Typical Christian Wingnut

[MoltenRock III]

Your reply makes no sense at all.

Many other countries besides the USA allow viewers to channel check. Strike one for you.

Fox only giving one side to the story then "letting you decide" is their propaganda slogan that you're parroting well. Strike two for you.

North Koreans are bombarded with one sided propaganda, the same as Fox viewers. Makes sense. Strike three.

Yes America is a great place. So are many other countries. Just ask their citizens.

What do you expect from a poster using "Troll" as his avatar?

Additionally, Fox "News" has been proven to misinform their viewers the most, by far. It's another reason why they are deemed a cult by myself and others. You can't have a civil debate with a cultist who disagrees the sky is blue, which is what we have today with wingnuts on discussion boards across the web, and in real life. These people are effectively brain-washed. If you ever get the chance look up the identifiers or aspects of "high control groups" or "cults", and you'd see Fox News and Republicans today fit those descriptions far more than they are excepted from it.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/dec10/Misinformation_Dec10_rpt.pdf

 

[MoltenRock III]

Ooooh.... so the wingnuts believe, therefore trust, the garbage they have been supping. Wow... big surprise. In the end, as the University of Maryland showed, Fox News misinforms their viewers. Pretty simple really.

The vast majority of ex-cultists also trusted their dear leaders while they were in the cult too. If anything, you've just helped my point that Fox News and wingnuts are cultic.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/dec10/Misinformation_Dec10_rpt.pdf

Let's be real, how many people have you met cocksure in their ignorance? Lots.

 

[chance1]

I woke up early yesterday, turned on the TV and channel checked for a while. The clicker landed on Fox and I actually stayed there for a while. I couldn't believe how biased and slanted this "News" channel is.

One commentator said "..... do you think this is wrong?..... well, let me tell you, YES!, it's wrong!" when describing the slow snow removal in NYC and they actually blamed and demonized "liberal unions" for it. They sent on to describe "the poor mayor Bloomberg" and how the unions are screwing things up. Those fuckers at Fox even politicized this! Do you think the snow removal was slow because the city was overwhelmed? Besides, removal is always slow when it's YOUR street that's last.

It looks like there was a planned sanitation union effort to not plow effectively - in certain areas of nyc - in an effort to embarrass the mayor who has administered budget cuts and apply citizen pressure (thru complaints) against certain high level nyc politicos

so fox's story was right on

ooops - for you i guess

 

[MoltenRock III]

It looks like there was a planned sanitation union effort to not plow effectively - in certain areas of nyc - in an effort to embarrass the mayor who has administered budget cuts and apply citizen pressure (thru complaints) against certain high level nyc politicos

so fox's story was right on

ooops - for you i guess

Link for that?

It's hard for me being from Michigan and Minnesota to get up in arms over snow removal. If you're not equipped for it or get hit with a huge storm in a place like NYC, it's going to be a bitch no matter who's in charge.

 

[chance1]

The president did, "keep it to himself," as has been pointed out many times.

But I must say, I find this idea that the president should not express his opinions on anything to anyone rather bizarre. I don't think you could be president and function that way. I don't think you could be human and function that way.



If this president is a fool for privately expressing compassion, then what was GWB for publicly expressing hate?



Texas Rangers' stadium does not use alternative energy sources.



It is hard for me to accept that the president is a racist just because Lincoln Financial Field uses alternative energy sources and the Texas Rangers' stadium does not. This kind of logic only makes sense to Republicans.



I would certainly hope so!



I would think pretty much everyone in the administration is proud of the president on this issue. There is a lot I don't like about this president. But, when he does things like this, I tend to be reassured.

When the President speaks, it is national news - just the way it is

Never said he cannot express his opinion - would suggest he expresses it far too often on far too many issues that have nothing to do with him or leading the country - you know the type of person who thinks their shit doesn't stink - that be him

"the world according to pres. obama"

he's proud of lurie for his "efforts" with vick - when we all know lurie could give a shit about second chances, rather winning football games

he's not proud of the texas rangers? for helping to turn josh hamilton's life around? who harmed no one but himself with his issues?

hmmmmm

seems like if pres obama was to be proud of a second chance etc. josh/rangers is a better play

josh didn't torture dogs for profit

i guess black football players who harm animals are more deserving of 2nd chances than white baseball players who fall into drugs

point being SHUT THE FUCK UP OBAMA

but you love it

and you're proud of him

IMO he should spend his time more productively

he's not freaking oprah

but i guess he thinks he's all things to all people

the world according to obama

insufferable

 

[MoltenRock III]

Google both "Obama foxnews.com" and "Obama msnbc.com" and you'll get two lists of results. One filled with facts and events. The other laced with innuendo and partisanship.

MSNBC result:

Fox "News" result:

 

[chance1]

Link for that?

It's hard for me being from Michigan and Minnesota to get up in arms over snow removal. If you're not equipped for it or get hit with a huge storm in a place like NYC, it's going to be a bitch no matter who's in charge.

here goes

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/30/new.york.snow/index.html

looks more and more true every day with local news stories probing as well

as for "equipped", nyc should be and is quite frankly

one of the issues was that the day before the storm was christmas day and evidently christmas day pay is either 1.5 or 2x the norm so they decided to hold back to "save" money not realizing (stupidly) that those "savings" would be far exceeded by the additional costs of doing it later

est cost $20million

so much for winter wonderland

 

[MoltenRock III]

here goes

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/30/new.york.snow/index.html

looks more and more true every day with local news stories probing as well

as for "equipped", nyc should be and is quite frankly

No it doesn't look "more true every day". As the link you posted stated:

Rumors swirled across New York on Thursday that sanitation officers ordered rank-and-file workers to slow down cleanup efforts in retaliation for the city's belt-tightening measures.

And now Mayor Bloomberg said he will investigate if any of this is true or not. Sorry, you're adding to the spin Chance1, not fact. Just as with mob rule, first off, rumor becomes urban legend becomes "fact" that isn't fact based at all. Just like the guy on vacation in Mexico who wakes up in a bathtub full of ice, and his liver/kidney is missing.

But we've seen this behavior before, many times. The wingnuts trump up a bunch of nonsense, and then weeks or months later when all the fact checking has been done, the facts reveal that no wrongdoing was done, but the wingnuts already did their damage.

I find it extremely hard to believe that any large group of workers decided not to do their job as some political stance. Not police officers. Not fire fighters. Not FAA flight controllers. Not pilots. Not building inspectors. Not even snow removal workers. These people, just like you and I, take great pride in doing a job well done.

 

[chance1]

No it doesn't look "more true every day". As the link you posted stated:

Rumors swirled across New York on Thursday that sanitation officers ordered rank-and-file workers to slow down cleanup efforts in retaliation for the city's belt-tightening measures.

And now Mayor Bloomberg said he will investigate if any of this is true or not. Sorry, you're adding to the spin Chance1, not fact. Just as with mob rule, first off, rumor becomes urban legend becomes "fact" that isn't fact based at all. Just like the guy on vacation in Mexico who wakes up in a bathtub full of ice, and his liver/kidney is missing.

But we've seen this behavior before, many times. The wingnuts trump up a bunch of nonsense, and then weeks or months later when all the fact checking has been done, the facts reveal that no wrongdoing was done, but the wingnuts already did their damage.

I find it extremely hard to believe that any large group of workers decided not to do their job as some political stance. Not police officers. Not fire fighters. Not FAA flight controllers. Not pilots. Not building inspectors. Not even snow removal workers.

i live in nyc - you don't - so you may want to not be as sure about things as you seem to want to be

and these are not police officers or firemen

they pick up trash

so stop applying your "one size fits all" approach to this

and we will see

but your/bob wingnut application here is bullshit

 

[MoltenRock III]

i live in nyc - you don't - so you may want to not be as sure about things as you seem to want to be

and these are not police officers or firemen

they pick up trash

so stop applying your "one size fits all" approach to this

and we will see

but your/bob wingnut application here is bullshit

It's true I don't live in NYC. I only am there on average 3 or 4 days every month.

What you think is "adequately funded" snow removal, looks like a joke to me Chance1. As I've said, when I'm living in the USA it's either Michigan or Minnesota, two cold weather capitals, with significant snows each. Given what I've seen with my own two eyes at NYC airports, and time in NYC, I'm telling you, NYC has in no way adequate snow removal to handle 20+/- inches of snow. No way. No how.

That or you have to argue that Minneapolis has waaaaay to much snow removal equipment to be able to handle a 20" snowfall (which they had two weeks ago) that didn't completely cripple the city, but did block it up for a couple of days.

 

[MoltenRock III]

Tell 'ya what Chance. I'll put my money where my big mouth is. I'll bet you $20 (or drinks next time I'm in NYC) that in 30 days or less once the studies / reports are back, that there was no large scale wrongdoing on behalf of the snow removal employees.

If it is found that there was large scale fraud, then I'll pay up or buy drinks. If the workers did their job, and no large scale wrongdoing was done, then you owe me. Sound fair enough? (I'll even have Alfie come down to the city to meet up with us.)

 

[star-warrior]

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Mr. Vick excercising his dominion over his dog is in keeping with the bible, isn't it?

I think in the past, a man's posessions is that with what he can pretty much do with what he wants. His wife is his chattel, as is a table or even dog that belongs to him.

 

[star-warrior]

Westerners look at dogs (pets in general) differently than many cultures

What 'we' see as a pet is someone else's dinner or sport's object

However, animal cruelty is hard to comprehend

A coupla hundred years ago, it was usual to send children into chimneys to sweep them out. Or have them crawl into mechanical looms to sweep out the bits. It was a pity if they got scolded by the hot chimney or mangled by the machinery.

Keeping birds in cages, IMO, is immoral. They have wings and ought not to be confined in small spaces. As for fish in tanks or home ponds, the dependency they have on their human feeders is terrible in a way. For the "owner" the power and control element of keeping such animals is somewhat disturbing, if one considers that none of these animals are naturally found in such a situation in the wild.

 

[chance1]

Tell 'ya what Chance. I'll put my money where my big mouth is. I'll bet you $20 (or drinks next time I'm in NYC) that in 30 days or less once the studies / reports are back, that there was no large scale wrongdoing on behalf of the snow removal employees.

If it is found that there was large scale fraud, then I'll pay up or buy drinks. If the workers did their job, and no large scale wrongdoing was done, then you owe me. Sound fair enough? (I'll even have Alfie come down to the city to meet up with us.)

Not sure what constitutes "large scale" but I'm game

as long as u bring alfie

and i know some good spots

 

[Kulindahr]

Mr. Vick excercising his dominion over his dog is in keeping with the bible, isn't it?

Not in context. The statement of purpose, i.e. specified definition of "rule", shows up shortly thereafter:

The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. (Gen 2:15)

Unless you want to maintain that he's "taking care of" a dog by killing it, or "taking care" of the world by doing so.

Keeping birds in cages, IMO, is immoral. They have wings and ought not to be confined in small spaces. As for fish in tanks or home ponds, the dependency they have on their human feeders is terrible in a way. For the "owner" the power and control element of keeping such animals is somewhat disturbing, if one considers that none of these animals are naturally found in such a situation in the wild.

Somewhere in my travels I encountered an old mansion you'd like. This multi-millionaire back when that was serious wealth had a wife who decided she wanted birds. He hated caging things, so he got her birds on the condition that he could buy the cage.
He built a thing about half the size of a basketball court, and put in trees and shrubs found in the native habitats of the birds his wife wanted.

 

[star-warrior]

Not in context. The statement of purpose, i.e. specified definition of "rule", shows up shortly thereafter:

The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. (Gen 2:15)

Unless you want to maintain that he's "taking care of" a dog by killing it, or "taking care" of the world by doing so.

The disciples of Jesus were fishermen who took fish from the sea, and I suppose these fish wound up dead on a plate someplace.

WRT dogs, Jesus' contempt for the SyroPhonecian woman by calling her a dog showed the type of contempt and racism alive in his day. Dogs were treated, no doubt as lowly as rats.

http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/D/DOG/

Even if the bible said XYZ, people at the time will be treating animals badly as their contempt they had of some of them is plain in the language recorded.

Somewhere in my travels I encountered an old mansion you'd like. This multi-millionaire back when that was serious wealth had a wife who decided she wanted birds. He hated caging things, so he got her birds on the condition that he could buy the cage.
He built a thing about half the size of a basketball court, and put in trees and shrubs found in the native habitats of the birds his wife wanted.

I don't believe in people keeping pets because they can. True it gives many people comfort and joy, but, that does not automatically endow us with a right to take them from the wild and impose captivity for our own pleasure.

 

[Kulindahr]

The disciples of Jesus were fishermen who took fish from the sea, and I suppose these fish wound up dead on a plate someplace.

What -- you believe Vick is eating these dogs????

WRT dogs, Jesus' contempt for the SyroPhonecian woman by calling her a dog showed the type of contempt and racism alive in his day. Dogs were treated, no doubt as lowly as rats.

http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/D/DOG/

That's an amazingly sloppy article -- looks like something I would have slapped together in half an hour because I suddenly remembered a word report was due for my afternoon Hebrew class.

First: He didn't actually call her a dog, He drew a parallel.
Second: the use of the term "dog" in that parallel is not insulting; for starters, it's a friendly one -- He chose the form used for dogs friendly to the family; additionally, it's in conjunction with calling the people of Israel "children".

Dogs were treated in a variety of ways -- that's a point where your article gets an "F". They roamed wild, they were used to guard livestock, they were kept to eliminate vermin from property, they were used to guard property, they were playmates for children. Jesus' choice of words shows He's referring to the last of those.

And there's humor in the passage: such playmates hung around the table and got to eat scraps the children dropped. Jesus is making an image of skipping the children and tossing the food straight to the dogs. The dogs are going to get fed, anyway, but they're supposed to wait their turn.

So Jesus isn't being insulting, He's stating the accepted relationship between the Jews and their neighbors, in a vibrant and humorous way.

Dogs were treated according to how they were valued -- even back then, some dogs got treated better than many children.

Even if the bible said XYZ, people at the time will be treating animals badly as their contempt they had of some of them is plain in the language recorded.

That would be a "typical Christian wingnut", all right -- ignore the Bible when it doesn't help what they want to do, embrace it when it makes them feel good, abuse it in furtherance of hate.

I don't believe in people keeping pets because they can. True it gives many people comfort and joy, but, that does not automatically endow us with a right to take them from the wild and impose captivity for our own pleasure.

Ah -- so you ruin your own position above: you think animals should be left to the 'law of the jungle', regardless of whether that's good for them.


That whole "take them from the wild" bit sounds like the common ignorance about nature exhibited by far too many Americans today. The domestic animals we have would not fare well at all in nature on their own, so leaving them for 'the wild' would be cruel. Secondly, there's not much wild left, so in many cases not having them in captivity would mean extinction. Besides that, dogs have evolved in a sort of symbiosis with humans; they're here because their distant ancestors interacted willingly with our distant ancestors. They don't belong in the wild any longer.

 

[star-warrior]

What -- you believe Vick is eating these dogs????

Did I say he did? Ultimately death was the outcome through human intervention of an animal.

That's an amazingly sloppy article -- looks like something I would have slapped together in half an hour because I suddenly remembered a word report was due for my afternoon Hebrew class.

I used the link as it has references to other bible references.

First: He didn't actually call her a dog, He drew a parallel.
Second: the use of the term "dog" in that parallel is not insulting; for starters, it's a friendly one -- He chose the form used for dogs friendly to the family; additionally, it's in conjunction with calling the people of Israel "children".

Dogs were treated in a variety of ways -- that's a point where your article gets an "F". They roamed wild, they were used to guard livestock, they were kept to eliminate vermin from property, they were used to guard property, they were playmates for children. Jesus' choice of words shows He's referring to the last of those.

And there's humor in the passage: such playmates hung around the table and got to eat scraps the children dropped. Jesus is making an image of skipping the children and tossing the food straight to the dogs. The dogs are going to get fed, anyway, but they're supposed to wait their turn.

So Jesus isn't being insulting, He's stating the accepted relationship between the Jews and their neighbors, in a vibrant and humorous way.

Dogs were treated according to how they were valued -- even back then, some dogs got treated better than many children.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/syrophoenician.html

Therefore, the best that can be said of this passage is that Jesus' use of the diminutive kynaria only softens the insulting slur, but certainly does not remove it. Nor can we comfort ourselves with warm portrayals of children at home with their puppies. As Camery-Hoggatt correctly observes "this is a rejection of the woman's appeal because she is a Gentile" (1992: 150) and as such, she is unclean like a dog. Mark does not say so explicitly, but Matthew does not hesitate to interpret Mark in this way for he states that Jesus' reason for rejecting the woman was because he "was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mt. 15:24). We should keep in mind that which Downing points out: "Jesus made no attempt to take his message to Gentile communities (Rom. 15:8; Matt. 10:6; 15:24) and [the Syrophoenician woman story] provides no exception to this conclusion" (1992: 138).

Insult or not, dogs were considered ritually unclean, and if Leviticus is anything to go by about ritual purity, it is clear that even with him alluding to her as like a small dog, she is nevertheless looked down upon, just as dogs are in his day.

That would be a "typical Christian wingnut", all right -- ignore the Bible when it doesn't help what they want to do, embrace it when it makes them feel good, abuse it in furtherance of hate.

And that makes every Christian a wingnut. You can't really embrace only the bits you feel like because they feel good, you have to embrace the whole biblical teachings, even if they are abhorent today, such as stoning for things we today think wtf?

Ah -- so you ruin your own position above: you think animals should be left to the 'law of the jungle', regardless of whether that's good for them.

The presumption of knowing what's good for an animal because we can think so, is an enormous display of arrogance that humans have a great capacity for.

That whole "take them from the wild" bit sounds like the common ignorance about nature exhibited by far too many Americans today. The domestic animals we have would not fare well at all in nature on their own, so leaving them for 'the wild' would be cruel. Secondly, there's not much wild left, so in many cases not having them in captivity would mean extinction. Besides that, dogs have evolved in a sort of symbiosis with humans; they're here because their distant ancestors interacted willingly with our distant ancestors. They don't belong in the wild any longer.

Parakeets, parrots, budgerigars, lizards, snakes, mice, goldfish, newts, spiders.... all kept as pets somewhere, some taken from the wild others bred but ultimately taken from the wild. Extinction has been going on since life first began. Otherwise we'd be living in a creationist's dream where dinosaurs roamed with man.

Sorry, but I'd prefer if those snakes and spiders etc just stay out of my house. I'm kinda ofay with them being wild.

 

[Kulindahr]

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/syrophoenician.html

Commentary from people who think it's all made up is valueless.

Insult or not, dogs were considered ritually unclean, and if Leviticus is anything to go by about ritual purity, it is clear that even with him alluding to her as like a small dog, she is nevertheless looked down upon, just as dogs are in his day.

She is looked down on by others -- nothing indicates that He is doing so. He's referencing a common way of speaking, not talking personally.

And that makes every Christian a wingnut. You can't really embrace only the bits you feel like because they feel good, you have to embrace the whole biblical teachings, even if they are abhorent today, such as stoning for things we today think wtf?

Yes, the WHOLE teaching.
Which eliminates stonings, "abominations", temple, sacrifices, etc. for today.

To embrace any of those is to say the Bible lies.

The presumption of knowing what's good for an animal because we can think so, is an enormous display of arrogance that humans have a great capacity for.

Well, there goes any foundation for your position -- you just reduced it to "the way I feel about things".

ultimately taken from the wild.

Nope -- not any more than we are taken from the wild. Dogs adopted us.

Extinction has been going on since life first began.

Sorry, but I'd prefer if those snakes and spiders etc just stay out of my house. I'm kinda ofay with them being wild.

So you have an ethical problem with animals being brought in to take part in our lives, but you have no problem with humans just wiping animals out completely. That's really weird.

How is extinction helpful to them?

 

[star-warrior]

Commentary from people who think it's all made up is valueless.

Sounds like you don't like what disagrees with you.

She is looked down on by others -- nothing indicates that He is doing so. He's referencing a common way of speaking, not talking personally.

Who is doing the looking down - Jesus' disciples?

Before political correctness became a cultural phenomenon in modern society, it was common for racial epithets to be included in everyday speak. I find what you say odd considering...

Yes, the WHOLE teaching.
Which eliminates stonings, "abominations", temple, sacrifices, etc. for today.

To embrace any of those is to say the Bible lies.

Come again?

Well, there goes any foundation for your position -- you just reduced it to "the way I feel about things".

I wasn't aware that I am not allowed to feel about something like that?

You feel that the bible is right and proper, and so do a great many other people, and you'd call that a religious conviction. Mine is but a lonely thought on an internet forum.

Nope -- not any more than we are taken from the wild. Dogs adopted us.

We have tv ad every Christmas here saying 'puppies are for life, not just christmas', yet there are many who make it necessary for these ads to run.

So you have an ethical problem with animals being brought in to take part in our lives, but you have no problem with humans just wiping animals out completely. That's really weird.

I suppose you're going to call me Hilter soon with that line of reasoning of yours.

How is extinction helpful to them?

I suppose we wouldn't be here if the dinosaurs still lived.