Top Leaderboard, Site wide
August 1, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Hydropower Illuminates a Piece of History






Truthdig Bazaar
Lineages of the Absolutist State

Lineages of the Absolutist State

By Perry Anderson
$17.91

more items

 
Report

War Is a Hate Crime

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Oct 26, 2009
AP / Rafiq Maqbool

A U.S. soldier walks in the snow at an outpost near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

By Chris Hedges

Violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people is wrong. So is violence against people in Afghanistan and Iraq. But in the bizarre culture of identity politics, there are no alliances among the oppressed. The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the first major federal civil rights law protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, passed last week, was attached to a $680-billion measure outlining the Pentagon’s budget, which includes $130 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Democratic majority in Congress, under the cover of protecting some innocents, authorized massive acts of violence against other innocents.

It was a clever piece of marketing. It blunted debate about new funding for war. And behind the closed doors of the caucus rooms, the Democratic leadership told Blue Dog Democrats, who are squeamish about defending gays or lesbians from hate crimes, that they could justify the vote as support for the war. They told liberal Democrats, who are squeamish about unlimited funding for war, that they could defend the vote as a step forward in the battle for civil rights. Gender equality groups, by selfishly narrowing their concern to themselves, participated in the dirty game.

“Every thinking person wants to take a stand against hate crimes, but isn’t war the most offensive of hate crimes?” asked Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who did not vote for the bill, when I spoke to him by phone. “To have people have to make a choice, or contemplate the hierarchy of hate crimes, is cynical. I don’t vote to fund wars. If you are opposed to war, you don’t vote to authorize or appropriate money. Congress, historically and constitutionally, has the power to fund or defund a war. The more Congress participates in authorizing spending for war, the more likely it is that we will be there for a long, long time. This reflects an even larger question. All the attention is paid to what President Obama is going to do right now with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan. The truth is the Democratic Congress could have ended the war when it took control just after 2006. We were given control of the Congress by the American people in November 2006 specifically to end the war. It did not happen. The funding continues. And while the attention is on the president, Congress clearly has the authority at any time to stop the funding. And yet it doesn’t. Worse yet, it finds other ways to garner votes for bills that authorize funding for war. The spending juggernaut moves forward, a companion to the inconscient force of war itself.”

The brutality of Matthew Shepard’s killers, who beat him to death for being gay, is a product of a culture that glorifies violence and sadism. It is the product of a militarized culture. We have more police, prisons, inmates, spies, mercenaries, weapons and troops than any other nation on Earth. Our military, which swallows half of the federal budget, is enormously popular—as if it is not part of government. The military values of hyper-masculinity, blind obedience and violence are an electric current that run through reality television and trash-talk programs where contestants endure pain while they betray and manipulate those around them in a ruthless world of competition. Friendship and compassion are banished.

This hyper-masculinity is at the core of pornography with its fusion of violence and eroticism, as well as its physical and emotional degradation of women. It is an expression of the corporate state where human beings are reduced to commodities and companies have become proto-fascist enclaves devoted to maximizing profit. Militarism crushes the capacity for moral autonomy and difference. It isolates us from each other. It has its logical fruition in Abu Ghraib, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with our lack of compassion for our homeless, our poor, our mentally ill, our unemployed, our sick, and yes, our gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual citizens. 

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
Klaus Theweleit in his two volumes entitled “Male Fantasies,” which draw on the bitter alienation of demobilized veterans in Germany following the end of World War I, argues that a militarized culture attacks all that is culturally defined as the feminine, including love, gentleness, compassion and acceptance of difference. It sees any sexual ambiguity as a threat to male “hardness” and the clearly defined roles required by the militarized state. The continued support for our permanent war economy, the continued elevation of military values as the highest good, sustains the perverted ethic, rigid social roles and emotional numbness that Theweleit explored. It is a moral cancer that ensures there will be more Matthew Shepards.

Fascism, Theweleit argued, is not so much a form of government or a particular structuring of the economy or a system, but the creation of potent slogans and symbols that form a kind of psychic economy which places sexuality in the service of destruction. The “core of all fascist propaganda is a battle against everything that constitutes enjoyment and pleasure,” Theweleit wrote. And our culture, while it disdains the name of fascism, embraces its dark ethic.

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, interviewed in 2003 by Charlie Rose, spoke in this sexualized language of violence to justify the war in Iraq, a moment preserved on YouTube (see video below):

“What they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, and basically saying, ‘Which part of this sentence don’t you understand?’ ” Friedman said. “ ‘You don’t think, you know, we care about our open society? You think this bubble fantasy, we’re just gonna let it grow? Well, suck on this.’ That, Charlie, was what this war was about. We could have hit Saudi Arabia, it was part of that bubble. Could have hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could.”

This is the kind of twisted logic the killers of Matthew Shepard would understand.

The philosopher Theodor Adorno wrote, in words gay activists should have heeded, that exclusive preoccupation with personal concerns and indifference to the suffering of others beyond the self-identified group made fascism and the Holocaust possible.

“The inability to identify with others was unquestionably the most important psychological condition for the fact that something like Auschwitz could have occurred in the midst of more or less civilized and innocent people,” Adorno wrote. “What is called fellow traveling was primarily business interest: one pursues one’s own advantage before all else, and simply not to endanger oneself, does not talk too much. That is a general law of the status quo. The silence under the terror was only its consequence. The coldness of the societal monad, the isolated competitor, was the precondition, as indifference to the fate of others, for the fact that only very few people reacted. The torturers know this, and they put it to test ever anew.”

Chris Hedges, whose column is published on Truthdig every Monday, spent two decades as a foreign reporter covering wars in Latin America, Africa, Europe and the Middle East. He has written nine books, including “Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle” (2009) and “War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning” (2003).


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By psychology career, June 6, 2011 at 12:33 am Link to this comment

Criminal psychology has its roots in behavior analysis that can describe the affects that violent behaviors can have on victims and also often the thought process of the perpetrator is one of condition through being the receiver and or witness of continued violent behavior. Bullying is a form of violence and although some say this is part of school education, we now know that it is violent and can have a lasting negative affect on the victim ability to manage their emotions.

Report this

By msamericanpatriot, September 12, 2010 at 10:32 am Link to this comment

The only ones who are truly troubled are those who
chain themselves to satanic lifestyles like
homosexuality and are supporters of it.

Report this

By ardee, September 12, 2010 at 8:19 am Link to this comment

msamericanpatriot, August 31 at 5:09 pm

I so seldom agree with the object of your ridiculous and somewhat mentally disturbed diatribe that I am provoked to note such agreement.

You are either an excellent satirist or a very troubled person.

Report this

By msamericanpatriot, August 31, 2010 at 1:09 pm Link to this comment

Oh I will see you rot in hell Shedevil for I have
connections with God and he hates those who embrace
homosexuality. Enjoy the smell of sulfur for you are
the one who is the mental midget daughter of Satan.
HAHAHAHA!!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, August 31, 2010 at 9:21 am Link to this comment

5 Yups up.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, August 31, 2010 at 9:09 am Link to this comment

C’mon, it’s a parody of a fundie.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, August 31, 2010 at 9:03 am Link to this comment

Sorry Anarcissie I have to take care of this one.

Up your ass msamericapatriot.  You are a bigoted mental midget
who couldn’t think her way out of a #1 paper bag (that is a very
very very small paper bag right out of hell! that hardly fits the size
of your brain).  If there was a hell that is.  Which you find refuge in
when claiming those you attack have residence. You demonstrate that
cannot argue intelligently.

Now I’m outta here.  She says as She blows the smoke from Her famous
atheist found in hell pistolas!  I’m bored.

Report this

By msamericanpatriot, August 31, 2010 at 8:53 am Link to this comment

No yours shedevil for it is the devil you have spawn
from.Start enjoying the smell of sulfur thanks to that
deprived spawn of yours.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, August 31, 2010 at 8:49 am Link to this comment

I concur.  I’m outta here.  Thanx for the good advice.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, August 31, 2010 at 8:45 am Link to this comment

I recommend not feeding the trolls.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, August 31, 2010 at 8:31 am Link to this comment

Hell?  Whose hell?  Yours?  I don’t think so.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, August 31, 2010 at 8:30 am Link to this comment

Yeah, I guess thugs need protection too.  How absurd a defense.
I am a white woman, and need on going protection from thug white
men, just as gays do, that is why the laws made by white men are on
the books.  They know how violent they naturally are.

Report this

By msamericanpatriot, August 31, 2010 at 8:27 am Link to this comment

Yeah a member of the ONE non protected class in America
which is straight WHITE people. Homosexuality is NOT
natural and is a behavior that CAN be fixed. You need
to go have your kid fixed lady or else both of you will
be in hell.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, August 31, 2010 at 8:21 am Link to this comment

You are mistaken, I did read the article you just cited. 
Try http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1708518/posts

http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/shepard-vs-shephard-
why-hate-crimes-laws-deny-equal-protection/

http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2008/11/23/opinion/doc4928dfbc20
c93865296081.txt

My point is that you showed only one gruesome murder, the one that only
illustrates your criticism

Report this

By msamericanpatriot, August 31, 2010 at 8:18 am Link to this comment

http://www.kxnet.com/custom404.asp?
404;http://www.kxnet.com/t/william-smithson/48311.asp

This is an article where the murder victim was straight
and his only CRIME was having the same last name as a
homo.

Report this

By msamericanpatriot, August 31, 2010 at 8:10 am Link to this comment

From the link you refuse to read:

Jason Shepherd, who was straight, was working as an
intern in Pennsylvania, and Jason’s supervisor,
William F. Smithson, was a homosexual. Jason became
the targeted victim of a date-rape drug, and Smithson
strangled Jason to death, when Jason struggled to
resist Smithson’s attempt to rape him. Smithson
reported Jason missing, and Jason’s nude body was
discovered two days later, wrapped up in bed sheets,
in the basement of Smithson’s home. Smithson was
convicted of murder.

Two different college students, each having the same
last name, and each one the victim of a tragic
murder. But was one murder any more or less tragic
than the other, by virtue of the victim’s sexual
orientation? Of course not! And are the men who were
convicted in these murders any more or less guilty of
their crimes, because of the differences in their own
sexual orientations, or because of the different
sexual orientations of their victims? Again, the
answer is an emphatic, “No!” Then why does everyone
seem to know the fabricated story of Matthew
Shepherd’s murder, as if it was an established fact,
while the real story of the homosexually-motivated
rape and murder of Jason Shepherd has received no
national media attention at all? In fact, you’ve
probably never even heard the name, Jason Shepherd,
unless you are a local resident of the South Dakota
town where Jason attended college, or of the
Pennsylvania town where he was murdered while serving
there as a college intern. It’s because this is a
prime example of the gross hypocrisy behind the
“fairness” and “equal treatment” that is actually
desired by the homosexual rights machine. You see,
fair is only “fair” when you are on their side of
these issues, and truth goes right out the window
when a fabricated lie serves to better advance their
political agenda. And what their idea of “tolerance”
really means is that our individual views will be
“tolerated,” only inasmuch as our views are accepting
of the homosexual orientation and lifestyle.

People are still entitled to hold to their moral
convictions and biblically-defined beliefs about
homosexuality, here in America. And though our
justice system isn’t perfect, it works quite well
without hate-crimes legislation. Murder is already a
heinous crime, as is the crime of rape. But the point
here is that no victim’s family should ever have to
see a convicted assailant receive a lesser degree of
punishment for such crimes, because their loved one
was heterosexual rather than homosexual! And the
severity of punishment for murder or rape should be
just as severe, regardless of any part that one’s
sexual orientation may have played in the commission
of these crimes, either on the part of the
assailants, or the victims.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, August 31, 2010 at 8:09 am Link to this comment

Crazies exists and whenever apprehended ought to serve the penalty
for any crimes committed.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, August 31, 2010 at 8:06 am Link to this comment

My speaking as a ‘straight’ but as one who abhors misinformation,
msamericapatriot, you ought to get your facts straight (no aspersions
cast on the nonhomosexuals).  It was Matthew Shepard.

The published report of The Murder – Salon 12/7/07
Shepard’s murderers, Russell Arthur Henderson and Aaron James
McKinney, awaiting testimony in court (1998)
Shortly after midnight on October 7, 1998, Shepard met Aaron
McKinney and Russell Henderson at the Fireside Lounge in Laramie,
Wyoming. McKinney and Henderson offered Shepard a ride in their car.
After Shepard said that he was gay, the two men robbed, pistol-
whipped, and tortured him and tied him to a fence in a remote, rural
area, leaving him to die. McKinney and Henderson also discovered his
address and intended to burglarize his home. Still tied to the fence,
Shepard was discovered 18 hours later by a cyclist, Aaron Kreifels, who
initially mistook Shepard for a scarecrow. Shepard was in a coma and
died shortly after.

Also for published reference:
Hughes, Jim (15 October 1998). “Wyo. cyclist recalls tragic discovery”.
The Denver Post (Denver: The Denver Post).
http://www.texasdude.com/related.htm

Report this

By msamericanpatriot, August 31, 2010 at 7:16 am Link to this comment

http://www.beyondtheshadesofgray.org/legislation/

Yeah tell that to Jason Shepard a straight man MURDERED
by his HOMOSEXUAL boss. Jason’s only crime was having
the same last name as a homo.

Report this

By Bryon, August 31, 2010 at 6:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

While I agree it is wrong to harm any living being, this hate crime nonsense is going to far. Gay, and transgender people are not a race, they have a sexual fetish. While I do not agree with their lifestyle I would die so they could be free to practice it, however, including them in a hate crime law is prue dribble. Pedophiles like gays have a sexual fetish too, do we accept them under this law? So lets try to be nice to everyone, but we need to call homosexual behavior what it is, a fetish.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 25, 2010 at 2:55 pm Link to this comment

Having a gay child, I take issue with your implication about Matthew
Shephard especially with your hearsay evidence which is no evidence at
all.  A hit and run artist I see.

Report this

By David Ben-Ariel, April 25, 2010 at 6:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Why perpetuate the big lie that Matthew Shepard was murdered for being a homosexual? From what I’ve read, the guys responsible had known and partied with him plenty of times and his sexuality obviously didn’t interfere with their good times. Apparently his death was due to drugs, not deviancy.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 11, 2009 at 10:33 am Link to this comment

Tea? I love tea!  Shall we have tea DavyZx3 and Leefeller?  Please may it be
rooiboos? 

Yes, DaveZx3, it looks like we both went over the edge and almost fell into an
abysmal abyss.  I hope we can have stormless discussion.  But, if you do
present something incoherent, will you tolerate my noting it is?  It would not
be an assault on you personally, but would be with respect to your incoherent
argument.  I hope you do not post such a phenomenon.  You certainly may
attack (if that is the right word) atheism if you choose, and if you can present
an argument that gives me reason to believe it, I am certainly open to new
ideas.  I have been known to do an about face right here on Truthdig! 

Leefeller, I can hear bagpipes as I type this.  Mirthful to say the least.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 11, 2009 at 10:14 am Link to this comment

A duck, not a goose?

Hey Dave, did you notice the new add at the top of the page, “Shoot a duck and win”? Another one of those C96 coinydinks? Time to grab a long aluminum pole and do the river dance on the highest hill,  waiting for an electrical storm, I will wear my kilt in remembrance of the 7th planet from the sun!

Report this

By DaveZx3, November 11, 2009 at 9:53 am Link to this comment

Leefeller, November 11 at 11:56 am

Shenonymous, November 11 at 11:53 am

She, I thought I gave you your title of Shegoddess back in the forum of Steve Fraser’s “Crisis of Capitalism”  You latest post there was spot on, I thought. It was so good, I was feeling very guilty for having said some of those nasty things.  So, I also apologize for my stupid behavior and comments.  I really try not to get down that low, but TD has a strange power over me at times.  I will, however, feel free to attack atheism at any time I please with coherent and incoherent statements, and also stories about ducks, onions, aliens and far off galaxies. 

Leefeller,  I mistyped that score.  I was only ahead by 50 points, but I will take a self-imposed 50 point penalty for not reading the Uranus story. 
And just for your information, I do not have a Weegie Board.  I use tea leaves and tarot cards.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 11, 2009 at 7:56 am Link to this comment

Dave,

Keeping score are you?

Well, the lopsided numbers you believe in may be because of your being committed and making up ones own broad science, which does not utilize math, instead excepting pronunciations from a wedgie board?

Dave, not reading my post on Uranus, not only hurt my feelers, we are supposed to believe, one wins by self induced default, in this case ignoring?  What is this, seems an unfair edge and I will not inject the word deluded.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 11, 2009 at 7:53 am Link to this comment

Well!  From Shegoddess to Shedevil from one forum to another according to
DaveZx3.  One can ascend to the heights and descend to the depths without a
moment’s notice.  You are defensive about yourself and it appears to me you
are adolescently offensive because of it to others. 

We could analyze this forum to see how the evolution of the bickering and
animosity between us erupted.  I see I committed an error about you at 3:24pm
Nov. 7.  And for that I apologize.  I’ve gone over the entire forum looking for
your “smelly” comments and surprising myself, there were none all that smelly. 
So you cannot be the winner of obnoxiousness.  But you would be offended by
that, so maybe you get second prize, and for storytelling Leefeller is still the
topdog (the competition you created when you posted your tale of three men)
and he gets the trophy for obnoxiousness that he so graciously acknowledged
he is. 

I have air freshened my opinion of your comments before that post of mine.  I
did acknowledge your penchant for humor.  You do not, however, discern
nuances of nor right-in-your face humor of others.  After that you took issue
with my argument about what war is about.  We have a different view of its
genesis. I did take issue with your thesis of alien influence in the origin of war
on earth.  Which you took offense. 

Okay, we differ on the origins of war and if you want to believe aliens are the
source, you have every right.  And whether or not you accept it, I withdraw my
biting criticism.  I did not give you absolute personal regard to believe whatever
it is you want.

At any rate, any discussion we had went down hill from there and fell into a
chasm of more or less hate comments.  For that I apologize and will desist
henceforth.

I will review the other forum to see if I made any similar error of judgment.

Report this

By ardee, November 11, 2009 at 5:56 am Link to this comment

This not a contest, that would be an impossibility. One simply cannot match scientific methodologies and intellect against blind and unreasoning faith.

Both sides are certainly entitled to their approaches, regardless of how silly one side sees the other. This whole conversation is at cross purpose and can never be resolved…an exercise in futility in fact.

Report this

By DaveZx3, November 10, 2009 at 11:30 pm Link to this comment

ITW,

I have been keeping score.  Actually, I am winning 173 to 6. 

And the atheists are on a power play, 3 to 1, now that you have joined the fray.

Shedevil called me a lightweight, which I will not bother to refute.  But beware if the first team has to come in the game.  Because if three of you can’t do better against a lightweight, what are your chances?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 10, 2009 at 8:55 pm Link to this comment

It’s a battle of the wits!

DavyZee is using all of his, but Leefeller isn’t even using half of his but is STILL kicking DZ’s on-line butt!

Back to the bunny slope, Davy! Not ready for LeeF and the expert hill yet.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 9, 2009 at 11:18 am Link to this comment

Expression of experiences or beliefs, seems so one sided, wonder why that is? Solipsism comes to mind another one of me many pondering’s, for I even ponder out loud on occasion.

Report this

By DaveZx3, November 9, 2009 at 10:58 am Link to this comment

Leefeller,

Your fixation on Uranus and your Unyun is apparently causing you great problems.  I hear there is a psychiatrist down at Ford Hood who could probably help you.  Didn’t actually read your post.  No time.  Sorry.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 9, 2009 at 9:14 am Link to this comment

Yo, daviezee, I have been up against much better than you.

Name one.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 9, 2009 at 9:01 am Link to this comment

For Dave eyes only, if anyone else reads this may a pox be upon you! Okay, anyone else can read this, no pox!

Dave you have been doing this since 1983?  Doing what? Proselytizing to every one in the horizon, spewing irreligious beliefs for it is foretold by the teller to say it is not religion, because de nile makes it so?  Evangelize? Never, maybe almost never, not quite just maybe almost not never ever quote the bible?

Seems the word analytical used by one, means discussion by another, but my narrow mindedness must be the reason for this narrow observation. On the other hand maybe, just maybe as othrs may have already seen in the horizon, Uranus!

When I was in grammar school 3rd grade, we had to chose a planet from the solar system and write a report on it, for some reason I was the only kid who chose Uranus, it turned out to be a ditty send, a light came from Uranus, my very own planet of choice. This was third grade enlightenment, I was motivated to the task, and I really liked saying the word Uranus, Uranus rolled off my lips like scripture during Sunday morning services in a Methodist church. I just loved the name Uranus for some unknown reason, we were meant for each other.  For many years, I proselytized Uranus, yes proselytized!  Until my recent discovery of the Great Unyun, so before finding Great Unyun every where I went I had Uranus on my mind, seems I had become sort of like the Joanny Apple Seed of Uranus, even had a paper ball likeness of the planet on a stick which I chased girls with.  I had become a profit for Uranus, though I never made any money from my evangelicalism’s.  My fetish for Uranus was not only because it is the 7th planet from the sun,  according to the all to common narrow science, maybe the all knowing Dave science has another explanation of Uranus? I had found a cause and it was real. 

What is really strange I am just now realizing this was more than a revelation a epiphenomena of sorts,  can one really hear when a bear shits in the woods?  Why! I seem giddy over this; this new discovery, this realization so much so, it seems to have become very much like one of C96’s coinydinks!

Report this

By DaveZx3, November 9, 2009 at 8:26 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, November 9 at 10:27 am

“has consistently shown to be a lightweight when it comes to analytical thinking so he can
henceforth be ignored”.

Your elitism is showing you intellectual bubblehead.
And so is your agenda, to ignore, criticize and belittle all thinking which does meet your approval.

Read your statement above, and see if it does not make you puke, like it did me. 

You can’t even see your ignorance because you are so busy finding everyone else ignorant.  It is you who shows to be the intolerant, judgemental, bigoted lightweight.

I speak opinions which threaten you down to your bones, and you cannot overcome these with rational means, so you have to attack and criticize me personally.  I am not intimidated in any way by your perverted thinking, and your opinion of me does not phase me in the least.  I have been up against much better than you.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 9, 2009 at 6:27 am Link to this comment

Good morning ardee, you are much thanked for clarifying my statement so
eloquently and correctly for the mental midget.  Daveyzee has consistently
shown to be a lightweight when it comes to analytical thinking so he can
henceforth be ignored.  Though they are entitled to them, not everyone’s opinions
has to be cared about.  His egocentricity is intimidated by my butt-headedness,
over-analytical skills, and yes I am pathetic to many about these forum halls (even
you at times) but never never never am I humorless, which shows his inability to
assess the world-at-large.  Besides he is sore about coming in second to
Leefeller the master storyteller.  But I surmise he is defensive about
everything.  I would guess it is Freudian.

Report this

By ardee, November 9, 2009 at 6:05 am Link to this comment

DaveZx3, November 9 at 9:37 am

Poor,poor Dave, posting silliness and objecting to being called silly…..

Report this

By ardee, November 9, 2009 at 4:44 am Link to this comment

DaveZx3, November 8 at 7:05 pm

I do not seek to speak for Shenonymous but I think she meant “safe” as in secure in your fairytale view of reality.

Report this

By DaveZx3, November 8, 2009 at 2:19 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller, November 8 at 8:57 pm #

“Great Unyun, just asked me if your connotation is supposed to be the three wise guys?”

Absolutely not.  The third guy was only thrown in in the beginning in case I needed him later for something.  I threw him out at the end because I didn’t need him. 

It was completely tongue in cheek, making fun of my position and throwing the twist in at the end where I go with your position.  I am sorry that I am the only one to see the self-deprecating humor.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 8, 2009 at 1:57 pm Link to this comment

Great Unyun, just asked me if your connotation is supposed to be the three wise guys? Artistic license seems a little bit over the top, now if one plays Mozart on the bag pipes while painting the Cristine Chapel, now that would be artistic license.  Dave constructive criticism can be a good thing, only if one listens.

She, the duck was started by Dave being bitten by a duck and my comments about ducks not having teeth. then
David Ehrestein’s great timing link to this, I loved it.

By David Ehrenstein, November 7 at 10:31 am #

Why a Duck?

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

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 8, 2009 at 1:54 pm Link to this comment

Sorry about your thin skin, DaveZx3, will try not to peel if off again. That
is another lesson you could learn from Leefeller who has been criticized,
besmirched, vilified up and down the wazoo, but he is resiliant and still testy
and sharp with his amazing comments, stories.  You should have read his
about Hoot Owl and his 40 cats.  Your story was public even if it was just for
Leefeller.  You could have said “This is just for Leefeller, so no one else, please,
do not read it.”  Or if you didn’t want me specifically to read it, you could have
said, “Please (courtesy doesn’t hurt), Shenonymous, do no read my story.”  I am
known for giving absolute personal regard.  Your explanation about the hill was
okay, but only you knew what the duck-bitten (uh, goosed) guy who was
almost fooled (or not) by a mirage (or not).  I won’t read any more of your posts
or stories so that should make you feel better and safe.

Report this

By ardee, November 8, 2009 at 1:38 pm Link to this comment

In many rural areas Geese are used in place of watchdogs. They are quite ornery and territorial in fact and they bite (peck) quite painfully, perhaps not quite as painful as that story but painful nevertheless.

wink

Report this

By DaveZx3, November 8, 2009 at 1:18 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, November 8 at 4:11 pm

“There was a small problem of directionality in your story, the guy with the duck teeth imprints went “up” the hill to checkout the free ice water, then he said he’d be just walking “back up” the hill…  Shouldn’t he be going “back down” the hill to catch up with the other guys who kept plodding along from when the duck-victim started to amble up the hill?”

It is called artistic license.  I can make him walk any way I want.  And I can call a goose a duck.  And I can put teeth in his mouth.  It is called artistic license.  It is what you have to do to entertain Leefeller, who has the sense of humor and understanding to get it. 

But since you insist on analyzing what is basically a personal communication, I will explain it to you.

He saw the sign, but not the refrigerator because it was up over the hill and down the other side.  So he went up the hill to see the refrigerator, down to talk to the man, and then had to go back up and down to get back. 

The story was really just for Leefeller.  I did not expect anyone else really to get it, much less analyze the hell out of it. 

This is why I have such a hard time with TruthDig.  If I have to explain the simple concept of a hill, how can I ever get the concept of God across?

Report this

By DaveZx3, November 8, 2009 at 12:26 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller, November 8 at 7:04 pm

Glad you got a chuckle out of it Leefeller.  I have to refrain from writing like that all the time because no one will take me serious.  Of course, no one takes me serious anyway. 

But you gotta admit, is there anything better than writing something that makes you laugh your ass off even as you are writing it?

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 8, 2009 at 12:11 pm Link to this comment

DaveZx3, OMG you have a few molecules of humor!  Loved your
modernist story.  There was some humor detectable in it, but too much reality
in it for me when it comes to fiction.  Reality is too scary which is why fiction
was invented in the first place.  So Leefeller keeps the blue ribbon.  His
story had me in stitches from its beginning to its end.  Yours was really good as
it had me hooked until the last sober paragraph.  It was more like the news
reports we get on TV or radio.  I find much hysterics in them but the reality is
they really are funny but they don’t know it.  You think yours is funny but it
isn’t all that funny.

Oh but some of us would love to see more of this.  By the way who started the
duck story?  This thread is so long I am not able to find it.  Seems like it is a
good place to start if understanding what the competition is about is wanted.

BTW:  There was a small problem of directionality in your story, the guy with
the duck teeth imprints went “up” the hill to checkout the free ice water, then
he said he’d be just walking “back up” the hill…  Shouldn’t he be going “back
down” the hill to catch up with the other guys who kept plodding along from
when the duck-victim started to amble up the hill?

I’m going to read both of these delightful stories over lunch for all the mirth
that is contained in them.  Who would have expected a couple of Truthdiggers
to have these literary skills?  We other Truthdiggers are exceedingly lucky for
these gifted chaps.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 8, 2009 at 12:04 pm Link to this comment

Dave, great story, very funny, harryass,  I am in stitches over it, well done, it seems to exceed even Hedges in making a point, in fact seen all four points on top of ones knoggen with the additional lumps makes it look almost like eight.  You should really quit your day job, oh! this is such a joy,  What! - - - This is your day job!

Thanks, Don Rickles

Report this

By DaveZx3, November 8, 2009 at 10:50 am Link to this comment

Three guys were walking across the desert after their car broke down.  They were getting extremely thirsty, but no water was in sight.  One of the men was limping badly from a goose bite on his ass, which he kept calling a duck bite because he felt like it.  The second guy kept mumbling something about wanting some onion rings or something.  He was very hard to understand, but insisted on continuing to talk for no reason at all because no one was really listening.  The third guy was following them up and just kept saying, “Are we there yet, are we there yet?”

Pretty soon they saw a mirage in the desert.  A sign with blinking lights about 300 feet long and 100 feet high.  The sign read, “ICE COLD WATER, FREE”  It was obviously a mirage, but the guy with the
duck bite said, we might as well amble up over the hill and check it out, its not that far out of the way.  The second guy said, “No, it doesn’t say anything about onion rings, so it must definitely be a mirage, so I ain’t going”  The third guy just kept saying, “Are we there yet, are we there yet” 

So the the guy with duck teeth imprints on his ass said he was going up, and if the other two didn’t want to come, so what.  So the duck victim started to amble up the hill and the other two kept plodding
along towards wherever it was they were plodding along to. 

After about 20 minutes the guy with the whole right side of his ass bleeding profusely from the 93 individual teeth imprints from the largest duck that ever lived, made it to the top of the hill.  Sure enough, there he saw a big refrigerator right in the middle of the desert.  And sitting in a large chair right next to it was a very large guy all dressed in white who was saying, “Come and drink the nice cold water”.  The guy with the duck teeth imprints said, “do you have any onion rings?”  The guy in white said, “No, just water.”  The duck bite guy remembered the words of the second guy and said, “If you don’t have onion rings, you must be a mirage, so I’ll be just walking back up the hill. 

And he ran up the hill, dripping blood profusely, to catch up with the other two.  And they kept plodding along towards wherever it was they were plodding along to.  And the guy with the duck teeth imprints was really thanking the guy who liked onion rings for keeping him from falling for the mirage in the desert.  And you know what the third guy kept saying. 

The next time this happened to three guys, they made the third guy stay in the car, because he didn’t add anything to the story.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 8, 2009 at 10:23 am Link to this comment

“No human could ever approach the obnoxious post? of Shenonymous.” 
How wonderful you noticed christian96.  I am impressed you have even
that low a level of consciousness.  Flatworms are not noted for their
consciousness.  It must have taken every ounce of mental strength on your
part.  Commendable.  I always intend to be the superlative of whatever name I
am called.  I wouldn’t want to be anything less!

The fact that you are a woman-hater,  “Anyone who would use so many
words to say nothing has to be a “woman.”
does indeed fit quite perfectly
with your Christianity.  Christianity as defined in your “good” book is filled with
womenhating.  Shall we start quoting your “good” book?  I will be happy to do
that.  You too, like ThomasG, should beware of the Beast of Truth. 

The God of the Christians, like all gods, has no validity.  All attributes are a
human invention.  There is no evidence that there is a God and I am justified in
asserting there is no God.  The existence of God is a hypothesis and without
any proof, to say God exists makes no sense.  I would love this forum to start
on a quest for Truth. 

By the way, you have never noticed the wordy posts you have made.  If your
accusation is true, you are a woman christian96.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 8, 2009 at 9:52 am Link to this comment

Of course {b]Leefeller being the master humorist that you are, you wouldn’t
listen to DaveZx3 as he has no insight whatsoever.  Your humor is extraordinary. 
But you must know there are very few who have even a molecule of humor on
Truthdig from being so overwhelmed by their own bucket of you know what (I
don’t want to get ThomasG started just yet! so I will refrain from saying what
exactly those buckets contain, but everybody who is conscious will know!)  I
always appreciate your humor, even when it is aimed at me!

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, November 8, 2009 at 9:40 am Link to this comment

DaveZx3, November 7 at 2:20 pm:
‘Anarcissie, November 7 at 1:09 pm
“one can define a duck, more or less, whereas people seem to find it very difficult to define capital-G God for other people in any coherent way”.

I do not find it very difficult to define capital G-God in a coherent way.  It is actually my favorite thing to do. ...’

But not for other people.

If you accord others the same respect for the truth and validity of their perceptions and beliefs you wish for yourself, that is.  God may be well-defined in your mind, but the concept is not well-defined in a discussion with me, so far, because I don’t know that I share your view.  And when I observe other discussions it seems that God is not very well-defined even between orthodox believers of the various God-faiths, which is what I would expect, given the lack of definition—of communicable definition, that is.

Report this

By DaveZx3, November 8, 2009 at 9:28 am Link to this comment

Leefeller, if you want to do comedy you really have to hire a decent writer.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 8, 2009 at 8:50 am Link to this comment

Last evening, I was on my third beer when their was a strange tapping at me door. My wondering thoughts were interrupted from the not so fascinating novel I was reading, it is a true story about Ronald Regan, the title was “Imbicile” written by I.M. Bonzo, yes that Bonzo, of bedtime fame.  The tapping continued, I first thought the wind had come up again.  It was quite late and I was not expecting anyone, I was also hesitant to open the door for it was still very close to Halloween and had finished watching the usually horror movies. 

Then all of a sudden a voice boomed in my head and said “Leefeller open the fricking door it’s cold out here.”

  Instantly I recognized the voice, though I had not heard it for a long time,  I realized I must be in deep doo doo for the voice was that of The Ubiquitous Unyun Goddess, otherwise known as the Great Unyun.

Yes the great Unyun is real, the Great Unyun exists and is my ditty of choice. Though I have always preferred to keep my beliefs to myself,(I keep saying that)  but yesterday my thoughts went to my flip comments about crying while making Unyun soup, I may have made another one of those not so famous Leefeller mistakes.

I opened the door and let the great Unyun in, evidently with my cat. The door is three feet wide the Great Unyun had some trouble squeezing in. The first question she asked in my head. (Yes, The Great Unyun can do that) 

“What is this about a duck”? 

“What duck” I asked?

The Unyun (we are on second name basis, she calls me feller), said “The one that bit the clown on the ass”

So, I repeated the story to the Great Unyun, all about davepoo and his great knowledge of science, went on to tell my opinion that ducks do not have teeth so they cannot bite and to top it off, it was not a duck after all, it was really a Goose!

The Unyun thinking out loud in my head “A goose”?

“Yeah the guy thought he was embellishing the story and said it was a duck, when it was really a goose”.

So, thinking to myself this is why the Great Unyun came to see me, so maybe I am off the hook on the Unyun soup thing?

Darn I was wrong, the Unyun reads minds but only reads mine when it feels the need to.  Unyun has told me before many time my mind is a mess, so she does not like to go there.  This time the Unyun felt the need. 

I was right, the Unyun was upset and really did not appreciate my flip comment about crying while making Unyun soup. So after a a few burning bushes and some other fun stuff, it seems my assignment from the Unyun is to correct the error of my story as well as my ways.

Then I asked the Unyun if she wanted a beer. (Fyi, never bring up unyun rings in her presence!)

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 8, 2009 at 7:16 am Link to this comment

C96, One way to see your form of the big C after reading many, C96 pious posts poorly portrayed, the vision is: 

Crucifixes up ones arse dovetailing with the usual C96 hypocrisy, plus one can now add sexist to the list. Christian96’s fantasy list keeps keeps getting longer like Pinocchio’s nose,  C96 seems to have a PhD,  none the less, in self contusing?

It is known the fine line between hypocrisy and not telling the truth can become confusing at times, but, just maybe it is not really confusing for some?

Report this

By ardee, November 8, 2009 at 5:46 am Link to this comment

Anyone who would use so many words
to say nothing has to be a “woman.”

You mean a woman like, oh say, Mary Magdalene?

Christian, your religious beliefs seem nothing more than a vehicle for your bigotry and misogeny.

Report this

By christian96, November 8, 2009 at 1:08 am Link to this comment

Ardee—-The only comments I copied and pasted were
mine.  What happened to the comments by “Bojan1”
on Toxic Tea Party?  Maybe they were removed by
demonic beings from a UFO.  Relax.  Don’t even
begin to worry about who holds the record for
obnoxious post.  Talking about demonic forces.
No human could ever approach the obnoxious post
of Shenonymous.  Anyone who would use so many words
to say nothing has to be a “woman.”  How does that
comment fit into my Christianity?

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 7, 2009 at 8:08 pm Link to this comment

Many suffer infatuation with false gods they need to invent for themselves out of
the pool of minor hitters and second-rate is what Hedges has always been.  Many
cardsharks of the mind like him will attract sycophants and gushing admirers. 
There is not too much anyone with a mind can or wants to do about it.  It is the
nature of those who yearn to follow.

If Hedges indeed has five such abstract powers as listed, they ought to be able to
be demonstrated with actual specific examples.  Claiming someone has such
powers is akin to declaring them a deity able to walk on water, which will need
some evidence to be justified.  Since it is just a claim, no one is obliged to believe
it.  A mere claim is just that, merely a claim.  In this case it is a ton of bull crap.

Report this

By David Ehrenstein, November 7, 2009 at 7:09 pm Link to this comment

Talk about “self-serving,” elisalouisa!

Because and and other LBGT peoples want justice when we are physically attacked and slaughtered WE"RE guilty of killing Muslims?

This is precisely the effect a moral cretin like Hedges was looking for.

You’ve made his day.

Report this

By elisalouisa, November 7, 2009 at 6:04 pm Link to this comment

David Ehrenstein: Hedges (who’s a big fan of the Big Invisible Bi-Polar Daddy
Who Lives in The Sky) had one purpse and one purpose only in writing this
noxious piece—to belittle and dismiss gays and lesbians, our history, our
struggle, our very right to exist.
*****************************
Now isn’t that odd Mr. Ehrenstein, and with all due respect, what I gather from
this column is that the innocent people, mostly Muslims, who we murder with
our bombs and drones and other weapons, I gather they also have a right to
exist. Mr. Hedges is telling us that more of our tax money has now be
appropriated to this war that means big money to the power/elite. Not only
that but our Congress is so cowardly that the only way they would appropriate
more of our money for their dirty unpopular war is to attach a Hate Crimes
Prevention Act to that Bill. As Mr. Hedges puts it, a clever piece of marketing,
not only that but it blunted debate about new funding for the war.
Excuse me for the interruption, now you can go back to your self serving posts
that take into account your problems only.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 7, 2009 at 5:44 pm Link to this comment

Is it possible, war is just another diversion, to take eyes off blatant issues of incompetence? McGovern and several congresspeople are asking to remove the troops from Afghanistan.

Setting up puppet governments has been the mantra of the US for a long time now, guess change was not what it was cranked up to be.  Now, as for hope, hope is something I have seen in deaths eyes.

Having not read Hedges article, but from the posts, it seems Hedges seemingly has a Victorian propensity to focus on the sexual side of things. For what it is worth,  the bigoted comments some posters fostered here, and the negative reactions and general animosity,  Hedges may have successfully done his job?

Report this

By elisalouisa, November 7, 2009 at 5:41 pm Link to this comment

I quote from Sodium’s post June 26, 2008 at 12:26 a.m. for the column titled “The Hedonists of Power.”

‘Chris Hedges has five abstract powers he utilizes efficiently and boldly in expressing his beliefs/viewpoints:

(1)Power of Eloquence.
2)Power of Honesty.
(3)Power of Human Morality.
(4)Power of Knowledge.
(5)Power of the Mind.

His eloquence shines clearly in the way he chooses the right words in the right
places;in the way he
structures his articles sentences,paragraph and finally the article as a whole.

His honesty and human morality can be detected by reading between the lines.I personally could feel both of them as I read slowly his articles.His clear tenacity in insisting on voting for Ralph Nader tells me volumes about his strength of character,for he knows very well that the odds for Nader to win are one billion to one,and yet he insists on adhering to
what he believes the cleanest and most transparent
presidential candidate of them all.Amazing but surely
admirable.

His knowledge is absolutely broad as he casually
mentions the Abbasid Caliphate.Here,I ask:excluding
historians,how many journalists really know anything about the Abbasid Caliphate;how it was a great civilization and how it became at the end,because of so many hedonists and courtiers competing to serve the whims of the Caliph/Ruler for his gold/dinars?? I doubt,if there are many.Because of the indulgence of the Caliphs and their “yes men” in hedonism,the
barbarian Gangiz Khan succeeded in conquering Baghdad
and burning it and finishing the Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad.After Gangiz Khan’s death,his son,Helaqo,
finished what remained of the Abbasid Caliphate by
conquering Egypt and burning its great library in
Alexanderia.I have mentioned all of this to prove that Hedges’ statement that “courtiers are hedonists of power” which is manifested by a historical event,
the fall of the Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad,Iraq and
the rest of the Middle East and North Africa.Yes,
indeed,it had collapsed because of too many courtiers
and too many hedonists.History may repeat itself.This
time may be in the new world.

Finally,Chris Hedges uses the power of his beautiful mind to connect the dots of eloquence,honesty,human
morality and knowledge;all netted together,to form
his excellent article as an integrated whole,so much
brilliantly structured.

That is why he is so effective in drawing large crowds for reading what he writes,usually followed by
large numbers of comments.

I may disagree with some of his views,but I always,
always,always have held his marvelous talent in high esteem for the reasons I
outlined above.

As he segregates mercilessly,and I must say correctly,between
courtiers/hedonist on one hand,and true and honest journalists on the other hand,I could not help not to remember how naive and gullible I was as I used to follow the main stream media everyday and believed what they forecasted.My naiveness and gullibility ended as I started listening to BBC and start reading
Al-jazeera(http://www.aljazeera.net/English)on the internet.At once I realized
that my American main stream media’s function was(and is) not to keep me
well informed but to serve certain segments of the American social structure
for political reasons or to keep squeezing more money from the populace;and
at the same time to keep the populace fully entertained through all kind of
games and gimmicks,lest the populace would wake up and realize that they
really were squeezed and kept brain washed by the MSM of big corporations’
I concur with Sodium, I also hold Mr. Hedges’ maarvelous talent in high esteem.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 7, 2009 at 5:41 pm Link to this comment

It seems Anarcissie, I am a hair more pessimistic.  Yes, there are dreary dreary
liberals as well as more than dreary dreary anarchists.  No one political ideology
has a corner on the dreary dreary business.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, November 7, 2009 at 4:59 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous—given the paradoxicality of liberalism, liberals ought to greatly excel dour, consistent righties and lefties in humor.  But, paradoxically, there are a great many dreary liberals as well.  Dreary, dreary liberals.  But I won’t go into detail.

Ever read Doris Lessing’s essay about war and violence?  I don’t remember the name of it, and it’s not very popular, but I might be able to hunt it up.  As I recall she leans toward the genetic explanation: human beings are genetically predisposed to harm one another.  And war (and the state, of course) is the most effective way of harming the largest number of humans in the least time we have thus far developed.

I myself am just a hair less pessimistic.

Report this

By David Ehrenstein, November 7, 2009 at 2:42 pm Link to this comment

Merci.

Some families can be absolutely wonderful, and treat every one of its members with love and respect. Others are human hell holes.

Authoritarian institurions like the Cathlic Church (from which I escaped right after Confirmation) find sexuality (of all sorts) a great staging area for bulling, intimidating and controlling people.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 7, 2009 at 1:52 pm Link to this comment

David Ehrenstein, I agree with you on both scores!  There are non-
heterosexuals in my family who need recognized by the world for the beautiful
humans that they are.  The rest of the family, heterosexuals, we are most loving of
them.  Not one of over a hundred members in my family do not feel this way.  (We
are Italian/Greek, hence prolific because of Catholic obeisance against birth
control, ‘cept I escaped being an only child of precocious parents, who had a
precocious offspring).  You are an articulate spokesperson for truth and justice.

Report this

By David Ehrenstein, November 7, 2009 at 1:44 pm Link to this comment

His Bi-Polarity is obvious everywhere in the text—which speaks of Peace and Love out of one side of its mouth while exorting us to Kill (!!!) out of the other. Asking Abrham to kill his son, only to say “Just kidding!” moments before the knife entered the boy’s flesh is typical of this psychotic character.

Hedges (who’s a big fan of the Big Invisible Bi-Polar Daddy Who Lives in The Sky) had one purpse and one purpose only in writing this noxious piece—to belittle and dismiss gays and lesbians, our history, our struggle, our very right to exist.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 7, 2009 at 1:12 pm Link to this comment

Maybe David Ehrenstein I have a hunch you are right about some of
them…But, if the Daddy Who Lives in The Sky is Invisible, how do you know it is
Bi-Polar?  Do you mean North and South Pole?  Or bipolar?

Lesssseeee DavidZx3, hmmm…Yeah war is always about money and
power, even if it does disguise itself under the hoods of religion.  The
Crusades, the jihads, Troy, Roman Campaigns, the Vikings, the War of
Atonement,  Hitler’s War, all of them!  The Upanishads, see the Bhagavad
Gita…Read the history of all war for their origins.  Wars are never about
religion.  It is a genetic characteristic in the genetic makeup of human cellular
structure that originally propelled humans to compete in their new humanity
after evolving from the apes they were.  I’ve noidea if you are stupid, but if you
are, it is basically genetic and encouraged to stupidity (nurtured) by other
people.  Read the Blank Slate. 

Does the lioness hate the water buffalo?  No, because the lioness does not get
involved in the absurd emotion of hate.  It is the impulse to survive.  The
impulse to survive is the mitochondria of the impulse to war.  The so-called
‘innocent’ victims are natural prey because that is the way nature evolved them
and the predator was also so evolved.  You need some biology classes,
anthropology and zoology wouldn’t hurt either.  People on the other hand,
evolved a brain that developed the phenomenon called a mind that cogitates
its own existence, which no other animal has indicated that it does.  If you can
find a non-human animal that does please produce it.  The mind is what intuits
a moralism.  Morals are only useful for a society.  Societies developed morals
so that the members could have a code of acceptable behavior which more
assures survivability.

You say contradictory things.  You should analyze what you said to see them, if,
that is, you are capable of such analysis.

Yes, DavidZx3, you are bereft of rationality in your thesis of
extraterrestrial beings originating war on earth.  Get yourself quickly to a
psychiatrist.  Do not stop at GO, do not even go to Jail, or an Emergency Room,
take no Chances…just go to a psychiatrist.  Or as an alternative therapy, make
comicbooks and contemplate your navel while eating navel oranges.  This last
home folkremedy is guaranteed to bring you some less fake sense of reality.  If
that doesn’t work, though, you should go to visit a roshi, who has a large
paddle who will smack you on the back and that will cause immediate Nirvana,
an experience of reality.

Report this

By DaveZx3, November 7, 2009 at 12:31 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, November 7 at 2:15 pm

“It is always about money and power.  It is amazing how many people have never read a history of war who
makes naive and idiotic comments.  Making war is a genetic characteristic of humankind. War has always been about territorial acquisition and appropriation
of resources”.

War is not always about money and power.  More often than not it is about religion and culture disguised as money, power, territorial acquisition and appropriation of resources. 

It is not a genetic characteristic, even though I think I uttered that absurd idea myself in a moment of weakness.  I think I said war was an inherent characteristic of man, insinuating genetics.  But upon further consultation with myself, I have reverted to my basic knowledge which is that it is behavioral.  Genetics do not codify behavioral characteristics, only physical characteristics.  There are no behavior genes or hate genes or homosexual genes.  There are stupid genes, and you are free to say that I have most of them. 

But my arguments above are irrelavent to the fact that war is definitely the perpetual state of man, Everything else in the Shenonymous post is basically.sound.  Hedges makes absolutely no sense, and the very title of his piece is misleading and absurd. 

War is not a hate crime because:

If your homeland is being overrun, you have no time to consider whether or not you hate the ones overruning it.  You are certainly not in love with them, but it is not about hate.  It is about survival in this case. 

People have determined that they have a right to try and survive.  Granted it is possible that someone is lying to them about the gravity of the life or death situation in front of them.  They may not be in survival mode, but only think they are because of the lies which they are told.  But modern soldiers, at least, do not go to war over hate.  They have to be convinced that the survival of themselves, their families or their culture is threatened to some extent

Does the lioness hate the water buffalo?  No.  She just eats him alive to survive.  But the same horrible results are seen.  An innocent victim is brutalized, murdered and devoured, and when you consider all the lions who have killed all those water buffalo, seems a little like war, but hate is not an issue.

As for the origins of war.  I will make some statements which most on TD will want to have me committed over, but I will make them anyway. 

War did not originate on earth.  It was exported here to isolate the rebellious faction of an extremely advanced group of beings.  (Kind of like Gitmo) 

In the aftermath of a failed coup, a very large group of beings, approximately one third of the population, were sent here (earth) for rehab.  Instead of rehabing successfully, they perpetuated their warlike rebellious ways and taught the behavior to all who came after them.  They have the deluded idea that their rebellion and coup can still be successful once they learn to breakout and create the resources they need to continue the fight.  They must first defeat the forces that oppose them right here on the earth. 

Most, if not all, of the wars on earth have at least some element of this original rebellion.  Some of the wars on earth are a virtual exact continuation of this original rebellion which was quashed in the home state.  But men see the world through the bottoms of one hundred old coke bottles.  Many facts have been completely erased from their hard discs by centuries of outright deception and religious and scientific indoctrination. 

Disclaimer:  I can only tell it like I see it, so don’t blame me.  I would call me a nut case too if I were you. I can’t wait to see what Leefeller has to say about this one!

Report this

By David Ehrenstein, November 7, 2009 at 12:26 pm Link to this comment

“If you mean this forum is not about giving immature residents another
opportunity to strike each other with venom, I think it ought not to be, but
these forums always turns out to be such a staging. 

I would not mind it if you would say what it really is about.”

It’s really about a bunch of babies squealing fealty to the Big Invisible Bi-Polar Daddy Who Lives in The Sky.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 7, 2009 at 12:08 pm Link to this comment

As an intentional diversion from the seriousness of this forum…
Your self-effacement Leefeller is typical of your usual selflessness.  Beware
your medication does not do the reverse and put you at deific omniscience
instead of just ‘almost’ being omniscient.  Medicine sometimes does that,
especially if it is based with alcohol.  How could you forget your own creation the
Unyun Lady?  Oh, just like a fickle man.  It doesn’t matter as she carries on without
you!

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 7, 2009 at 11:57 am Link to this comment

“Leefeller almost has deific omniscience” not sure of the diagnosis, but it seems to come and go, though I am taking medication for it!

I had completely forgotten about the great Unyun! Yes an experience to behold, Especially now as the winter sets in, bringing back from the archives of me mind, reminiscing of such fond memories as tearfully making Unyun soup!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 7, 2009 at 11:27 am Link to this comment

You are exceedingly welcome, your holiness of good humor,  Leefeller

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 7, 2009 at 11:24 am Link to this comment

To help out your ego DaveZx3, your comments are often smelly.  Yeah,
so are mine, but I will yield the trophy for obnoxious to you.  Except the
dematerialized bojan1 gets the 1st prize trophy in absentia.  There are
others in line, but I will refrain at this time from naming them.  You do however
exhibit a modicum of humor from time to time, maybe a tea cupful, which sort
of tarnishes your trophy. 

Desist from the humor and make all the humorless radical Leftists happy.  Us
merely centrist liberal ones do appreciate humor to the nth degree.  Learn to
go with Leefeller’s unique humor, which is without fail of an extremely high
order, I mean, goats?  What creature sits on a higher throne than goats? 
Leefeller almost has deific omniscience.  Just go with it and you will be (able to
enjoy the past participle of bless) blest.  Long ago Leefeller introduced the
Truthdiggers to his consort, The Ubiquitous Unyun Goddess.  If you could find
that disembodied daughter of Jove, you would be unendingly amused. He has
been mysteriously quiet about his consort lo these last couple of years.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 7, 2009 at 10:52 am Link to this comment

Caresses of fresh air, breezes of profoundness, experiences so logical and most enlightening.  Thank you She!

Report this

By DaveZx3, November 7, 2009 at 10:20 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie, November 7 at 1:09 pm

“one can define a duck, more or less, whereas people seem to find it very difficult to define capital-G God for other people in any coherent way”. 

I do not find it very difficult to define capital G-God in a coherent way.  It is actually my favorite thing to do.   

“and I’m not questioning the reality or validity of those experiences”.

Thank you very much for your last statement.  You are an honorable person to understand and admit that questioning the reality or validity of someone else’s experience when you have not experienced it yourself, is not only futile but complete folly.

Men are not stupid because they have experiences different than your own, no matter how absurd you think those experiences sound to you.  And a person is not special because he or she has an experience.  Sometimes things just fall right on your head.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 7, 2009 at 10:15 am Link to this comment

David Ehrenstein—
If you mean this forum is not about giving immature residents another
opportunity to strike each other with venom, I think it ought not to be, but
these forums always turns out to be such a staging. 

I would not mind it if you would say what it really is about.

I will further attempt to elucidate…
Modern war is no different than war historically.  It is always about money and
power.  It is amazing how many people have never read a history of war who
makes naive and idiotic comments.  Making war is a genetic characteristic of
humankind. War has always been about territorial acquisition and appropriation
of resources.  Every single culture has had war in their history, there is no
civilization that has not.  So if it is genetic, if it is an instinctual birthmark,
there is a correlate called the mind that also evolved that can imagine itself out
of its war impulse when its futility for the general population is intuited by the
general population.  Leaders of war are only successful if they have the support
of others.  Tolstoy made that remarkably clear in War and Peace.

This article is similar in sentiment to another one.  Back in June of this year,
Hedges had another shortsighted article War is Sin where his initial thesis was
that “war exposes the lies we tell ourselves about ourselves.”  He feebly
accused the hypocrisy of religion and the unhallowed (secular) orders of some
transgression he manneristically does not make exactly clear.  It is the same
kind of obfuscation he is noted for. 

It is romantic to blame something intangible such as a god or some other
inchoate institution than to actually explore the reality of their accusations and
to see the essential reason for man’s inhuman behavior.  Dressing war veterans
as prophets portrays those really ordinary men as aggrandized objects of
wisdom that, as a really vague group, give testimony to truth is a burlesque. 
He touches just briefly on the real reason for war but without pause glides
onward to a more extravagant indictment that has a more glossy journalistic
value.  And he himself succumbed once again to loving the sound of his own
voice, this time about the failure, the deformation of all mankind.  (Surely he
includes himself in that group?)  His logic is faulty and tangental presenting
contradictions about human nature rather than investigating the origins of why
humans go to war.  Granted it is not as glamorous to speak about reality than
to rail and rant with inflammatory rhetoric with comments about madmen,
prophets, and vocabulary that includes impassioned ostentatious words such
as barbarity, evil, stench, fear, eviscerated, bloated corpses, moral void, and
dwelling on the interrogation of prostitution and killing. 

Waxing long in his attempt to reason about the essence of war, he commits
himself to walking in a verbal maze of journalistic incertitude who brushes
truth but never actually touches it.  He had the insight of the origin of war
when he initially said, “we carry within us the capacity for evil we ascribe to
those we fight.”  Then later when he said “We all have the capacity to commit
evil…” this is truism he deemed not provocative enough to examine.  He misses
the opportunity to discuss the necessity therefore the innate need to make war. 
It originated in the competition to survive and that genetic urge has not yet
been purged by intuitions of the mind. 

With understanding, completely understanding the origins of war, humankind
is doomed to continue its self-destructive conduct.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 7, 2009 at 10:02 am Link to this comment

It is a kind of modernism to break topics up so that no real answer can be given,
Xian96.  Your fragmentation does not address the question of why humans
engage in war.  It attempts to mask an inability to engage in dialogue.

I hope your heart can be mended.

Report this

By David Ehrenstein, November 7, 2009 at 9:58 am Link to this comment

Thanks for the bracing dose of clarity, Shenonymous.

But as you know that’s not what this comment thread is really about.

Report this

By christian96, November 7, 2009 at 9:39 am Link to this comment

Why people go to war?  Now, that is an interesting
question!  The reason appears to be related to what
people you are talking about.  The soldier goes to
war because the pays not bad, gets decent benefits,
gets to wear a uniform and impress the chicks(as
opposed to ducks), and gets to do a little traveling.
Of course their psychics a little warped since they
seem to get some kick out of killing people and it
ain’t for the flag, apple pie, and the New York
Yankees.
The officers go to war to get promotions.  Enough
promotions and they can get into politics and
make some big bucks.  Lot of recognition also. 
Especially at Thanksgiving and Christmas when all
the families gathered around, “Doesn’t George look
cute in his uniform and I just love the way he shines
those shoes.”
The politicians go to war to get the big bucks from
the defense industry and pharm. companies.  After
all there will be a big need for medicine with all
that blood and gore.  Of course, the politicians
don’t get to wear a uniform.  That sucks.  No attention at Thanksgiving and Christmas.  However,
they do get to wear a suit and tie and look like
a business man.  Never have figured that one out.
I think they are trying to deceive people by wearing
those suits and ties sort of like IBM.
Speaking of the business men, they go to war for
BIG BUCKS and to capture the spoil.  You know!
Other people’s DUCKS in other countries.  Now,
that’s my mental excercise for the morning.  Excuse
me.  I have to go to a meeting for the “Mended Hearts.”

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, November 7, 2009 at 9:09 am Link to this comment

DaveZx3, November 7 at 6:25 am:

Anarcissie, November 6 at 3:49 pm:


1.  “God, as the word is usually used, is undefined”.

Wrong, the God referenced is The God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob.  The God who created the universe.

2.  “This does not mean people can’t have personal experiences which they designate as “God”...

Yes, and if a duck comes up behind me and bites me in the ass, I am allowed to say, “a duck bit me in the ass”...

3.  “but it does mean that it will not be possible for them to discuss them with other people until they can either point out the object they are discussing or otherwise identify it in some why meaningful to the other parties involved”

If a person never saw a duck, they would have no clue what I am talking about.  Would that be my problem, or would that be their problem?  Am I really obligated to prove to them that ducks actually exist?  No, NO,, NO.  it is not my obligation to point out the duck.  I know that a duck bit me in the ass, and really don’t care if you have ever seen a duck or not.

1.  The “God of Abraham”, etc., is a character in a book.  If there is some person like this character in the real world, it’s not evident (to me, anyway).  As for the Creator, we don’t know that the universe was created, or if it was, how it was done or who or what did it, so the person or thing referenced is still undefined.

2.  You’re allowed to say anything you like on this web site, just about, as long as you don’t violate the laws about copyright, libel, incitement, privacy, private property, pornography, spamming, and so on.  Perhaps having ducks bite your butt might be classed by some as pornography, but I’ll defend your right to duck butt biting to the death (well, maybe not to the death, but you know what I mean).

3.  You’re not obliged to point out a duck to someone who didn’t know what a duck was, but there does not seem to be much point in talking to that person about ducks.  Generally speaking, though, one can define a duck, more or less, whereas people seem to find it very difficult to define capital-G God for other people in any coherent way, which means they can’t make meaningful statements to other people using that term.

Again, I’m not talking here about interior experiences—for all I know you have long, detailed conversations with him, her, it or them every day—and I’m not questioning the reality or validity of those experiences.

Report this

By DaveZx3, November 7, 2009 at 9:00 am Link to this comment

Leefeller, November 7 at 12:09 pm #

“Why a duck? Why not a chicken? Getting a goat? Love it”!

Hey, I thought of all those things and chose a duck. 

Besides, I was hoping for the most obnoxious award.  I am going to have to step it up.  I can’t believe I am onto this far-left free-for-all and can’t get a most obnoxious nomination.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 7, 2009 at 9:00 am Link to this comment

Accidentally tripping on this forum in perusing the Truthdig topics, and
jumping in a bit late, I almost never pass up a Hedges article to see his latest
folly of thought.  So even though there are three pages now of comments I
cannot resist to throw mine into the ring.  Since the forum is very long, I have
not read most of the comments except for those on the most recent page.  It is
easy to see the commenters have also once again veered from Hedges’ subject
and are on the usual tangent of excoriating each other rather than engage in
real dialogue about the violence of war.  Well, once again I brave the murky
waters of Hedges unimpressive verbal pretensions, and await the inexorable
depreciation of my comments. You are right to think I don’t really care.

In this latest article on war, Hedges once again sets up in his first sentence a
comparison that is shallow at best.  Taking the concept of wrongness he
compares violence against homosexuals with violence against people under the
conceptual umbrella of war (Afghanistan and Iraq).  He imagines that
presenting one kind of wrong is analogous to another.  That really exposes his
lack of understanding of the concept of wrongness and proper comparison.  We
wonder from the title of his article what exactly is the article about?  Is it about
rotten hate crimes against homosexuals or is it about the hate crimes of war?  I
say he commits a crime of journalistic confusion and misdirection to grab the
prurient interest of the less than moral public.

Those who zealously want to see wrongness in all things will often make
categorical mistakes.  And it is a device of journalistic rhetoric.  All that
acknowledged, how accurate does Hedges present the real intention of the
article, let us hope it is that war is a hate crime.  This is a sloganism that rings
like a liberty bell in the heads of those who love slogans to live by.  The
prostitution of the concept of violence against gays and lesbians is a false use
of that heinous behavior to argue against other violence as exhibited in the
human behavior of war.  Using the alluring topic of hate crime as the exhibit
for discussion does not give us, Hedges audience, leave to allow fallacious
reasoning.  What he does is to diminish both kinds of violence and allows them
to be minimized in the face of each other for it allows one to say, oh,
gay/lesbian violence is like the violence of war, and vice versa.  It is a
distraction from really looking at our own spirituality and whether it is defective
morally or not.  They are not alike in their intention nor in their manifestations.

Hedges loves to make allusions to sex and eroticism in his articles as those
ideas regularly show up.  Blaming pornography on corportocracy is completely
deflecting the real reason behind pornography.  While it is true that human
beings are degraded and monstrously reduced to unfeeling objects, it is not
within the province of corporations to assign humans to that location.  Men do
that, not corporations.  Corporations only make use of men’s scummy
proclivities.

Until that is recognized as an absolute, such inhuman treatment of humans will
never stop, which includes persecuting homosexuals who are only one group in
the category of the tyrannized.

So what really are the hate crimes of war?  What does it mean to go to war? 
Seems like hate is the imperative, the essential feature of going to war, and
never justified, because it will be used as the basic reason while that conceals
the real and only reason of power (which includes conceit and self-delusion)
and wealth appropriation.  A list of war hate crimes could be listed.  Here is
one:  Harmful and murderous persecution of the powerless.  Can anyone else
think of another one?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 7, 2009 at 8:22 am Link to this comment

Ardee, one had to read the Borne1 clown, his posts
attacked everyone and everything, and at the same time
said   nothing, so he gets my vote as most obnoxious, but
as for deluded, it may be a toss up.  Maybe TD should post
awards for the most whatever; deluded, obnoxious, (stupid?
you have already selected you choice) pious, self
righteous, full of ones self and maybe other well know
qualities of different posters?

I would throw my name in the hat, for being full of my
self, but I am trying to give it up and anyway the
completion would be most ferocious !

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 7, 2009 at 8:09 am Link to this comment

Why a duck? Why not a chicken? Getting a goat? Love it!

Report this

By ardee, November 7, 2009 at 6:48 am Link to this comment

sidebar

I just went back to that thread, prompted by Leefeller’s hint, and found myself slackjawed with astonishment. I fail to understand how such ignorance can thrive….really!

Report this

By ardee, November 7, 2009 at 6:41 am Link to this comment

Leefeller, November 7 at 6:03 am #

Ardee, your pondering may have been prompted by a crafty
C96 high-jinkx, he had somehow cut and pasted yours and his comments onto the Toxic Tea party postings, where you may have missed one of the most obnoxious posters in TD
history,...

Firstly, yes I did miss it , and thanks for the heads up.

Secondly, you imply then that my record for obnoxious posts is threatened?

Report this

By David Ehrenstein, November 7, 2009 at 6:31 am Link to this comment

Why a Duck?

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

Report this

By DaveZx3, November 7, 2009 at 3:49 am Link to this comment

Leefeller, November 7 at 6:54 am #

“Now the duck story one could try to believe, except it does not hold water nor work, ducks cannot bite for they do not have teeth, a weak analogy seems to me”

It was based on a true story where I was watching my grandaughter at a shopping mall where there was a big pond with geese and ducks.  She thought it would be a good idea to pet them and ambled down to waters edge where one of the geese took offense and chased her back up the hill nipping at her behind. 

It was pretty funny to watch, actually.  Never did see any teeth marks on her, but she cried for nearly an hour. 

I thought about the UFO story, but it is too common.  Man gets abducted, wakes up with surgical instruments hanging out of his butt.  Didn’t ring with me. 

As for Freddie Flintstone, he is proof that dinosaurs and man coexisted.  He is also used to provide evidendce that mankind has been fairly stupid since the dawn of time. 

I will try to do better with my analogies in the future.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 7, 2009 at 2:54 am Link to this comment

Now the duck story one could try to believe, except it
does not hold water nor work, ducks cannot bite for they
do not have teeth, a weak analogy seems to me, maybe a
far fetched special duck with teeth, a one and only
duck, which one could even name the duck “bill’.

Dave, why not use the UFO analogy, most people have net
experienced this, plus there is the creative and most
legionary anal probe. One could say one was assaulted by
aliens holding tea bags over what appeared to be their
large alien heads, how about using an analogy with some
creativity? 

There is always the Flintstones story, I wouldn’t mind
even though I have already used it, it is yours to use.
I sort of like it and the idea of people riding
dinosaurs to work seems fun,  at the least how about
using an analogy with some real bite.  But, a duck?

Report this

By DaveZx3, November 7, 2009 at 2:25 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie, November 6 at 3:49 pm #


1.  “God, as the word is usually used, is undefined”.

  Wrong, the God referenced is The God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob.  The God who created the universe. 

2.  “This does not mean people can’t have personal experiences which they designate as “God”

Yes, and if a duck comes up behind me and bites me in the ass, I am allowed to say, “a duck bit me in the ass” 

3.  “but it does mean that it will not be possible for them to discuss them with other people until they can either point out the object they are discussing or otherwise identify it in some why meaningful to the other parties involved”

If a person never saw a duck, they would have no clue what I am talking about.  Would that be my problem, or would that be their problem?  Am I really obligated to prove to them that ducks actually exist?  No, NO,, NO.  it is not my obligation to point out the duck.  I know that a duck bit me in the ass, and really don’t care if you have ever seen a duck or not.

Report this

By DaveZx3, November 7, 2009 at 2:03 am Link to this comment

christian96, November 7 at 5:18 am #

“DaveZx3—-OzarkMicahel seems to interpret comments
as “arguments” along with “exploiting people’s
weaknesses” and using “confusion” to secure victory”.

I have no major problems with OM’s terminology, in that the defense of truth and the encouragement directed to those honestly seeking it, is a constant battle.  In any battle, there will be perceived victors.  It encourages others to see that their own perceived truth can be victorious. 

I will agree with you however, that we are not defeating an enemy in these debates.  Flesh and blood is not the enemy, but principalities.  We fight each other only because of the delusions we are fed by those who gain from our confusion.

I just try to fight one lie at a time.  That is what drew me to TruthDig.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 7, 2009 at 2:03 am Link to this comment

Ardee, your pondering may have been prompted by a crafty
C96 high-jinkx, he had somehow cut and pasted yours and
his comments onto the Toxic Tea party postings, where you
may have missed one of the most obnoxious posters in TD
history, seems he has been abducted by a UFO, this poster
was even worse than the now missing Martha? Not sure if
you had been there maybe C96 was sending out an sos?

Report this

By DaveZx3, November 7, 2009 at 1:27 am Link to this comment

christian96, November 7 at 4:17 am #

DaveZx3—-Very good comments at 3:25 p.m. Nov6th and
at 3:02 a.m. today, November 7th.  Couldn’t have
said it better myself except for the following
sentence: “In my opinion finding god is not a possibility, for the concept of god does not exist”

THAT IS NOT MY STATEMENT, BUT THE STATEMENT WHICH I WAS RESPONDING TO.  SORRY FOR THE CONFUSION. 

I know of the hand of God in the creation of the universe and all in it.

Report this

By christian96, November 7, 2009 at 1:18 am Link to this comment

DaveZx3—-OzarkMicahel seems to interpret comments
as “arguments” along with “exploiting people’s
weaknesses” and using “confusion” to secure victory.
Those type of comments come from a mind you want to
avoid as much as possible.  As a Christian I can
tell you we all have a spirit which is influenced
by the spirits of others.  The Bible refers to
Satan as “THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION.”  Avoid OzarkMichael like a hot potato.

Report this

By DaveZx3, November 7, 2009 at 1:16 am Link to this comment

OzarkMichael, November 7 at 4:17 am #

“I reckon you havent been at this long enough to get used to it”.

Been at it since about 1983, but only on TD for a few months. 

Exposing intolerance, narrow-mindedness and prejudice is one of my secret joys.  I understand everything you wrote, and I appreciate the encouragement.  It is another of my ambitions to encourage the believer at every opportunity, and I appreciate that you have done the same for me. 

Most of the TDers you mentioned have been exposed to me, and I make no bones about my debating tactics. I state my position right up front, as in my last post.

“Personal experience supersedes opinion and belief.  It is imprudent to attack one’s experience with your own opinions and beliefs.  You may appear brilliant to others who share your opinions and beliefs, but to the experienced one you appear to be the fool that you are”.

No one can steal from me the knowledge that I know!!!

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, November 7, 2009 at 12:17 am Link to this comment

DaveZx3, a believer, observes: What I actually hear is those who have not had similar experiences attacking me as stupid, blindly obedient, religious, uneducated, unenlightened, deluded and a threat to society.

I reckon you havent been at this long enough to get used to it. You also dont seem to appreciate the tremendous advantage that their prejudice gives you in every argument. You dont have to be smarter than they are, you just have to understand that their prejudice is their weakness and you have to be creative about exploiting it.

You can lead them into ambushes on the ground of your choosing, and there you can confuse and mystify them until they blurt out the stupid biased thing that you know they want to say. Then you strike swiftly, and secure the fruits of victory. I have done this for two years on Truthdig, over and over, but many of them still dont get it.

However, I warn you that a couple of them are wise to this trick and if you lay the trap for them they are capable of catching you instead. Sheonymous is one. Leefeller, Inherit the Wind, and Anarcissie, to name a few more. With them it is a straight up argument so you better know what you are talking about, and be willing to debate. So observe the field and avoid setting the trap in front of them.

I am giving you good advice, and I hope you take it in the way it is intended.

Report this

By christian96, November 7, 2009 at 12:17 am Link to this comment

DaveZx3—-Very good comments at 3:25 p.m. Nov6th and
at 3:02 a.m. today, November 7th.  Couldn’t have
said it better myself except for the following
sentence:
“In my opinion finding god is not a possibility, for the concept of god does not exist”

How do you think the universe got here?  Just
evolved?  I know you are smarter than that.


OzarkMicahel——Don’t try to tell me you are a
medical doctor after making comments like you do.
You may fool some people on this site but you aren’t
going to fool me.  If you had read all my comments
to David you would realize I gave up trying to
counsel him exactly because we were on the internet
and suggested that he consult with a counselor in
person in hopes of finding out more about himself
along with finding comfort for some of the pain he
is obviously suffering after losing 80% of his friends.

Folktruther—-THANKFULLY, you are not me!

Leefeller—-You should try talking to God alone.
Then listening for an answer or experience which
would reflect that God is listening to your conversation!

Report this

By DaveZx3, November 6, 2009 at 11:02 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller, November 6 at 4:10 pm

“for example let’s say, you had been picked up and flew on a UFO and of course had the traditional anal probe, I would probably voice my opinion as a skeptic”.

If the above UFO incident actually happened to me, then I know the facts regarding that indicent.  Everyone else can only voice their opinions and beliefs as a skeptic, as you say.

When I state what I know about the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, I hear much more than skepticism.

What I actually hear is those who have not had similar experiences attacking me as stupid, blindly obedient, religious, uneducated, unenlightened, deluded and a threat to society. 

Skepticism is one thing.  Calling people, who have had specific experiences, deluded, or worse, is something completely different.

Personal experience supersedes opinion and belief.  It is imprudent to attack one persons experience with your own opinions and beliefs.  You may appear brilliant to others with opinions and beliefs, but to the experienced one you appear to be the fool that you are.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, November 6, 2009 at 7:19 pm Link to this comment

ardee:
‘All day I pondered why no one seemed motivated to respond to this basically bigoted and even murderous hatred from a supposed worshiper of the ‘god of love’. ...’

A lot of the participants may be just skipping over the author’s contributions by now.

Report this

By ardee, November 6, 2009 at 5:50 pm Link to this comment

All day I pondered why no one seemed motivated to respond to this basically bigoted and even murderous hatred from a supposed worshiper of the ‘god of love’.

I even considered leaving the forum because of a lack of conscience…(calm down, stop applauding I’m staying). Imagine my surprise, elation even, to discover the outpouring of from the heart condemnation of hatred.

Thank you all for showing me that so many still care about such things.

Report this

By ardee, November 6, 2009 at 5:43 pm Link to this comment

Folktruther, November 6 at 7:15 pm

Darn it Ft why didn’t I think to say that?

Report this

Page 1 of 4 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook