Replies

I'm sorry I thought I had a good answer in my previous response to you.

Nice to hear you apologize for your failure to address the issues you brought up.

I am sure the posse must be a fun thing.

The posse thing again.

Just because several people believe you are overwhelmingly fixated on one subject, and some of us happen to be from Canada, does not make us a posse. We ping each other occasionally to let each other know what is happening.

My primary purpose, in the political sense, for joining FR was my anger over some conservatives total disrespect of GWB on the illegal immigration issue.

That is a bald faced lie. You haven't been discussing politics with anyone, you've only been casting blame.

The majority of your posts have been on literal scripture, and gay mounties in Canada.
Refute that!

What are your solutions to these problems?

The topics you've posted on since joining are mostly bible related, with a good bit of homophobia.

First, remember just how much self righteous crap has come out of Canada that has been uncooperative with and critical of the US.

First remember that Canada has been ruled by a liberal/socialist party for 13 years, and the Canadian people have voted the thieves out of power.

Second, don't take it personally when someone says Canada has an image problem, you do.

What makes you think I'm taking it personally?
It's your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

I am smart enough to take the opinion from where it comes, and discount it accordingly.

Third, don't expect you get a free pass just because you have changed administrations, let's wait and see what the new administration does, people have memories.

One would require KNOWLEDGE before one can remember.

You might want to see how we Canadian FReepers fought, for years, to achieve a Canadian Conservative government.

This is Jim's house. A wonderful place for conservatives to discuss life, game plans, and how great the world can be. I don't see you contributing in any way to this end.

Fourth, don't expect that everyone is going to like you.

You don't like me? I guess I'm shattered.

...and maybe you never get to know what others may be thinking.

I wish I would take Rush Limbaugh's advice.....never argue with an idiot.

"That is a bald faced lie. You haven't been discussing politics with anyone, you've only been casting blame."

You sir have misrepresented the truth. Please consider the following post as a reflection of my political thought. I will deal with the slander of some of your other comments when I finish supper.

To: coconutt2000
"How do you propose to solve the problem while remaining within the confines of the Constitution, statutory laws, and conservative principles of limited government?"

I think you have asked the right question. I would have added the notion of "conservative principles of free enterprise and limited government." As the days go by I think the President has a winner in this plan. Most of the opposition to the plan sounds petulant and irritating. Opposition to the President is grounded in the simple belief that it is important to do whatever is necessary to send or make them go away. This righteous posture fails to grasp there is probably an equal size group who regardless of circumstances wants to have everybody, already here and coming, to be able to stay.
My guess is the majority of Americans disagree with the simplistic thinking of both those positions. They want to do what is right and fair. Therefore, the President has proposed an elegant plan for a really complex matter. If, for example, you have two people. Suppose one is hardworking, honest and a positive contributor to society, the other is a thief and a criminal. One side of the debate wants to send them both back, the other extreme says they should both stay. The President is saying it is not that simple. The American people steeped in their tradition of fairness occupy the middle ground. They will endorse the President's plan. They know that one is given the opportunity to stay. The other must leave.

128 posted on 05/25/2006 5:04:34 AM PDT by spatso

"The topics you've posted on since joining are mostly bible related, with a good bit of homophobia."

That sir is also a misrepresentation. I make no apologies for my love of the Bible, I have a degree in theology from a Catholic University. However, the comment on homophobia is clearly desperate on your part. My only comment on the morality of gay marriage is noted below.

To: Mr. Silverback
I had a conversation with my wife about the initiative to deal with gay marriage. She said that the gay marriage debate is an attempt to change the focus away from the immigration debate. She also said that gay marriage was never a threat to our marriage. She said that the biggest and only threat to our marriage had been my drinking (a few years ago). She said if Congress was serious about doing something about threats to the family they should look at alcoholism, drugs, absent fathers, violence and abuse. My wife does not have a great passion for politics so it surprised me how angry she was about the gay marriage initiative.

87 posted on 06/05/2006 2:57:05 PM PDT by spatso
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

"The majority of your posts have been on literal scripture,"

Nothing could be further from the truth. Literal scripture implies a rigid dogmatic interpretation of scripture. My experience involves the study of sacred message and mystery in scripture. The posting below is about as far removed as you can get from a literal application of scripture.

To: HarleyD
"We only know that all things happens for our good. Regardless of whether good or evil takes place, we are to bless the name of the Lord."

I would have thought the meaning had more to do with Job teaching us how we can speak to God in the face of human suffering. Job's responds to his trials by invoking a broad range of rhetorical styles. He invokes popular faith, silence, doubt, theological notions as well as prayer including prophetic, charismatic and, even, mystical speech. In the end, God only rejects the interventions of his two friends but accepts each and every one of Jobs interventions, "for not speaking truthfully as my servant Job has done." (42:7) God rejects the language of the scholarly interventions but, accepts Job's honest language of the heart.
I think on the question of the meaning of Job's suffering God remains incredibly silent. One can only conclude that suffering is a part of life.

8,030 posted on 06/07/2006 10:47:00 AM PDT by spatso

Now let me deal directly with you Mr. fanfan. I believe most of the posse are genuinely reflective of people better trying to understand complex issues. You sir, are no different than the last 10 years we have had of self righteous Canadians. You refuse to champion an idea or an issue. You simply wait as any parasite does to try and feed off of the creative energy and initiative of others. Show me the last time you posted something based on your own values and beliefs that goes beyond six lines. You simply wait with a bag of one liners hoping to misdirect discussion into ridicule without reflection. In the school yard you would have been labeled the class bully had you been big enough.

Now to your comment,

"You were discussing Job's life, and you think it's not literal?

What point are you trying to make?"

I re-posted three previous posts from other threads, each one refuting the calculated erroneous assumptions you made of my trying to answer your oft repeated question "what would you do." If you remember you took that response and interspersed from your bag of one liners trying to ridicule both the ideas and myself. The first, saying I did not discuss political ideas, the second, saying my postings were homophobic and, the third, that my postings were about literal Bible interpretations.

So, I assume that since you choose not to comment on 1 or 2 you are recanting on those points. Fine. Now in regard to your comment on three let me tell you something about Biblical scholarship. Literal means a rigid word interpretation of the Bible, for example, if the Bible says God created the world in 7 days it means exactly that and nothing else. As you could see from my posting the exegesis is anything but literal. You can say it is wrong, it is stupid, it is unimportant or lame, but you sure can't call it literal.