anything you have to say.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
in my honorable opinon:
gayle: after reading saints responce and then awful attempt at a reply I think I will say the same, I won't be take any time to read your post because it's obvious that you just come from a quasi-Christian background and the US has warped your belief.
The point is, it's not very Christian to go wishing people had curses placed on them! Retract that statement for starters! And whats wrong with self-righteous? Isn't that just a way of negativly labeling someone who sticks up for their beliefs with strong conviction?
I hope it's irony when you say "if you believe in curses" "Someone could put a curse on you". I think something like, more christian would have been a little more appropriate.
You need to allow people to express themselves in any way they please and if you don't like it, don't comment, or actually answer questions rather than even picking up on it. If you don't respond to it, it'll go away.
The comments section in this blog is great and provides some fantastic arguments however, must we all name call, aplly liberal, republican and Christian stereotype, and try to humiliate whoever is posting, it isn't geting anyone anywhere and I am sick of it and just want a proper evidence based discussion that doesn't rely on childish insults, and equally childish first-person "I think saddam" logic.
Everyday you run into people who want to put curses on you, either by placing expectations on you that are contrary to God's design, or by praying "soulish" prayers like "God, please make so-and-so see that I am right", or simply by saying derogatory and untrue things about you.
Jayson is placing curses on Stephen Hanchett with this post by referring to him as a "raving lunatic". You, Gayle, are placing curses on me by suggesting that I should not call myself a saint - which is an indirect way of casting judgement on the state of my soul and my relationship with Jesus, as well as your suggesting that I practice witchcraft. I'm sure I didn't repond in the best way I possibly could have, either, and probably laid a few curses of my own.
I find it extremely frustrating when I come here with the intention of hearing all sides of the debate, only to have people like you and Jayson purposely take things said by people, including myself, completely out of context to suit your purposes. If you have a good point to make, it shouldn't require you to twist the words of other people to make it connect, but that is what you are showing a habit of doing.
I also cannot stand for people who will gleefully call down judgement upon a person they deem as their opponent for something that they are all too willing to let slide when their allies do that very same thing. It is a despicable and duplicitous practice, altogether born of religion and bad politics, and completely destroys any hope of constructive or helpful dialogue.
Yeah, you're right, you flipped my trigger only because that is what you set out to do, regardless of the facts and regardless of whether anything you may have said was truthful or right, in fact you seem to revel in spreading distortion if it makes you look smart, and that is where the real problem lies with you and everyone who shares your methods and ideologies, as far as I am concerned. Its not that you are a terrible person (at least no more so than anybody), its that you are way too interested in the dust in everyone else's eyes and you aren't even trying to take the log out of your own. There is no desire there to bridge gaps, only to force everyone over to your side and then burn the bridge for everyone else.
Saint said: If Libs are using this as a reason to discredit Bush, that is just plain dumb. Makes them look petty and ridiculous. Besides which, there are enough SERIOUS things to take issue with, why waste their time on something stupid like this?
Then Gayle said: For once I agree with Saint: It does make libs look petty and ridiculous!
Saint said: Actually I didn't mean anything like that - I meant exactly what I said. If libs are using a stupid doctored picture to discredit Bush, it makes them look petty and stupid.
-----------------------------------
I am really just confused by this whole thread - how is what gayle saying different to what your saying?
Jayson, are you ACTUALLY being serious? Did you seriously only read the first line of Gayle's post and not the rest of it?
"I understand he meant that libs aren't using this to discredit Bush. The fact is, they are; and they will use anything they can get their hands on to discredit Bush. It is their one goal in life. I believe it has become their religion!"
So. . whats wrong with this? He said that he knew you didnt believe that they were discrediting bush, but he thought that they did. Saying its thier religion is a strange way to put it, but if you look at an old post of gayle's its commenting on how atheism is thought of as a religion. So, in understanding that, he is mocking it by saying that discrediting bush is also a religion. I thought about this, and when I got what gayle ment, then I thought it was funny. Do you understand now saint?
I think you are missing the point - she was reading sarcasm or whatever you want to call it into what I said. I said one thing and she claimed to "know" that I actually meant something else and was being sly about it. I was agreeing that if Libs were using that photo to bash GWB, that it was lame - Gayle stated that she KNEW I actually didn't mean what I said and that I was somehow defending the liberals on the matter, which I wasn't.
The frustrating thing to me isn't that she misunderstood by accident, it was that she took a very clear statement by me and claimed to KNOW what I actually meant, based on nothing but her own skewed opinions about me. At the very least, she could have asked for clarification instead of just making broad assumptions.
I get a little heated sometimes, but I try very hard to be fair and not to read the most negative connotations possible into what other people say, so when someone else does that to me, it makes me angry.
In any case, Jayson, I appreciate you asking for clarification - if more people would do that before jumping to conclusions we would have a lot more constructive conversations around here.
care for a comment? Bush ally faces criminal charge: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4291706.stm
Yes. I will comment. Tom DeLay has been indicted. He has not been "convicted." Innocent until proven guilty... supposedly. I know with many people it doesn't really work that way, and I hope the Democrats can wait to do their gloating until after the verdict comes in, if he should end up being proven guilty. Tom DeLay claims he is "not guilty" and that his innocence will be proven during the trial; that he has "temporarily" stepped down from his appointment as Majority Speaker of the House. Okay, fair enough. His guilt or innocence will be proven one way or another. If he is guilty as charged, then all the Democrats can have their field day, and I, as a conservative, will be happy to see him serve his two-years in jail, because, Republican or Democrat, this type of breaking the law in order to win elections has to be stopped.
While Tom DeLay is away at trial, a Republican will be taking his place.
Gayle,
Please see my post about DeLay's indictment.
i don't think anyone's indicted Bush was in on it but being so close, do you think Bush couldn't have known?
and yes a
"Republican will be taking his place." rumours are it's likely to be David Dreier, a target often by the media as being Homosexual and living with is cheif of staff last year. How happy would a christian republican be with a gay guy second in command of the House of Representatives?
Anonymous: I will be perfectly content with a "gay" guy taking his place. Please don't put all Republicans in one basket. His being gay has nothing whatsoever with his ability to do his job!
Cate: I did not imply Bush was in on it too. I think you misunderstood. I will check out your post.
Oops! Sorry; I went to the wrong post. It was Ottoman who invited me.
Ottoman: I tried to check out your post, but when I click on your name, a window comes up telling me your profile is "not available to the public." Therefor, unless you leave your url here, or make your profile available, I cannot get there.
His blog is on my sidebar. "The Creative Conservative"
Thanks, BCO8: I will check it out.
BCO8: Okay, I checked out Ottman's Blog. It's a good post. I left a comment there that I think might not be appropriate for a 15 year old, but I'm sure you've probably heard much worse, sometimes right here on your own blog! Go check it out; it will give you a good laugh.
Gayle: lol. you could put something like that on a G or PG movie and noone would have a problem. I suggest you read "100 people that are screwing up america" that will tell you what cencorship is these days. But anyway, you made a pretty nice point with that.
BCO8: Thanks!
Cate, I think you are right on with what you are saying - it all comes down to recognizing the differences between temptation and sin. Every person is tempted - even Christ was tempted. The Bible says that Jesus was tempted in EVERY way common to man, which means he probably did face some kind of homoesexual temptation at some point. The difference is, he did not act on those impulses, nor entertain the thought. It is the same way that an unmarried heterosexual man or woman might be tempted by the opposite sex - that is not a sin. Giving in and having sex with that person, or for instance entertaining a fantasy about that, would be sin.
Post a Comment
<< Home