tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post116032232066280321..comments2024-03-28T20:04:20.286-07:00Comments on One Cʘsmos: Petey Said it. I Believe it. That Settles it.Gagdad Bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1161790890447073132006-10-25T08:41:00.000-07:002006-10-25T08:41:00.000-07:00Flushy Hershman hasn't and CAN NOT lose an arugume...Flushy Hershman hasn't and CAN NOT lose an arugument, it is <B>IMPOSSIBLE</B> for that to happen.<BR/><BR/><BR/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flushy_superstar/https://www.blogger.com/profile/03037704048671379868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160509349373596172006-10-10T12:42:00.000-07:002006-10-10T12:42:00.000-07:00"Jefferson famously asserted that it was self-evid..."Jefferson famously asserted that it was self-evident that human beings were created by God and that God intended for them to have certain nonnegotiable rights. The purpose of government was to protect these natural rights, not to invent new ones, much less to take rights away because some neo-Marxists thought it would be a good idea. For example, government must protect and nurture the institution of marriage, because marriage is obviously anterior to government. It is not the government’s job to invent or sanction new and unnatural ways to be married."<BR/><BR/>I realize this comment is introductory to, and a bit of a throw-away line for, your main argument, but there appears to be a bit of conflict with the theme expressed here and your next post.<BR/><BR/>How are we to evolve, as a culture, in our understanding of inalienable rights and the institution of marriage, if we cannot experiment with them? <BR/><BR/>For better or for worse government and the institution of marriage have become symbiotic. For one to evolve they must both evolve, or they must part ways entirely. And if neither evolve, then they will stagnate and will both be surpassed by some institution(s) which are more fit at serving the needs of humanity.<BR/><BR/>Personally I don't think that gay marriage will be net-harmful to society, but I could be wrong about that. The only thing I am sure of is that there seems to be a lot of gay couples in long-term relationships who want to be married, and until we let them get married we won't know what the consequences are.<BR/><BR/>The foundation of science is liberty, but we must have liberty to experiment in our social forms just as much as in our laboratories if we are to progress as a society. It is not enough to conquer the material sciences. <BR/><BR/>Fear not. If gay marriage really is harmful to society, we will learn from that harm and move on; on the other hand, if it is not harmful, than allowing the experiment to move forward promises the possibility of a lifetime of improved health and happiness to many American couples and their families. That seems like a worthy risk worth taking, does it not?<BR/><BR/>As for the Federal Gov't, I don't believe they are 'sanctioning' anything, but merely allowing the experiment to move forward. As I mentioned above, the laws of the land (in tax, inheritance, rights to children, power to decide, and many more) are inextricably tied to the civil and religious institutions of marriage. For better or for worse they must move forward, or back, or remain stagnant, as one.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17698562397742719005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160435690197334852006-10-09T16:14:00.000-07:002006-10-09T16:14:00.000-07:00The moonbats won't be persuaded and few will be co...The moonbats won't be persuaded and few will be converted. So where are we heading? Can such diametrically opposed beliefs as exist between left and right coexist in the same country indefinitely?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160360548570619132006-10-08T19:22:00.000-07:002006-10-08T19:22:00.000-07:00Hey Bob, looks like your son is trying out for the...Hey Bob, looks like your son is trying out for the Italian WC soccer team :):)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160360070033195692006-10-08T19:14:00.000-07:002006-10-08T19:14:00.000-07:00Hello all; some words about Conversion:Though I so...Hello all; some words about Conversion:<BR/><BR/>Though I sometimes think Ann Coulter goes overboard with the shrill tone of her commentary, I think she is right on the money when she calls leftism "a Godless Church", hence the title of her latest book. It would seem that Marx's attempt to establish an ideology with no theology has instead resulted in a kind of grotesquely mutated theology; kind of like the way Elves were mutated into Orcs in Middle Earth. Leftists deny that they have any belief system, yet they betray their true colors when they continually deny what stares them right in the face (Islamofascists want to kill us, Ahmadinijad and Kim are dangerous, etc.). <BR/><BR/>It is then that we see the reality of Coulter's concept in the flesh; Leftism is a religion. It has churches (universities), saints (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, Rousseau, Kant, Marcuse), rituals (candlelight vigils on the anniversery of John Lennon's death),crusades (Million Moron Marches, U2 and Dixie Chicks concerts), televangelists (Dan Rather, Rosie O'Donnell, Paul Begala), high clergy (Bill and Hillary, Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi), avatars (Jimmy Carter, Robert Mugabe, Hugo Chavez),sacrifices (contributions to MoveOn and George Soros), sacred sites (the Grassy Knoll, Roswell, UN headquarters), sacred texts (The Communist Manifesto, anything by Al Franken or Herbert Marcuse), sacred music (John Lennon, Neil Young, Country Joe & the Fish, Bruce Springsteen, Gil-Scott Heron, Rage Against the Machine), demons(Dick Cheyney, Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Denny Hastert, Justices Scalia, Roberts and Alito), and a devil (George Bush). <BR/><BR/>There is simply no convicing someone mired in this non-religious religion that there is a better and higher way, for, to them, no way is higher than theirs. Bob, you are right when you say that conversion is the only way out of such a mess. It takes an event like 9/11 or the Holocaust to convert many (though the fact that many leftists deny both of these suggests that there truly is a point of no return).<BR/><BR/>A certain Saul of Tarsus remained stubbornly stuck in his rightness despite several attempts by God to convince him otherwise; God's solution was to knock him off his donkey and blind him for three days, then follow it up with a vision of seven heavens (you might say he was knocked off his ass onto his ass :):)) In other words, revelation that leads to true conversion must come from outside, and sometimes in extreme ways. It is not always deliberate seekers who recieve revelation; God often chooses the least likely candidates, such as the not-too-bright apostles or the slow-of-speech Moses. This is not to dismiss being a seeker of truth and revelation, but a reminder that truth often comes to us when we least expect it, and feel least ready or worthy to recieve it. But God always had the least success with those that were the most convinced that they were right and everyone else was wrong. <BR/><BR/>Postmodernists will of course say that this is precisely what is wrong with religious people, and that because they believe in nothing, they are immune to the charge of self-righteousness. However, when you attempt to engage them, you soon see that they are absolutely convinced of the rightness of their position that there is no higher truth, and that, ironically, they are more self-righteous than any religious person you will ever meet, hence the futility of engaging them in debate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160353712619389802006-10-08T17:28:00.000-07:002006-10-08T17:28:00.000-07:00surafel - you're so incredibly"educated",you can't...surafel - <BR/><BR/><BR/>you're so incredibly<BR/>"educated",you can't <BR/>ask your question in two<BR/>concise sentences,<BR/>and then,*wait* for the other person to answer.<BR/><BR/>no wonder the people over a kos have trouble forming ideas.<BR/><BR/>they're to busy shouting<BR/>DIALECTIC!!! at each other to have a conversation.gumshoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10567181585153569751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160349206964289352006-10-08T16:13:00.000-07:002006-10-08T16:13:00.000-07:00More on left wing Sexual McCarthyismMore on left wing <A HREF="http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5927" REL="nofollow">Sexual McCarthyism</A>Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160348990355121362006-10-08T16:09:00.001-07:002006-10-08T16:09:00.001-07:00Amazing the kind of hatred the Left projects onto ...Amazing the kind of hatred the Left projects onto others.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Hmmmm, neo Marxist, I like it!<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>"Truth cannot be told so as to be understood and not believed"<BR/><BR/>I have literally been with people who, when deep truths were explained to them and understood by them, literally withdrew psychically. It was visually observable, the shock and pain at the moment of realization, and the door slamming shut.<BR/>I've often wondered why some would choose to live in that hell of their own making after having been shown a door to freedom.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160348658485052122006-10-08T16:04:00.000-07:002006-10-08T16:04:00.000-07:00Of course not. I judge people by their behavior, ...Of course not. I judge people by their behavior, not by their private thoughts. I leave that to God. Leftists are the ones who judge thoughts--i.e., advancing hate crime legislation or habitually attributing motives to conservatives instead of simply judging the merits of the policy. <BR/><BR/>I will send you a free copy of my book if you write a diary on dailykos passionately defending the Boy Scouts right to discriminate against openly gay scout leaders, and no one calls you a homophobe (or something similar).Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160348044655090082006-10-08T15:54:00.000-07:002006-10-08T15:54:00.000-07:00So then for you it wouldn't be an issue.So then for you it wouldn't be an issue.Surafel Tsegahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17792672442572517885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160347852356086782006-10-08T15:50:00.000-07:002006-10-08T15:50:00.000-07:00By the way, I wouldn't even let the teacher know w...By the way, I wouldn't even let the teacher know what I had seen, remind him to respect the wishes and beliefs of others, or tell him that his sexuality is not topic of discussion in or out of the classroom, assuming that he had behaved in a thoroghly professional manner in the classroom up to that point. <BR/><BR/>Do your boneheaded friends at dailykos know that you are to the right of me on this issue?Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160347364753735572006-10-08T15:42:00.000-07:002006-10-08T15:42:00.000-07:00No, absolutely not. To even ask the question is a...No, absolutely not. To even ask the question is an indication of how thoroughly you misunderstand my position as a classical liberal.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160347251330843362006-10-08T15:40:00.000-07:002006-10-08T15:40:00.000-07:00I will not consider you a homophobe if you answer ...I will not consider you a homophobe if you answer no. Nor do I currently consider you a homophobe. I don't believe you hate gays or are afraid of them. I don't intend my question to imply that, and no one should assume that is my intention. <BR/><BR/>I am asking for your opinion. <BR/><BR/>In fact, here is my response. I don't think there is anything wrong with this situation. I wouldn't fire the teacher. But I would let him know what I saw. I would tell him to remember and to respect the wishes or beliefs of others. I would tell him that his sexuality is a topic of discussion in or out of the classroom. It is a private matter, and he should keep it that way. Do you agree with me?<BR/><BR/>Will you answer now?Surafel Tsegahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17792672442572517885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160345875483320592006-10-08T15:17:00.000-07:002006-10-08T15:17:00.000-07:00A vague answer, and not necessarily in the directi...A vague answer, and not necessarily in the direction I was headed, but I guess I will accept that.<BR/><BR/>One last thing, and for the sake of both of us, I will never bother you again. <BR/><BR/>Here is a scenario:<BR/><BR/>A man teaches a class of 5th graders. He does not discuss sexuality, his, let alone anyone else's. He works at a public institution where guidance counselors deal with such questions. On the weekend, you, as a principal, happen to run across him holding hands with another man, and overall displaying the PDA typical to a couple. As a principal, would you personally want to fire him?<BR/><BR/>Let's cut the bull. No psycho-analysis, no discussion about liberty or equality. No personal attacks, no hyperbole, no generalizations. I want your personal opinion. These are the facts. My question is more than two sentences, but I am confident that you are intelligent enough to follow along. My intentions? To understand your personal opinion. Plain and simple. I'm curious.<BR/><BR/>Humor me with a response.Surafel Tsegahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17792672442572517885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160344931450419032006-10-08T15:02:00.000-07:002006-10-08T15:02:00.000-07:00Surafel, the one-note wonder, keeps throwing out a...Surafel, the one-note wonder, keeps throwing out a question that is not to the point of the discussion, demanding an answer, demanding attention,and sucking up bandwidth. He's insincere, no matter what else he proclaims, because he doesn't really care what Bob's answer will be. <BR/><BR/>He has his *amazing!* comeback already arranged, his flaming, magnificent, brilliant insight. Like the kid in, "The Christmas Story" he dreams of an, "A++++++++" from his peers back at Kos. It consumes him. He's wriggling in his seat. It's what he wants for Kosmas.<BR/><BR/>Bob, all-wise in his response, deftly denies Surafel his heart's desire....cuz he knows that he'd only shoot his eye out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160344327089182752006-10-08T14:52:00.000-07:002006-10-08T14:52:00.000-07:00Surafel--In reference to the left's assault on the...Surafel--<BR/><BR/>In reference to the left's assault on the Boy Scouts, you asked me, <BR/><BR/>"What is your definition of 'openly gay'?"<BR/><BR/>My answer: Whatever the Boy Scouts deems it to be. I trust them to make that determination in the same way they always have throughout their existence.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160343879076274402006-10-08T14:44:00.001-07:002006-10-08T14:44:00.001-07:00What is the question? And why are you asking it? ...What is the question? And why are you asking it? Please, try to be clear and concise. Two sentences should do it.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160343878059060842006-10-08T14:44:00.000-07:002006-10-08T14:44:00.000-07:00There were two questions:1. The proof that I asked...There were two questions:<BR/><BR/>1. The proof that I asked for in the comment meant for the two of us. <BR/><BR/>2. The second question is "What is your definition of 'openly gay'?" This is the question you have avoided constantly. My initial purpose was to understand why you think openly gay men cannot be boy scout leaders or teachers. Your definition of "openly gay" is key to why you think the way you do in regards to this issue. <BR/><BR/>Let me repeat myself. My question is: What do you think being "openly gay" means?<BR/><BR/>I have held up my end, hold up yours. Should I post the link again or can you just approve one of the earlier comments with the link?Surafel Tsegahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17792672442572517885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160342922068463952006-10-08T14:28:00.000-07:002006-10-08T14:28:00.000-07:00I HATE COMMENT MODERATION. PLEASE BEHAVE MOONBATS...I HATE COMMENT MODERATION. <BR/><BR/>PLEASE BEHAVE MOONBATS!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160342739310206542006-10-08T14:25:00.001-07:002006-10-08T14:25:00.001-07:00Damn, I guess I missed all the excitement. Ugly s...Damn, I guess I missed all the excitement. Ugly slurs? Were they creative at least?<BR/><BR/>It's a little absurd that Surafel thinks Bob's posts are directed at him specifically. <BR/><BR/>Most leftists think the world revolves around them. The deep structural narcissism that is inherent in their beliefs is shocking at times. It's so blatant and undisguised. <BR/><BR/>I'm truly amazed that people actually experience their lives in the way that Surafel experiences his. It's even harder to believe that I used to be in the same place.<BR/><BR/>Whatever else it is, psycho-spiritual development is definitely a journey from an entirely self-focused perspective to more encompassing, wider levels of perspective. <BR/><BR/>Will, if traditional conservitism is red and leftist progressivism is blue, than I suggest purple for classical liberalism / neoconservatism.<BR/><BR/>Royalty, magic, mystery and purpose. <BR/><BR/>We are the purple state. <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Say, has anyone considered the meta-symbolic implications of conservatives now being identified with the color red (as in "red states"), which has been traditionally considered the "revolutionary" color? And lefty types now being identified with the color blue, traditionally the "conservative" color?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160342712670818082006-10-08T14:25:00.000-07:002006-10-08T14:25:00.000-07:00Damn, I guess I missed all the excitement. Ugly s...Damn, I guess I missed all the excitement. Ugly slurs? Were they creative at least?<BR/><BR/>It's a little absurd that Surafel thinks Bob's posts are directed at him specifically. <BR/><BR/>Most leftists think the world revolves around them. The deep structural narcissism that is inherent in their beliefs is shocking at times. It's so blatant and undisguised. <BR/><BR/>I'm truly amazed that people actually experience their lives in the way that Surafel experiences his. It's even harder to believe that I used to be in the same place.<BR/><BR/>Whatever else it is, psycho-spiritual development is definitely a journey from an entirely self-focused perspective to more encompassing, wider levels of perspective. <BR/><BR/>Will, if traditional conservitism is red and leftist progressivism is blue, than I suggest purple for classical liberalism / neoconservatism.<BR/><BR/>Royalty, magic, mystery and purpose. <BR/><BR/>We are the purple state. <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Say, has anyone considered the meta-symbolic implications of conservatives now being identified with the color red (as in "red states"), which has been traditionally considered the "revolutionary" color? And lefty types now being identified with the color blue, traditionally the "conservative" color?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160342326447364612006-10-08T14:18:00.000-07:002006-10-08T14:18:00.000-07:00Actually I'm just going to post the disclaimer. I ...Actually I'm just going to post the disclaimer. <BR/><BR/>I apologize that my comments or the comments of others were not explicit enough or left room for the use of such terms. <BR/><BR/>But I'd still like the response (the proof, the definition, etc.) that I asked for. If I can apologize, you can answer the question right?Surafel Tsegahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17792672442572517885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160340847429610542006-10-08T13:54:00.000-07:002006-10-08T13:54:00.000-07:00Hey all- great post and comments today! I am in t...Hey all- great post and comments today! I am in the process of garage sale, moving, going through old papers and came across a paper I wrote in 1994 for my Arabs and Muslims class about Muslim Influence in Ethiopia. Basically, I wrote a crappy paper regurgitating the historical timeline of Ethiopia and it's crusade against Muslim influence. <BR/><BR/>The funny part about the paper is my grade of a B+ and the teacher's comment, "Your paper tr...(can't read word) the history of Ethiopian development, but little correlation is made between 20th century developments and Islam, especially the recent rise of Islamic Fundamentalism."<BR/><BR/>Umm, okay, let's get this straight a 20 year old Jewish female is supposed to write about the horrors of Islamic "developments" in this poor country and still get a good grade from her middle-aged Egyptian Muslim male teacher! I also saved a pamplet from the Simon Weisenthal center that had a cover with Hamas on front saying "Why do they hate us?" This is all from 1994! Is this really such a new phenomenon?Lisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04969685296436358865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160339214452595902006-10-08T13:26:00.000-07:002006-10-08T13:26:00.000-07:00Surafel--I will allow you to put up the link if yo...Surafel--<BR/><BR/>I will allow you to put up the link if you edit your piece to plainly indicate that you are in no way implying that I or conservatives in general are "homophobic," that we simply have a philosophical disagreement on the role of the federal government, and that you did not intend your piece to provoke those kinds of ugly slurs among commenters.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160339142919602092006-10-08T13:25:00.000-07:002006-10-08T13:25:00.000-07:00You gagdad bob are a disappointment. What are you ...You gagdad bob are a disappointment. What are you scared of? Why do you delete my posts? What is it that you don't want people <A HREF="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/7/204415/615" REL="nofollow">seeing</A>?<BR/><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8580258&postID=116006244347509678" REL="nofollow">Huh</A>?<BR/><BR/>Why have my comments on this post mysteriously disappeared? I'd like to think that you aren't deleting them. I'd also like to think that when I come on again I might find my comments. Maybe I'm giving you too much credit.Surafel Tsegahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17792672442572517885noreply@blogger.com