Free Republic 3rd Qtr 2021 Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $29,311
Woo hoo!! And the first 33% is in!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by Lumberjack

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Why men refuse to marry: Women complain chaps today won't settle down.

    04/21/2015 7:17:08 AM PDT · 156 of 164
    Lumberjack to Chickensoup

    A conservative church, huh?

    Been to a conservative church lately? The women are, by and large, ‘born again virgins’ who, prior to having their virginity restored by The Lord, went about bedding fifty to one hundred men during their “party years” (formerly known as child bearing years, but who says that any longer). The men are constantly shamed and told to “man up!” and marry these women because, you know, Jesus.

    Meanwhile, men are constantly derided and instructed at how fallen they are. Compare mother’s day and father’s day sermons.

    Mother’s day: “Mothers are a special gift from God that proves his love of all people. Mothers are the life bringers and prodivers of care and unconditional love. God bless Mothers”

    Father’s day: “Men, you’re failing as fathers. You’re sinners. Man up and stop failing your children and wife. Too many abusive fathers! Too much failure! Man up like Our Lord and Savior commands!”

    Yeah. Conservative church. Great. Unless you’re instructing to hit an actual Amish community, or some Mormon sects out in Utah, that advice basically tells men exactly the opposite of how to find a quality wife. Marry a used up, dried up “born again virgin” who has had more men in her than she her IQ count, sure, great, fantastic.

    As to the article, I don’t blame men for not marrying any longer. It’s a huge legal trap and there is nothing, nothing, that it serves in the best interest of men any longer. Nothing. The moment Princess Pampered reads “Eat, Pray, Love” and decides to frivorce rape you, she gets cash and prizes, you lose most everything including the visitation of your children (if she wishes to make that so) AND you get to become an indentured servant. Yay!

  • Women Who Humiliate Their Husbands

    02/02/2015 12:13:40 PM PST · 134 of 162
    Lumberjack to ozarkgirl
    How many women have started wars?

    I urge you to read history. Most of those post 15th century English wars didn't start themselves.
  • America Admits Suspects Died In Interrogations

    03/07/2003 12:49:48 PM PST · 151 of 181
    Lumberjack to hobbes1
    OK When you and Harry Browne get off the bong, maybe you will see to reason.
    It was cute, it was funny, it wasn't an answer. I give it a 2.5 out of 10 Rodger. Before I continue, I wish to inquire whether you intend to actually address any of my questions and assertions, or shall it be simply a name calling fest from this point on? Just for reference sake, you understand.
    However, the use of torture on Illegal Combatants is Morally Justifiable.Period.
    Oh yes, I see. Well since you put the "Period" there, it must be true. Gosh, and all this time I've been following the Word when I could have just made outrageous immoral claims and justified them with "Period". Thanks for showing me the True Path pilgrim.
    One of two possible scenarios for these guys. A; Captured in the Hills of Afghanistan, lotsa college libraries there.... Or, B: in a raid on an Al Quieda Cell....
    Ok, prove it. You made these claims, one of two situations. Now prove to me that this would be the only place they could get these people. Use pretty pictures if you like.
    As in Trusting the Government, I was a Marine, and yes, Believe the men and women risking their lives act with honor, hardly the same as a bureaucrat.
    I too was in the military, so you don't get to pull that kind of stunt in this argument. Sorry. But nice try. Unless, you know, you're suggesting that we live in a military junta? These guys do report to and follow the orders of somebody, don't they? Has something fundamental changed in the nature of government recently that nobody has informed us silly civilians about? ;) I guess that's about it. You can't prove who they were, why there were there, what they did, even if they were guilty of anything. But you feel torture against them was "moral" (assuming that was the cause of death of course). Hey, whatever floats your boat. I'm just glad I won't have to stand in your shoes come Judgement Day.
  • America Admits Suspects Died In Interrogations

    03/07/2003 12:29:21 PM PST · 143 of 181
    Lumberjack to hobbes1
    How do I know? you ask...I am not there, nor am I tasked to know, however, I do have enough trust in the men and women in harms way that have that information to act on it accordingly.
    So let me sum up so far.
    1. You cheer torture or death of people whom you don't know and know nothing about.
    2. You admit that you don't know who they are or what they did.
    3. You call them "subhuman".
    4. You trust the government at its word, unequivocally.
    Ok, let's proceed.
    as a means of avoiding the fact that you obviously place innocent life, on the same plane as that of a terrorist....unless i misunderstand your point?
    And I ask again, what do you know about these people? Can you prove any of the claims you're making against them? Prove to me they were a member of *anything* besides the local Parent Teacher Association. Go ahead, I'll wait.
    By allowing terrorists to remain silent, or delaying the transmittal of information does not unnecessarily place inoocents at risk ?
    What organization did either of these men belong to, exactly? Prove it. That's what it boils down to. You don't know. You admit as much. For all you know, they could have entered a college library and sat down at a terminal already logged in by the real terrorist and been picked up as they left, clueless as to why they were being taken away. You have no way of knowing one way or the other. Yet you cheer their deaths and glorify in the fact it may have been torture that caused it.
    because your sense of Moral Superiority says so.
    Yes, that "God" Fellow is such a demanding Entity, isn't He? Sorry that objection to torturing human beings you've never met nor know anything about offends you. Make up all the faux scenarios you want till the cows come home, but in the end, YOU ARE JUST BLOWING HOT AIR INTO THE ETHER. You don't know. And still you cheer.
    How "Christian".
  • America Admits Suspects Died In Interrogations

    03/07/2003 11:43:23 AM PST · 126 of 181
    Lumberjack to hobbes1
    You only need know one thing. They target civilians. That is a crime for which no treatment is out of line.
    I'll determine what I need to know to make my own judgements, thank you very much.
    How do you know these specific guys targeted civilians? Do you have the dossiers on these two fellows? Care to share your insider information? What precisely do you know about them?
    Please, I'm awaiting your response on tenterhooks.
  • America Admits Suspects Died In Interrogations

    03/07/2003 11:35:05 AM PST · 120 of 181
    Lumberjack to hobbes1
    Gosh, that word has such a familiar ring and cadence to it, doesn't it? Though it does fit in with the whole "I support torture of people of whom I actually know nothing" motif I suppose.
  • America Admits Suspects Died In Interrogations

    03/07/2003 11:26:04 AM PST · 113 of 181
    Lumberjack to blam
    After reading most of the posts here, I must say that this is quite a display of people's adherance to Christ.

    They don't know these two men, they have no idea who they are or if they were even involved with 9/11. They know *nothing* about them except that they were in Gitmo. With that lack of knowledge they cheer their deaths, even if those deaths *may* have occured via torture (agreed that it isn't conclusive one way or the other).

    Very telling of where their true allegiance lies.
  • Should we trust George W. Bush?

    08/29/2002 7:16:49 PM PDT · 482 of 1,694
    Lumberjack to Howlin
    And what's gonna happen when THEY have a different interpretation than you do?

    I guess that means that they would be thinking for themselves. Why does that frighten you so?

    All I can do is present my case to them once they get to the age of reasoning. Its up to them at that point. As long as they make their own decisions and don't fall into a silly group mentality, I'll be happy. Failing that, oh well, not much I could do about it anyway, is there (assuming the time you are talking about is when they are legal adults)?

  • Should we trust George W. Bush?

    08/29/2002 7:12:58 PM PDT · 471 of 1,694
    Lumberjack to KentuckyWoman
    I used to wonder the exact same thing. Now, I'm pretty sure most here, too, will go along quietly convinced that it is all some terrible mistake that will be quickly rectified by the Republicans.

    Humanity requires that honest people at least try to help somebody in need. If they don't want help, then what can you or I or any of the few remaining liberty minded folks do? Words only go so far when falling on a brick wall, and frankly, I tire of it after a while myself.

    Though it is a wonderful study in mass psychosis, that much is certain.

    Speaking of tired, that is what I am. Its off to the land of nod for me after this post (maybe one more, I don't know, I'm pretty tired). Hope you fare well here tonight. I'll talk to you tomorrow.

  • Should we trust George W. Bush?

    08/29/2002 7:06:44 PM PDT · 457 of 1,694
    Lumberjack to SirAngus
    Sums up my feelings as well.

    Well met. Nice to see you here.

  • Should we trust George W. Bush?

    08/29/2002 7:03:30 PM PDT · 452 of 1,694
    Lumberjack to MJY1288
    Trial by jury. Unless you can guarantee me that everybody in Gitmo isn't a U.S. citizen (hint: you can't). The right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure (hint: search and peek recon in your home, without telling you). Right to a speedy trial (hint: how long have they been in Gitmo? How do you know they're terrorists? Heck, do you even know their identities?).

    Or how about TIPS. Yes, it is revamped for the moment. But it was tried now, wasn't it? It will be back, mark my words.

    Should I go on?

  • Should we trust George W. Bush?

    08/29/2002 6:59:07 PM PDT · 443 of 1,694
    Lumberjack to Howlin
    Not surprisingly, you've chosen not to answer my questions and instead resort to personal attack. Gee Wally, that's such a shocker.

    FWIW, I'm sure I do seem egotistical to you. You see, in order to follow a leader blindly requires incredibly low self esteem. Somebody with normal self esteem, I'm sure, appears arrogant. So be it. Now. Would you care to answer my questions, or do you prefer another round of Personal Attacks For Fun And Profit?

  • Should we trust George W. Bush?

    08/29/2002 6:55:16 PM PDT · 436 of 1,694
    Lumberjack to Amelia
    What have I done? Well, I send my children to a well screened, Boy Scout supporting, Latin/Greek teaching, pro-western culture, high math score producing Private School. And I am their teacher as well, as I would hope all parents would be to their children. They will learn to read the Constitution for themselves, and they will learn our history as it happened and not as revisionists and NEA socialists want them to learn it.

    That is the only thing I can do, outside of talking to others and persuading them to my side of the political arena. I will NOT become involved with any NEA school, as I do not believe in public schools, not even slightly. I do what I can, with what I have. That's all any of us could hope for.

  • Should we trust George W. Bush?

    08/29/2002 6:50:44 PM PDT · 429 of 1,694
    Lumberjack to Howlin
    Doesn't it make you nervous when everybody around you is chanting agreement with a leader? Even slightly?

    I'm just asking for, well heck, I don't know why. But I've never understood how people can be so easily led. If 9/11 wouldn't have happened, maybe my opinion would be different. I don't know. I do know that the power grabs going on right now have nothing to do with safety, and have everything to do with insuring that we'll never see freedom again in our life times. And after the U.S. invades Iraq, I shudder to think what kind of "security" measures will be implemented for the "homeland" (what a horrible word, far too Teutonic IMO).

    I guess I'm just amazed that people continue to line up so enthusiastically behind whatever leader is at the podium telling them to give up their liberties and lives.

  • Should we trust George W. Bush?

    08/29/2002 6:41:20 PM PDT · 411 of 1,694
    Lumberjack to wimpycat
    but you and I are seeing two different things, now aren't we? So it's not as simple as your Toyota owner's manual, now is it? If it was that simple, we wouldn't need a Supreme Court. If it was that simple, we wouldn't have had a Civil War. If it was that simple, we wouldn't be having these arguments.

    First, I have no idea if we see it differently myself, as you have not professed any of your ideas concerning the Constitution to me. I'll take your word for it though.

    It is that simple. Its a matter of agenda after a point, in my opinion. There are those who wish to go counter to the Constitution, and they usually do so by trying to confuse the language or throw doubt on wording. And sadly, most of our wonderfully pseudo-educated public school graduates fall for this obfuscation hook line and sinker.

    I have the same thoughts on The Golden Rule as well. Pretty easy to understand. And yes, people have died by the millions due to falling for con men and snake oil salesmen who told them it meant something other than what it means. But that doesn't mean its not easy to understand. It does mean that there are a lot of people on the low end of the Bell Curve, that's all. Especially in this day an age, thanks to our wonderful Public Education

    Thank you for keeping this civil, to this point, btw.

  • Should we trust George W. Bush?

    08/29/2002 6:26:17 PM PDT · 381 of 1,694
    Lumberjack to Southflanknorthpawsis
    You don't know jack, jack.

    Gosh, all these months away, I'd forgotten what witty comebacks y'all can make. Wow, nailed me there kemosabe. Yeah. Roll on the floor laughing even.

    Of course, you've not refuted my words whatsoever, just resorted to silly sound bites. That is, of course, what this whole thing is about, isn't it? Sound bites in lieu of ideas, sneers in place of rational discourse.

    You guys certainly have learned your Marx debating techniques well. I congratulate you on your study.

    And in the end, it is much better for you to ignore the fact that Bush is destroying the remaining tatters of liberty left in this nation, isn't it? I know I'd be embarassed to talk about it too, were I you.

  • Should we trust George W. Bush?

    08/29/2002 6:18:57 PM PDT · 358 of 1,694
    Lumberjack to wimpycat
    Of course not. But you are willing to concede, I hope, that ideas are definitely not judged "good or bad" based on the pronouncements of people who think they are (but they aren't) experts on Constitutional law and their subjective divining of what the Founding Fathers would or would not approve?

    The U.S. Constitution has far fewer words than my 2000 Toyota Camry Owner's Manual. Its has less technical detail, less cumbersome wording, and a much more easy to understand writing style.

    Now, I can understand my 2000 Toyota Camry Owner's Manual. What do you think the chances are that I can read and understand the Constitution of the United States? Pretty good, wouldn't you say?

    And if I can understand the U.S. Constitution, which is not rocket science by any means, doesn't it reason then that I could comment on it in an intelligent manner? And if I, a lowly internet forum poster can accomplish this task, wouldn't you think that others could do so as well?

  • Should we trust George W. Bush?

    08/29/2002 6:08:51 PM PDT · 323 of 1,694
    Lumberjack to Southflanknorthpawsis; KentuckyWoman; Jefferson Adams
    Not to pick a nit, but would you have discounted any of Ronald Reagan's criticisms of the Carter administration in 1977 as sour grapes (assuming he made any, I honestly don't know, I'm just asking as an example)?

    And more to the point, wheter Browne is pulling sour grapes or not, the question is, does he make some valid observations and criticisms about the Bush administration? I'd say; yes. And my assertion has nothing to do with him being a Libertarian or member of any particular political party. It has to do with him being right.

    When you loose the ability to critisize your own, you may as well throw in the towel. Its over. The Cult of Personality mindset will be in place, and nothing that the person in questions says or does will ever be questioned.

    You know, I used to wonder how Germans could follow Hitler in 1932 and up through 1936. They were smart, educated, technical, worldly, and still they followed.

    Now I know.

  • Should we trust George W. Bush?

    08/29/2002 5:57:47 PM PDT · 295 of 1,694
    Lumberjack to wimpycat
    And that has what to do with the argument? The time period/name is pretty irrelevant. What is important, though, is that the accusation was spot on. Ideas are not judged "good or bad" based on the number of people that support them. Popularity contests do not determine an ideas worth, rather only an ideas acceptance.
  • Should we trust George W. Bush?

    08/29/2002 5:52:02 PM PDT · 288 of 1,694
    Lumberjack to Southflanknorthpawsis
    I wasn't aware that popularity was the deciding factor on whether a person's ideas and ideals are right or not.

    Seems to me you'd be siding against Galileo during the Dark Ages. I mean, heck, he only had a small following, so that obviously means that his ideas and observations were wrong.