Two Face is correct.

^Winstonfield_Pennypacker
Arizona, California, Misouri, Florida... It doesn't matter. There are MANY examples, and the point is Obama's hyocrisy. He selectively chooses to stomp on things he doesn't like, while at the same time he gives free passes to real violations.

What is Obama stomping in California? Are you talking about the federal judge ruling that Prop 8 violates the equal protection clause of the constitution? Obama has mostly respected California state laws regarding medical marijuana, which seems like something conservatives would normally support (states' rights and such). We'll see how he feels about legalization in November though.

In Arizona Obama is saying that those laws violate the supremacy clause of that US Constitution. Of course the "stomping" he is doing involves challenging the laws in court, which seems like a "legitimate" way of going about it. If the supreme court disagrees then so be it.

I'll spare further itemization.

You talk about Obama doing unpopular things, but you've also said in the past that the right thing should be done even if it is highly unpopular (it was in reference to slashing social security/medicare/military). Obviously you disagree with him on what is right, but I'm surprised to see you dwell on poll numbers to such a degree regarding public policy decisions.


...dud of a president knows he's being a two-faced slimeball...

I know I've seen you criticize others for name-calling as being intellectually lazy. You like to do the same for public figures you disagree with (especially Obama for some reason). You might find more people receptive to your ideas without the extra garbage cluttering it up.



No, you don't have to disclose where money comes from.

Fiscal issues are some of my biggest complaints about Democrats. Yes, it's nice to want to help people, but there just isn't enough talk on the liberal end about the budget. Hopefully this is an area where more Americans will demand attention (without the social-conservative baggage).


You won't.

We're spending too much on the wars... we shouldn't be trying to win a military victory in Afghanistan. We've lost more people in the wars than the attacks that led to them. I wish Obama would rely less on military power, but I believe he will continue for political reasons.

I also think Obama is pushing stimulus because he fears what would happen to his popularity if he chose a plan that involved large spending cuts or if he allowed a large employer to go out of business. I'm not sure he would do something he thought was right if he also thought doing so would lead to conservatives gaining significant ground.

The man isn't perfect, but in the last election he was faaar better than the alternative. I can only imagine what McCain would do about the Mosque or anything else given his recent behavior. If conservatives put someone sane up there then I might vote for them, but at this point it isn't looking too likely.

Maybe Jesse Ventura will run. ;-)

So it's an attack on freedom for a Federal Judge to rule that a state amendment violates individual freedoms under the federal constitution? California... Homosexuals... Prayer... Insurance...

Arizona, California, Misouri, Florida... It doesn't matter. There are MANY examples, and the point is Obama's hyocrisy. He selectively chooses to stomp on things he doesn't like, while at the same time he gives free passes to real violations. The Black Panther case was a blatant violation of civil rights - but his administration dismissed it because in thier OPINION black people can't violate the civil rights of others.

The mosque is simply one note in the sad litany of his hypocrisy. He approves the mosque on the basis of limited involvement in city/state government as well as the bill of rights? This comes off as hypocritical to anyone who hears it given his extensive record of ignoring the rights in order to force feed his agenda at national, state, local, and individual levels.

Arizona wants to enforce legitimate laws & protect citizens? Louisiana wants to build sand berms? BP wants to bring in non-union oil skimmers? Texas want to lift my oil drilling ban? It's against the constitution to force people to buy my Obama brand insurance? Banks are refusing to take my TARP money? The people don't want my financial reform bill? The people don't want my Health Care reform bill? The people don't want my Cap & Tax schemes? The people don't want my plan for illegal amnesty? Bah! I'm Barak Hussain Obama and I disallow such freedoms in MY America!

Oh - but you radial Cordoba freaks can build your mosque at Ground Zero. No, you don't have to disclose where money comes from. No, I don't care this is a documented terrorist tactic. No I don't care Germany just shut down Cordobas because they were terror cells. No, I don't care that by definition a mosque can't possibly be a "community outreach center".

Anyone with eyes, ears, and a brain knows clearly that Obama LOVES to violate the constitution and interfere with state/local policy. But now all of a sudden he changes his mind and state's rights and religious freedom matter? Anyone living through this nightmare dud of a president knows he's being a two-faced slimeball on the issue and that his motivation is his personal bias. That's why he's getting shellaqued in the ratings, the polls, and even (albiet reluctantly) in the press.

I could list lots of decisions Obama has made that I don't agree with, but he got it right on this one and I hope to see more of it.

You won't. This was a biased decision to favor an opinion/ideology that he sympathizes with. As evidenced by just about EVERY other thing he's ever done, Obama will do the exact opposite on any issue he finds politically convenient.

Capitalism and socialism are two faces of the same coin. As we move further and further into the 21st century this is becoming more and more obvious. A government without tradition and a cultural framework is nothing more than a corporation. As both tradition and culture become eroded (they are almost non-existent by now) we will see the complete and utter merger of these two systems.

I love how this douche is saying that the xian god created humans as free. And that's a right. Yet, I'm sure he believes, as many other xians believe, everyone should bow before that god and serve him, or suffer eternal hellfire. Gotta love that two-faced nature.

Edit: Apologies, I just noticed you changed yours to private, so I will do the same now.
Edit 2: No fuck it, it's public. Say thanks to this moron: http://rasch187.videosift.com/#comment-897638

Hi again Rae,

First off, I'm sorry about the mile long wall of text. I do hope you will read all of it none-the-less.

I'm glad you came out yourself to address this, because it's better we get this over with properly, so we can move on with our lives.

I'll stress as well, that UP and Rasch got in to their fight on their own, I had no involvement until UP sent me a message about it.

I was under a completely different impression about being invited to bea's place and honestly I still am. I didn't try to force myself over there, but when she invited me, however casually, we discussed quite a bit on messenger afterwards. I wouldn't have gone over there if I had been given the slightest impression that she was not comfortable with it. I'm very sorry that she did feel pressured into it, but I never intended to do that. I just saw a trip to Texas as a golden opportunity to get OUT, get away from Denmark for a while. As we discussed in our chats, I had been feeling restless and bogged down in everyday life for a pretty long and her invitation was like a blessing to me (for lack of a better word). I may have been eager about it, but I don't know what to say - I just wanted to get out. I didn't buy the tickets overnight - we did discuss it, and we chatted quite a lot before I did come over there, and she never gave any indication that she didn't want me to come over.

In the very first chat we had on messenger, I very clearly remember it, you said.. "I could seriously fall for you" and followed it up by "but I'm actually already taken (...)" and we got into a discussion about jake and all that. I accepted it already then. We both carried on afterwards with talking dirty and watching all that weird porn (you were quite as much to blame for that!) and I had loads of fun, because you were much different from anyone I knew. You made me smile when we talked.

I'm sorry I didn't let the coming to meet you lie, but I was not being so frantically serious about it. I really wanted to meet you, yes, and to be honest I still would, in a crowded room, with many sifters. At a siftup, perhaps. (Incidentally, I have nothing against Jake. I think he's a good guy and you two ARE lucky to have found each other.)

I never meant to imply that he and you were not serious. You made it abundantly clear that you were very serious, I was just being a smart-ass, because if I had been in his shoes that's what I would have wanted to do. I never meant to imply anything about you and Jake with that, so I'm sorry you saw it as such. I really am.

About skype and messenger for that matter, I only asked for your skype address once and it was partly meant as a joke; and with your reply "no way, that's just for me and jake" I let that lie. The other part of that was that I wanted to just talk with you, to hear your voice, and it had been a long time since we chatted, so I wrote that message - as you said, so shoot me...

I know you hate hurting people and I appreciate that, but in the end this has hurt a lot more. If you had told me something to the effect "I think this coming over to meet me is making me uncomfortable, because you're too persistent - I like you as a friend, but I don't want to meet with you, at least not on my own or right now" I would have apologized right there and I would have learned to ease up with you. Instead I kept teasing you with it, and as I've said before, to jake and you, I believe, my common sense was just out of wack because of all the shit we talked about. I never saw it coming that you just did not want to talk to me, and when you wrote your "tired of the bullshit" I had no idea what you were getting on about, so it hurt.. to be honest, it really hurt. I was messed up all day from that and that's why I was so after getting a bigger reply after that. I felt as if I had been hit by a bus, because I truly considered you a friend.

About the trip to Texas. I did not get the impression that it was a disaster at all. She was a bit pissed with me for the boob grabbing, but it was only two days after she booted me because she had to tend to her father's funeral. In that two day span, everything was just dandy, I mean, she never gave any indication that it was so disastrous. Yes, the boobgrabbing was way over the line, we've been over that a million times and I've apologized as much as I can about it. The environment that they created was a factor in me doing it, it was not just "because I was drunk" - I wasn't THAT drunk, and I don't get grabby in general. When I am in good company, with people I consider friends, I can be quite dirty talking, sure, but I'm not a sexually offensive guy physically at all, I just followed their lead when they freaking made out on the porch I though, "well three can play that game" and did it. I know that was wrong, but that's the reason I did it. I didn't want to freak them out as bad as they clearly did, and they didn't do anything at the time, they just basically shrugged it off.

As we have discussed earlier, I portray myself here as pretty much myself - not completely, I take it to much larger extremes here, but mostly I'm just being myself.

Also I know that we have discussed your inability to find a woman. You yourself put it down to the fact that you had to get drunk to converse with them, and once that had happened you tended to become lewd and inappropriate, the drink was doing the talking

I think you are getting at this from a wrong angle. They are two different issues. One is that I don't have the nerve to approach strange girls, or really strangers altogether, but I loosen up when I get a beer in me. Most guys can relate to that, girls too, I would think. Second, I'm not lewd and inappropriate around people I don't know, even when I'm drunk, I only get like that around people that I like - as in if we're a bunch from my year on the university out getting smashed or something. The reason I got like that at bea's place the one night, was because I was having a good time and the three of them were good company. Yeah, I did swear to the three adults, but I never did so to any of her kids - I don't want to freak out kids, I don't really even like kids, but I think I behaved pretty well around her children in general, except for when we had that game of scrabble and I swore to iv or bea in casual conversation, when the little one had just snuck out from the bedroom. I was doing this partly to be intentionally teasing, because we had just had a discussion earlier about what one should and shouldn't say to kids. Bea had sworn as well earlier in casual conversation, so I did not take that as so terrible. Evidently, I was mistaken.

I never EVER said anything sexual to any of her kids. I'm appalled that she thinks that, because I don't do that.

The remark after the siftup was not aimed at you at all and I was perplexed that you saw it as such, because we didn't have any secrets at all. As we chatted on messenger about, I never intended it for you it was just a general remark to sifters.

Concerning rasch. I made it clear in private to you that I didn't like him. He was an obnoxious person and he should go suck a fuck. I still hold that opinion. If our roles had been reversed, I would have told YOU to take care of the situation, instead of interjecting myself as a fucking savior to get you poor women the rescue you so needed. That's because I'm a nice person, who don't put my own ego in front of everyone else's. The chat that he quoted between you and him seems to me to be pretty damn two-faced from you as well. You present yourself one way to me and another to him. That's not nice,, at all. I know exactly what he did and so does everyone else - it's plainly public. He acted like an aggressive brute trying to verbally punch me out in his comments. He attacked me way earlier than that as well, the comment you laughed about a while back, even though he did apologize for that afterwards. He deserves the tiny little corner of shame that he painted himself into.

The accusations made against me are many and plentiful (well, three in total counting boobgrabbing, gutter mouthing and your own), but I think it's a shame that yours and bea's have been muddled together, because they are really two separate issues.

I'm quite angry with bea still, because it's because of her that this has blown up and blown so out of proportion as it has. This was not my doing - any of you could have approached me privately and that could have been that - if you had explained what I had done wrong. All of you, except Cari, just ignored me and left me in the complete dark. Cari kept me on facebook and was in general like she always was, but said she didn't want to get involved when I asked what was up with bea, because she had removed me from facebook. I respected that and I still do - she acted the most like an adult. I think you are out of line to suggest why she apologized, but while you may or may not be right, she apologized none-the-less. And we are still friendly around each other, even though she is the one that was slighted the most. I'm not going to visit her in person, probably ever, but that doesn't mean that we can't be civil. I still think she's fun and a boon.

It's likely that she didn't actually forgive you at all and that she is too nice of a person to really come out and say what she thinks. I can relate.

You are being awfully passive-aggressive here and presumptuous. I would welcome her saying all she wanted to me in private if she wanted, but she already has - and we've patched things up as far as we could at this time. We're in a good place now both of us as far as I know.

Bea got blamed for everything justly in my opinion - I got my share of grizzly attacks too, which I feel terrible about, but I owned up to my fucking mistakes - she just shits on the floor and slams the door behind her. She has as much blame in this situation as I do and if she wants to flame out, as she did, then I have no interest in patching anything up with her. She was fun to talk to, if a big damn bit more crazy than you, for instance, but fun non-the-less. Not so much anymore. I acted pretty well over there and if she had issues with me, she could have just told me. We sat on her porch and talked while she smoked plenty of times and no indication at all. Her family and friends were never there except Cari and their friend Rick on that Tuesday with the boobgrabbing (and of course the kids, who I was very nice to).

Have I lied to you before? Honestly, ever? I've only ever been painfully truthful and if I wanted to just talk shit, wouldn't I have painted a much more rose-tinted version? I'm sorry you are taking her version, because it is far more skewed than mine is - and dammit, I ought to have deserved some trust with you.. we were friends!

I've reflected on this long and hard, I truly have, and I think I have learned from it as well. I've toned down my lewdness and I find myself holding my tongue more often than before. But not much else is to change, unless I want to be a completely different person, and all my friends seem to like me as I am just fine, so I don't want to change into something I'm not.

I've also learned that there are people in this world, who will fuck you over. I am not one of those people and I don't think you are either. We all make mistakes and misjudgments and I think you are misjudging me. I still would like to be your "friend" in some capacity, but you make it pretty clear you don't want that. I'm sorry you don't. I will consider myself as on friendly terms with you and if you do come back to the sift some time, then I will treat you respectfully and I hope you will do the same thing with me.

I still feel terrible about how all this happened and about how our friendship fell apart. :-/

Nicki.

PS. Incidentally, I have found a woman, who I am very glad for and who for some bizarre reason likes me a whole lot too, so I HAVE grown a bit at least.

In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
OK, first of all I want you to know, I happened upon this whole conversation between UP, rasch and yourself as I still visit now and again. Don't for one moment think that he's come crying to me.

If rasch was referring to anything creepy, then it wouldn't have been logs of conversations we've had, it would have been PM's. And also pointing out certain things you had written in threads, baiting me etc. Most of it was not private.

I wish I'd have come straight to you once everything had come out regarding bea, but honestly at that point I had already had enough of our relationship on here and had been avoiding talking to you for ages. Yes I'm a coward for not just straight up telling you things were bothering me. And yes, everything here could have been dealt with differently. The main reason for me not coming straight out and ever saying anything, was because I really felt that the way I carried on with you, that I had encouraged you. I am very open and broad minded. We have discussed numerous topics and I always came across like I was comfortable in anything we discussed. And for a long while I was.

Quite early on it became apparent that you had feelings for me. At this point I told you about myself and Jake, because I didn't want you to think that any relationship between us was possible. You will notice that Jake not once ever had a problem with the way we behaved around here or in fact on messenger. He just saw it all as a bit of fun and nothing to get possessive about. It was nothing to do with him, right? Because we were just friends, fooling around and being risque for a laugh.

The things that started bothering me were that you wouldn't let the coming here to see me lie. I'd give you a thousand excuses as to why it couldn't happen, at least not any time soon. But it was so regular, and the comments you made about how if you were Jake you'd have been here with me already (implying that he wasn't serious about me? that's kind of how it felt) and always with the questioning. Why did you have to wait til after he had been here, where do you live, what's your skype address (even though I told you that skype was only something I used for me and him). And telling me you'd found out how much it cost to get here etc etc. It built up and built up, and I didn't know how to tell you to back off without hurting your feelings entirely. I HATE hurting anyone, and like I said, I blamed myself for having not said anything before and letting it get to the point it was at, and potentially giving you mixed signals, by first telling you I was unavailable and then carrying on flirting with you (out in the open)and sharing graphic (although always sickly amusing) porn, and discussing other such personal subjects. I hadn't been careful, so instead of fronting it out with you, I ignored you. So shoot me...

When bea messaged me after you had left Texas, she did it not to gossip, but because your visit there had been a fucking disaster, she felt that you didn't understand any boundaries, you made her feel uncomfortable with the things you were coming out with and you had told her that you intended to come and see me. She felt like she had to warn me about how you had presented yourself there. The thing was, so many things rang true on what she was saying. That she hadn't outright invited you - just in the lounge she'd said off the cuff as she does, that yeah you should come to Texas one day, and the next thing she knew you'd booked tickets and she didn't have a clue how to say no. Well, you were relentless with me about coming here...

That you had made inappropriate sexual comments in front of her children. Well I remember one time you making one about my daughter too, something about when she came of age, blech. I took it as a joke, at the time although it didn't sit comfortably with me. Also I know that we have discussed your inability to find a woman. You yourself put it down to the fact that you had to get drunk to converse with them, and once that had happened you tended to become lewd and inappropriate, the drink was doing the talking. Now considering that you spent time there getting drunk and you definitely thought it was ok to grab IV's breast (btw, justifying that by saying that bea had just done it, what the fuck???) it didn't take much to come to the conclusion what with everything else that you were indeed not in your right mind. Whether you agree or not, that's how it all came about. It felt like the character you "played" on here, wasn't just a character after all. And that was fucking disturbing to me.

I sat on it forever. I wasn't going to bring any of it up because bea did not want the drama, and neither did IV. She also felt partly responsible for giving you the wrong idea about things because of the way she converses with everyone. And she didn't want it all to drag out like it has. But as I told you, after numerous PM's and references in video threads, then the limerick, and THEN what I truly felt to be another jab against me when you mentioned in the sift up thread that anyone who had secrets with you weren't secrets any more, I finally blew my lid. I just didn't want to be here any longer.

If you had have been on the outside of this looking in like rasch has been, I'm pretty sure that you would have, after all the evidence presented to you, felt that it needed to once and for all be addressed. I'm not saying he couldn't have gone about it in a better way, he definitely could. But then, so could we all have done, isn't that right? I'd like you to stop blaming him for everything now, it's somewhat projecting rather than really taking a look at how and why things have happened how they have. He has freely admitted that he should have been more discreet, and now he is just left defending his corner without really being able to say anything at all. Enough is enough.

I hope this explains what you have wanted to know. Whether you agree with the accusations made against you, they have been made. Not just by one person, but two and that's not including her family and friends who were around too I'm sure. IV apologised with you to keep the peace and not let it all get blown up publically like it has and to stop bea being blamed for everything like she was after she flamed out. It's likely that she didn't actually forgive you at all and that she is too nice of a person to really come out and say what she thinks. I can relate. I hope you reflect on all of this and you consider how things can end up, as have I on numerous occasions. And yes, it's your word against hers. Either of you could be talking shit. But I'm taking her version, as have people chosen to take yours.

Rae

Wait... He's after us? Run for your lives, Two-Face is coming!

Disrespectful? Sure. "No president has been treated like this ever?" Hardly. Bush during his 2005 State of the Union address...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBxmEGG71PM

So let us not pretend that this is some sort of 'Republican' problem. People from both sides of the aisle are guilty of this, and they're doing it with increasing frequency. Its a little late in the game for neolibs to be clucking their tongues at such behavior now. Such protestations are reserved only for the innocent. From the guilty it is nothing but hypocrisy.

Now - on to substance...

I for one am not so willing to say that Wilson's accusation is wrong. He shouldn't have blurted it in the middle of a speech, but his sentiment is correct. While Obama is not OVERTLY lying about the immigrant issue, he is not being honest, straightforward, or clear either. That's typical political speech though. Skate close enough to the truth that you can always back up and say, "Hey I'm not totally lying." But at the same time play pretty fast and loose with facts.

For example - it is 'technically' true that the immigration bill claims to exclude immigrants. So Obama can make his two-faced claim, "Hey - illegals won't be covered..." And it's the 'truth' right? Not exactly.

This is the same guy that keeps going around claiming that we have "43 million uninsured". Well he BLOODY WELL KNOWS that a huge chunk of those 43 million uninsured are illegal immigrants that he's including in his total to make it sound like 20% of Americans are running around not able to afford insurance. That's bullcrap. He can't go around saying we have "43 million uninsured" that he means to cover, and then turn right around and say "illegals won't have access." But it isn't very compelling when you realize that he's asking for a TRILLION DOLLARS to cover only about 15 million people if he's serious about his 'illegals won't have access' claim. That's asking for almost $70,000 per uninsured person. Pretty expensive plan, eh? No wonder he's trying to bury his facts.

And that's not even touching the fact that not a single one of the plans in the House or Senate has any plan for verification of citizenship. They say that illegals won't be able to get in - but if they have no plan to verify (and ENFORCE!) citizenship then it is nothing but words. And leave us not forget that not a single bill is out of committee yet. Who can say with certainty that there won't be some last minute provision, or scheme, or whatever that jams in an illegal coverage loophole?

So Obama can flap his gums all he wants, but just because it 'says' illegals won't be covered in the bills doesn't mean that it isn't going to happen. I remember the 1986 Reagan immigration & control reform act. Know what? That act 'claimed' that it was going to start enforcing immigration rules and clamp down on illegals. Know what? It DIDN'T! Why should I believe that this bill is actually going to exclude illegals when there is no plan in place, and every past attempt to enforce citizenship has failed completely?

So was Obama lying? Maybe not technically, but in practical reality his claim that illegals won't be getting insurance or medical care is complete load of honk. He's got no plan, he's got no enforcement. As far as I'm concerned, that's as close to a lie as you can get.

I'm tired of letting politicians get a free pass when they talk smack answers to questions and skate by on technicalities and half truths. I don't like it when any politician weasels his way out of the SUBSTANCE of an accusation by hiding behind puffery and bureauratic double-speak. So I'm going to call things like I see it and come out and say that Obama IS lying. Neolibs can pretend that his jargon makes him 'technically' truthful, but it's in every practical way he's spewing lies. Until Obama comes up with a CONCRETE (IE written in a bill and NOT just rhetoric) solid, provable, and enforcable plan that clearly and plainly excludes ALL illegals from ever getting insurance or receiving medical care then he's lying.

While it is quite a watch, there was a followup which showed quite a few outtakes in which Bashir was clearly being disingenuous to MJ. Again, I'm not a MJ apologist, but Bashir definitely pandered to him off-camera, calling him a "great father" and such, only adding the damning voice-overs after the fact. If you read the wikipedia article, it wasn't until the very end, in the interview specifically about Gavin that he "confronted" Michael to his face.

Not saying all was kosher over at Neverland, but the behavior of this "journalist" is pretty typical media two-faced douchyness.

The beat was sposed to drop right there
The beat was sposed to drop right there
The beat was sposed to drop right there
Yeah yeah yeah... uhh
I send this one out, to my right hand man
or mens, or womens, the whole crew
The real fam

We can count the dough or kick a flow
or chill out watchin videos
or actin really silly yo but really doe
all that can end...
Whether at the bar with superstars
or cruisin in the trooper car
I really don't care who you are
All I really need is a friend
Verse One: KRS-One
If we can't have trust then you can't hang with us
We respond to those who show respect with respect
We respond we connect on the same deck
same intellect, my man, never shifty, thinks quickly
If you can't understand, we boys we boys
We could stand on the corner with a hat sellin toys
It ain't about your Benz I hope it ain't about mine
my man, I be dissin in my freestyle rhyme
Gettin G's around the world, I can trust you with my girl
my man, we chillin at the jam, what's the plan?
I'm not a yes man and none of my friends are yes men
or women, I'm drivin, I see my peeps yo get in
Where you fit in? True friends are quick to sit
in the beginning of all trouble, and when your bankroll doubles
Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble
Still I got my own space like Hubble

Cause don't nobody care about us, all they do is doubt us
Until we blow the spot then they all wanna crowd us
and wanna shout us, but you my man from way back
I just gots to say that, actin large I don't play that
But I can't say that, where I play at isn't fast-paced
A friend can acquire the taste to become two-faced
And that's a disgrace there ain't nothing you can say to us
When the kid you grew up with betrays your trust
When we used to ride the bus we had trust
Now we cash checks and drive Lex, and can't show respect to one of us
Yo the heads I hang with ain't tryin to just get
what they can get, sit quickly backstabbin the click
I roll thick, but only some are friends really
down to the end, my right hand men and women
Mutual support, from the beginning
Been in, exactly what I've been in

Back to back we attack corporate America
Gettin fees that amount to G's in every area
You my man I ain't gotta drag you along
You pull your own weight, yeah you definitely got it goin on
I don't see nothin wrong wit a little bumpin car system
thumpin, between the crew we always got sump'un
But if we had nuttin no frontin whatever
We'd still be crew you and me, me for you together
Word, fake people ain't worth a turd
They only want to be your friend because of what they overheard
I send this record to the well respected
Friends that I've collected, I hope I am what you expected
Yeah, so check it, so check it

Stephen Fry said, of the expenses scandal over here in britain right now, that he doesn't see what all the fuss is about, everyone fiddles their expenses, everyone's a hypocrite.

He went from "awesome" to "stuck up posh toff wanker, sticking up for his posh two faced thieving toff mates" in the space of a few sentences

I suppose it shows how far removed from average life he (and his friends, evidently) are that he thinks everyone gets to claim expenses.. so i can forgive him his ignorance slightly

Technically, atoms are neither peaceful nor otherwise. They are (as far as we know) inanimate objects. They cannot possess the qualities of being peaceful or vengeful or in love or full of hate or drunk or Mexican. They are just there. In fact, I don't even think they'd care if you called them out on their bullshit--fuckin conniving, two-faced, lying, cheating assholes that they are.

In the beggining, when he is introducing things, the others keep interjecting about how good he is - like they were praising god himself. "Amen Brother"
THEN,
After they show the clip - they all laugh at him and berate him just like (dare I say) Jesus Christ before they crusified him....

Too far? OK, I take it back - absolutely two-faced though!

The idea that Jesus is fully human and fully God simultaneously is patently ridiculous on its face. That is simply doublespeak so that theists can try to win arguments such as this one. If he was fully God (even if he was also somehow fully human), he would not have feared the pain and death he knew was coming. I think that's all the proof anybody needs that Jesus was not divine. This is one of many cases where theists will twist words into unintelligible pretzels and come out of the argument claiming "faith" that their statements are true somehow trumps the logic that crushes their beliefs.

But let's set that aside for a second. Let's accept that Jesus feared pain and death, and that his crucifixion was as horrible to him as it would be to anyone else.

How exactly does that lift any burden off my shoulders? How can that absolve me of any portion of my guilt for sins against my fellow man? Of course, it's not supposed to be about my sins against my fellow man, but rather my sins against God.

(And the entire concept of a "sacrifice" is simply a throwback to a society that believed they had to "appease the gods". They pretended to assert some form of control over weather and natural disasters, which of course was pointless. That, of course, developed in the human world where a tribe would have to send a portion of their crop to the nearby dictator or risk being trampled by his army. And since their concept of God was simply an even more powerful dictator, they did the only thing they could think of that might make him happy: hurting themselves to show supplication.)

As I understand it, Christians claim that Jesus was the sacrifice that freed us from the burden of original sin. Even if that statement made sense, I refuse to accept responsibility for a mistake that was supposedly made by an ancestor thousands of years ago. I therefor reject any sacrifices (that I did not ask for) made on my behalf towards a debt that I do not recognize.

The bible is basically saying that God made man greedy, dangled money in front of his face (the Fruit of Knowledge), punished man for taking the money (expulsion from Eden), demanded regular payments (blood sacrifices before Jesus), sent his son to pay the debt with his own money (because Jesus is God), and commands us to be eternally grateful to Jesus for his sacrifice (which was not a sacrifice).

So even if every bit of Christian mythology is 100% correct, that would simply make us the unwilling slaves of a spiteful two-faced God, faced with the threat of eternal suffering, forced to put a smile on our face and sing praising songs, pretending to be grateful for the burdens and fear heaped upon us by our "loving" master.

I think it is pretty clear why I can't believe a word of it.


Theist: "Well Because of A we know that B happens."

Nontheist: "Sorry, try proving A before you derive anything from it."

By the way, thanks for letting me vent a bit. It's nice to get these swirling thoughts out of my head every once in a while. I hope they make sense to others as much as they do to me.

Peace.


In reply to this comment by smooman:
You have a different view of Jesus than I. The doctrine I hold to is that he was fully human and fully God. Not half-n-half or whatever. In that way, he experiences everything we do, from pain, to happiness, to mourning, to delight, to frustration (money changers in the temple for example). And because he was fully man, his suffering is twofold: the physical, the crucifixion, which most are familiar with even non theists, but then another, emotional, mental, and spiritual anguish and angst in the garden the eve of the crucifixion.

If dying on the cross is not that big of a deal, as you say, then why would Jesus cry out to God the Father "take this cup from me"? This is a man who knew what lay in store for him, and feared it, dreaded it, wanted a way out of it. It's important too that after he asks God to relieve him of this duty, that he wishes, "but Your will, not mine".

You say according to Christianity that Jesus wasn't a man but rather God in the form of man. This is where I would disagree. The mainstream doctrine on the divinity of Jesus in the Christian church is that he was fully man and fully God.

There are theologies that we're discussing that go much deeper than what we've covered so far. I think that this may become a long running discussion. But I do enjoy it and look forward to more. Sala'am =)

also what I meant by "theistic points of view" is this: (this will be cheesy so bare with me)

Theist: "Well Because of A we know that B happens"

Nontheist: "well I dont believe in A so B would never happen because A doesnt exist"


I know that's really silly and such a trivial analogy but it's the best I could come up with =(


In reply to this comment by MaxWilder:
For any wrongdoings or mistakes I make in life, I expect to be punished for them during my lifetime. That may be in many different forms, such as the loss of a friend, the loss of respect from my community, the anger of someone seeking retribution, perhaps even a fine or punishment from the government that is set up by people who want to discourage such behavior. And I fully accept that because I am the only one who could have prevented the mistake or error in judgment.

If you made such an error in judgment, but the police caught somebody else by mistake, would you let that person take the punishment for you? Of course not, that would be completely immoral. Similarly, it would be completely immoral for anybody to be sent to hell for your sins. So exactly how is it acceptable for Jesus to suffer and die for your sins? Well, he was actually God, so he didn't really suffer, he didn't really die, he didn't go to hell. So he didn't really do anything for you anyway. Honestly, what sacrifice did Jesus make? If he was just a man, that would be the ultimate sacrifice. But according to Christianity, he wasn't just a man, so it wasn't really a sacrifice at all. Nothing was lost. Jesus came down, told people what he wanted to tell them, then went back to heaven. Ok, the method he used to go back to heaven was pretty brutal, but it wouldn't be that big a deal to someone who was actually an aspect of God himself.

So... Jesus didn't really sacrifice anything.

And... even if he did, I don't want anybody to be punished for something I did.

And... if God denies us entrance to heaven for making mistakes, the kind of mistakes that every human makes (because God made us that way), what kind of a bastard does that make God?

"Again its all from a theistic point of view so for someone who doesnt share that point of view, all of this will be pretty much hogwash."

Sorry, but a person's point of view doesn't change a line of logical reasoning. Either these points can be refuted or they stand. Please remember that I was raised Christian and started formulating these thoughts well before I completely rejected the church.



>> ^smooman:
Sorry it took so long to get back to ya. This is more along the lines of a theological debate but here goes. I personally, in my theological understanding, do not believe that simply being "good" will save you and the reason is this: Can you think of anyone, anyone you know, anyone you read about, anyone you ever met, anyone at all that has lived a blameless life? A life completely devoid of wrongdoing or a wicked thought or a anger fueled episode from the time of accountability to the time of separation (death)? Everyone does something "not good" in their life. They may regret it, it may be out of character, or they might not have meant it, but it happens. After all, we are only human.
Paul tells us that "all have sinned , and fallen short of the glory of God". I think thePinky had mentioned earlier that these sins or "mean things" or "slip ups" or whatEVER you want to call them cause us to be imperfect of our original creation and separate us from our Creator. Enter Jesus: the sacrificial lamb.
Again its all from a theistic point of view so for someone who doesnt share that point of view, all of this will be pretty much hogwash. But there you have it.
I DO appreciate your openmindedness (I totally just made that word up hehe) and your sincere respect for other belief systems unlike MOST sifters =)
In reply to this comment by MaxWilder:
It's tough to switch gears from arguments against fundamentalists to questions for moderates. But the last couple of days reminded me of my most important question for modern moderate Christians:
If there is a good person, who lives a good life, doesn't break any laws, contributes to his community and passes down a strong code of ethics to his children, would that person go to hell without Jesus?
As far as I can tell, that's what it says in the Bible, and that's one of the very first things that led me to reject Christianity. Most modern, compassionate Christians say you can still go to heaven just by being a good person. But that leads directly to the next question:
What is the point of Christianity if you don't really need to be a Christian to go to heaven?
I think you'll find that if you answer that question, none of your reasons will have anything to do with Jesus being an actual "Savior" or "Son of God".

Maybe she's a "two face" and the fridge is the only place in her house with attractive lighting?