I just have to post Rod's reply to the mystery comment accusing us of being part of a closet Republican Gay Group along with other bizarre insults.


Rodney said...

First of all, I cannot make a stand for Doc or Tom, but as for me I have never used such negative and, frankly, terrible words to comment or rebut anything on this blog. Further, even though my fellow bloggers have been abrasive at times, they have never been so foul and hateful. Why is it that folks like you cannot seem to make a sensible retort without resorting to hate speech, name-calling, and vulgarity?
Oh, yeah... I guess without a sensible retort that's all that's left.
It seems that this well-spring of bile was bourn almost (if not entirely) of an emotional reaction. This is not surprising since it's the only way the liberal-minded know how to debate. I will, however, as a kindness, pick through the few attempts to use reasoning found in your comments and respond as objectively as possible.

"12 years of conservative congress, 6 of Bush and you still blame liberals?"
Actually, yes.
Better question. Forty years of Democrat rule and in two terms Reagan topples communist Russia - care to explain? The major reason W's father lost his second term was because the liberal house of his day spent more than he could save in order to thwart his "...no new taxes." promise. You will note that his son learned from that mistake - of course, he hasn't had a liberal house to impede him. It's the only reason we aren't still trying to develop an understanding with the terrorists.
Even when liberals aren't failing to accomplish anything they claim to be, they are trying just as hard to ensure that the conservatives can't either.

"Most democrats are Christian."
That may well be. If so, bully for them. I will say this, though. Liberalism, by it's very nature, is unable to stand behind absolutes of any kind. It is therefore not possible to be truly liberal and be persuaded of any train of thought that involves absolutes. God is conservative. Call that an extremist remark if you will, but the fact remains - you don't have to be a Christian to be a conservative, but you have to be a conservative to be a Christian.

"Hell, the U.S. has never had a more Christian population (as defined by church attendance)."
Allow me to clear this up for you, Friend - going into a church doesn't make you a Christian any more than going into hospital makes you a doctor. If liberals are so Christian let's see the Christ in their beliefs and actions. By their fruits you shall know them.

"...what if the leader of your child's field trip gave a Satanic prayer with the same option to participate. Would that go over?"
First of all, Satanism largely doesn't recognize any deity - including Satan, who to them is more a representation of man's freedom to live as he chooses. It is unlikely that prayer is a huge part of their lives. Second, and perhaps more importantly, Satanism does not proselytize or believe in public self-promotion, so a real Satanist would probably never try to lead a "Satanic prayer" with anyone's children. Not that you'd know that - your intent was merely to slight us and call our beliefs into question/make us look foolish. BTW, if anyone reading this is a Satanist, I apologize if you believe I misrepresented you. I tried to be accurate. You may correct me if you think I am errant. After all, you guys have yet to treat us as badly as this "enlightened liberal-thinker."

"Christianity has not had as much power as they do now since they were allowed to burn witches based on the testimony of children setting up adults they did not like!!!"
If Christianity really had that kind of power, prayer would still be in school and stores would be closed on Sunday. It is the unflinching absolutism of Christianity that threatens to create people who think independantly of the government. That is why liberals strive to keep Christianity's influence down.

"...most of the founding fathers were liberal..."
Well, they did believe in tolerance, if you think that is exclusive to liberalism. I know they didn't all behave like Christians - claiming to be or not. I mean, Franklin sired enough bastards to start his own little league. Maybe he is the real "Father of our country."
I digress. Back to tolerance. The reason the founding fathers wanted a nation where all men were free was because they had been told what to think by their government. The reason they believed in freedom? According to the Declaration of Independance, which you noted yourself, it is because freedom is the right of all men as given by God. No one in this blog believes in creating an ecclesiocracy, but if faith in "Jesus or Casper the friendly ghost" is really as "unverifiable" as you say, it would only be right, in a society which is supposed to support tolerance, that all beliefs be recognized and unmolested by baseless criticism while being discriminated against for no good reason.

As to the implications that we are or should be gay:
We have said nothing concerning homosexuality when you wrote your comments. You, however, used no fewer than ten seperate statements involving homosexuality. The sad thing is, as a straight man I don't think I could have imagined half the things you suggested. Also, you "hate fags too"? Why? When did we say we hated homosexuals? Tom says he is all about the lesbians. Our friends Jason and Pete would be surprised to think we hate them as well. I wonder who is more frustrated about his sexuality.

"It's not even worth analyzing your statements."
Strange. Seems to me you analyzed our statements for about five very long paragraphs after the above statement.

"...I could critique your blog forever but it's not worth it."
Really? I thought you were going to "...check back and give (us) a grade."
We are all atingle with anticipation.
And finally...

"You have way too much time on your hands."
To this I think you have a better response than me.
"I surf the web for blogs and read blogs all day long."
Nice life, Bro. Have a blessed day.

11:55 AM