Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – wanting a theocracy? Certainly seems so. Also, cheating for fun and profit

not really sure who he is other than an actor and Catholic

In my last blog post, I pointed out how Trump and his minion Sessions are doing their best to create a theocracy in favor of their supporters conservative Christians. I then had some a conservative Christian, silenceofmind, participate in my comments. He asked what religion was being favored, and promised as soon as I told him, he would answer my questions. He of course lied and never answered the questions put to him. Still waiting, but why would one expect a conservative Christian to be honorable at this point?

He did his best to try to convince me, and others, that the “religious freedom” document released by Trump and Sessions wasn’t only for conservative Christians who have repeatedly tried to get their version of their religion treated as law. Seems he forgot this gem of Donnie’s: “I’ll tell you one thing: I get elected president, we’re going to be saying “Merry Christmas” again. Just remember that. And by the way, Christianity will have power, without having to form. Because if I’m there, you’re going to have plenty of power. You don’t need anybody else. You’re going to have someone representing you very, very well. Remember that.”- January 23, 2016, Dordt College, Sioux City, Iowa.

Always fun to see again and again how wrong someone can be and how hard they try to avoid being caught.

He kept on with this on his own blog where more lies were told by an even greater number of TrueChristians™.   Oh, the hairshirts were worn and the ashes were scattered on how anyone daring to disagree with their version of their religion was a “mortal danger” to that religion. They of course forget that there are plenty of Christians who don’t agree with them at all.

And now we have even more evidence that yes, Trump and Sessions are indeed trying to create a theocracy for their conservative Christian followers, followers who ignore their very own bible when it comes following a man like Trump: Exodus 23:1 You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with the wicked to act as a malicious witness” (and yes, Christians I can quote the bible and hold you accountable to that which you claim is the “truth”.  Also, humans being against liars and lying isn’t anything new to the human race.  It’s really pathetic when you try to claim that it is only a Christian view. See Code of Hammurabi)

Sessions, when building this memo, had “listening sessions” that unknown people were invited to. The Department of Justice has yet to release this information on who got a chance to give input to this memo. However, we can count on conservative Christian groups to be loud when they want to make their version of their religion law. The Alliance Defending Freedom, a group that has to spell that out in their name since no one could tell from their actions, has spilled the beans and let everyone know that they were invited and they are please that they, an organization that only defends conservative Christians, got their way. The Family Research Council (only for families that fit their description) was also hot to trot on this memo, to the point of already having things in place for it before it was announced. Most curious, that. It seems that Tony Perkins, often a guest of the White House, may have had a hand in the cookie jar, when the memo has that religious groups may be funded by the gov’t, who would choose one sect of a religion over another and one religion over another to make these decisions.

Of course, not one liberal Christian group has announced their involvement in these “listening sessions”. What they are doing is denouncing the memo and pointing out that it is indeed only meant to protect bigotry and ignorance.

We also have a lovely story today about Roy Moore, the fellow in Alabama who tried to get the ten commandments into a courthouse. Well, evidently those commandments and that bible doesn’t mean much to ol’ Roy since he intentionally lied when he said he wasn’t paid by his non-profit, ironically called The Foundation for Moral Law. It’s amazing how being paid $180,000 a year and needing a bodyguard (so much for faith, eh?) might slip a man’s mind and just be “forgotten” to be put on the major form that the IRS requires from charities, the 990 (I worked for a non-profit so know these well). It’s a shame that he and his family (they are of course employed by the onstensible “charity”) decided to lie to the government that is put into place by his god, if one believes Romans 13. One can guarantee many excuses will be given by TrueChristians™ about this, desperate to acknowledge that one more Christian has lied and has profited by the lying.

So, SOM, JB and all the other conservative Christians out there seeking to try to spread false information, your fellow Christians just let the figurative cat out of the bag and have indeed been behaving badly.   Your supposed messiah president lied to one group when he said he supported LGBT people and then betrayed them. He can be quoted as promising worldly power to conservative Christians. A much lauded conservative Christian has been discovered to be ignoring his ever-so important godly commandments Now, what does the bible say about liars and those who follow them?   What verse says this is just peachy and okay?

Advertisements

69 responses to “Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – wanting a theocracy? Certainly seems so. Also, cheating for fun and profit

  1. Encouraging the tradition of “Merry Christmas” is definite proof that THE Donald is gunning (pardon the pun) for a US government theocracy.

    And the reason you don’t think I answered your question is because you never bother to read my comments.

    • Hmmm, if I hadn’t read your comments, I couldn’t have replied to them and quote you from them. Are you going to act like a child and pretend my posts replying to you don’t exist? CAn you explain how I would be able to do that without reading your posts? I’m terribly intrigued to see how you support your claim.

      Again, SOM, we have a very inept lie from my favorite TrueChristian(tm) who ignores his bible when he wants to lie. With actions like yours, it is no wonder that the portion of evangelical Christians are declining. Who wants to hang out with hypocrites and really incompetent liars?

      So, you did read at least part of my post. Now, please do address the rest of it if you think you have such a great position, SOM. How about starting with the promise of power to conservative Christians? Tell us about how much Jesus Christ craved worldly power. Golly, there must be so many verses that say this, right?

      Now, since you claim that you did answer my questions (and it was more than one, to read your own words) ““I have answers to your questions, but since I asked my questions first, please answer them first.Then I will answer yours.” https://clubschadenfreude.com/2017/10/06/not-so-polite-dinner-conversation-trump-and-sessions-want-a-theocracy-and-this-is-the-latest-way-theyre-trying-to-do-it/#comment-11307

      surely you can paste the link to that supposed answer, right? You can even cut and paste it in again. Show me how wrong I am. I’m waiting.

    • And again SOM likes my posts and agrees with/approves them. Strange behavior for a Christian who on one hand writes that I’m wrong, but on the other says I’m right. It does make sense from the perspective of a poe who wants to convince Christians to follow him down the primrose path into looking ridiculous, but wants to express appreciation for my arguments.

  2. Who would have thunk that Trump is doing more damage to our freedoms and our Constitution in the name of religion than Dubya?

    • This is a particular willfully ignorant and not very intelligent nest of TrueChristians(tm). Froggy aka Anon (who doesn’t realize his email addess and IP address are viewable by a blog owner) has failed amusingly with this last bit of nonsense.

    • wow, so this is what you have, a link to holidays cards from the white house families and an attempt to just choose the most religious one in order to misrepresent the holiday cards. I guess some Christians just can’t help lying. There is no theocracy in the cards because the president and his family chose them, a personal choice of what they wanted. They did not try to force their religion on others by law. Coolidge’s is a very nice one: calvin coolidge xmas card

      Hoover’s doesn’t even mention which holiday:

      the ones that the Roosevelt’s did are nice and simple and good for wartime.

      The ones for Truman are quite different. A nice simple Christmas greeting and then one that has some writing about Jesus and the star of Bethlehem. andn then again just a nice Christmas greeting and the White House.

      President Eisenhower just says “season’s greetings”.Eisenhower xmas card
      No mention of any particular holiday. One is a nice picture of what seems to be his farmhouse door. Jack Kennedy does much the same as do Johnson and Nixon. Ford has one nice church scene on it. Carter and Reagan have nice ones and I like Reagan’s with the squirrel tracks up to the white house. Clinton has some nice ones, and I like the one with their pets best. And Obama’s are great with Bo in many of them.

      So out of all of these, we have some nice Christmas greetings, a single one that is very religious and most others completely secular, which people happy holidays and a nice season. This is the link to the whole list, not an attempt at you made to try to lie to others to convince them all holidays cards from the President were religious. So, no theocracy from these presidents at all and no attempts to make one. You are such a failure, froggy.

      Try again. Happily there are many happy decent Christians who don’t find it necessary to lie to others.

    • Anon and clubschadenfreude

      It is kind of curious how some define religious freedom. I think the controversy goes back to how we define our rights. At the founding of the nation, Americans understood their rights to be what is expressed in the Declaration of Independence. That is, the Declaration of Independence speaks of what some philosophers call negative rights. Here the term “negative” refers to rights that the government or some other power could take away from an individual. The Declaration of Independence summarizes these rights as the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This summary would, of course, include freedom of religion which encompasses the right to freely exercise ones religious beliefs.

      So what is the limit of negative rights? Well, if the exercise of my religious beliefs involves human sacrifice, it is a cinch I am imposing my religious beliefs upon someone else. Therefore, government has the duty to stop me. That is, the government must arbitrate our disputes. My right to own property, for example, does not give me the right to take ownership of what belongs to someone else, for example.

      What confuses the matter today, however, is the notion that the government can give us our rights. These are called “positive” rights. Examples include: the right to a job, the right to an education, the right to health care, the right to a retirement income, and so forth. There are two big problems with positive rights: (1) the government has to abridge the negative rights of some people in order to give other people their “positive” rights, and (2) “positive” rights create a huge conflict of interest for politicians.

      Once you realize there are no such things as a free job, free education, free health care, free retirement, and so forth, I suspect you can begin figure out the nature of the first problem on your own. The second problem is only slightly more complex. When we allow politicians unfettered administrative authority over our “rights”, we have to trust the same people to both protect our rights and to give us our rights. Many happily succumb to the temptation to sell our rights for votes.

      Anyway, at Christmas time even politicians have the right to use whatever kind of Christmas cards they think appropriate. Unless we insist upon dictating such things to protect our “right” to be free from religion, I don’t understand why we have to make an issue out of such things. Unfortunately, once we accept the notion that government gives us our rights, it becomes very difficult to define our rights. Hence, some speak of freedom from religion, shutting down religious discussion in the public square, so that delicate snowflakes won’t melt from the intense heat they feel when someone speaks a few words about our Creator.

      • you might want to know who you are responding to. My name isn’t “clubschadenfreude”, that’s the blog title. You can call me Vel. Please do take a look at the Boss’s Office.

      • Anon and clubschadenfreude
        It is kind of curious how some define religious freedom. I think the controversy goes back to how we define our rights. At the founding of the nation, Americans understood their rights to be what is expressed in the Declaration of Independence. That is, the Declaration of Independence speaks of what some philosophers call negative rights. Here the term “negative” refers to rights that the government or some other power could take away from an individual. The Declaration of Independence summarizes these rights as the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This summary would, of course, include freedom of religion which encompasses the right to freely exercise ones religious beliefs.

        Hello Tom, nice to see that you are from yet one more organization that claims to care about families but only the “right” kind and that has nothing to say about the GOP screwing over kids and families with delaying the CHIP funding. It is no surprise that this organization, https://familyallianceonline.wordpress.com/about/, is allied with the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, two groups that advocate for trying to make their particular sect of a particular religion law. Thanks for being a great example to show that some Christians do indeed want a theocracy and do their best to influence elections as per your website.

        Rather than the DOI, you might want to look at the US Constitution, which is what we ended up with. The DOI does not summarize the Constitution, since it came before the Constitution and was based on what the British Empire was doing to the colonies. The DOI may include the ideas of the first amendment, but then it would also include all of the amendments if you wish to argue that.

        The first amendment of the constitution does have that one is able to freely exercise one’s religious beliefs but only to the limit of where they interfere with someone else’s life. Jefferson knew this when he wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom: “We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.” and also mentioned that as long as someone’s religion doesn’t bother him e.g. break his leg, he doesn’t not care about it: “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. If it be said, his testimony in a court of justice cannot be relied on, reject it then, and be the stigma on him. Constraint may make him worse by making him a hypocrite, but it will never make him a truer man. It may fix him obstinately in his errors, but will not cure them. Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error. Give a loose to them, they will support the true religion, by bringing every false one to their tribunal, to the test of their investigation. They are the natural enemies of error, and of error only. “ – Querey 17, Notes on the State of Virginia

        Now, compare this with the efforts of the conservative Christians in the US, where they want to control other people’s lives, and not simply be happy they can believe as they want. You want to declare only your version of your religion may be considered correct and you are trying to constantly get it made into law. And this is a religion that the adherents can’t even agree on what should be done to follow it, so why should you expect anyone else to care about your religion or to kowtow to your demands that everyone worship as you do and have laws that agree with you?

        So what is the limit of negative rights? Well, if the exercise of my religious beliefs involves human sacrifice, it is a cinch I am imposing my religious beliefs upon someone else. Therefore, government has the duty to stop me. That is, the government must arbitrate our disputes. My right to own property, for example, does not give me the right to take ownership of what belongs to someone else, for example.

        Yep, the gov’t does have a duty to stop you from imposing your religious beliefs on me, no matter what they are human sacrifice or saying that some people can’t be a family. And yep, if you own property, that doesn’t give you the right to take others property. Evangelical Christians are doing their best to impose their religious beliefs on others and doing their best to take the rights of equal treatment from others.

        What confuses the matter today, however, is the notion that the government can give us our rights. These are called “positive” rights. Examples include: the right to a job, the right to an education, the right to health care, the right to a retirement income, and so forth. There are two big problems with positive rights: (1) the government has to abridge the negative rights of some people in order to give other people their “positive” rights, and (2) “positive” rights create a huge conflict of interest for politicians.

        There is no confusion except on the part of evangelical Christians who think that the government can give them the right to impose their beliefs on others and who try to make this happen at every chance they get. The government does not give us the right of having an education, healthcare, etc., it enforces something we know to be humane and decent as the human race has become enlightened. It is a pity that you seem not to think that human beings deserve to be healthy, to be educated, to be employed, etc. And just how does having any of these “abridge” any rights that you have, Tom? What “breaks your leg”? And indeed, why do these rights make a conflict of interest for politicians. You make these claims but don’t support them at all, hoping that no one will ask. These are the usual complaints by libertarians and conservatives when they are simply being ignorant and greedy, with your delusions that someone’s social status and wealth depend on how “good” a person is and how much a god approves of them, rather than giving a fig about the disasters that anyone of us can face.

        Once you realize there are no such things as a free job, free education, free health care, free retirement, and so forth, I suspect you can begin figure out the nature of the first problem on your own. The second problem is only slightly more complex. When we allow politicians unfettered administrative authority over our “rights”, we have to trust the same people to both protect our rights and to give us our rights. Many happily succumb to the temptation to sell our rights for votes.

        Ah yes, here we go with the conservative Christian hoping someone else will do their work for them. Nope, Tom, I don’t believe your nonsense and I don’t see the problems you claim exist. You make the claim, now you get to support it with evidence and not hoping that some of the shit you throw at the wall sticks. I’m guessing you have no idea how to support the dross you suck up from your fellow conservatives. But there is always the chance that you do. Please proceed.

        Anyway, at Christmas time even politicians have the right to use whatever kind of Christmas cards they think appropriate. Unless we insist upon dictating such things to protect our “right” to be free from religion, I don’t understand why we have to make an issue out of such things. Unfortunately, once we accept the notion that government gives us our rights, it becomes very difficult to define our rights. Hence, some speak of freedom from religion, shutting down religious discussion in the public square, so that delicate snowflakes won’t melt from the intense heat they feel when someone speaks a few words about our Creator.

        Nice attempt at lying about how you only supposedly want a “few word about our Creator”, when the truth is that you try your best to get your religion installed as law that everyone must follow.

        Everyone can have the right to do what they want privately. Trump can have a xmas card that has the entire bastardized story of the birth of Jesus that every Christian thinks they know and is entirely wrong. He can have Linus right up there quoting the bible. There can be nativities on ever lawn of every Christian and church. However, you can’t put your religion on public area because they don’t belong to just you, they belong to all of us and some of us aren’t conservative Christians.

        You don’t understand why this is an issue because you don’t want to understand and have lived with the privilege of forcing your religion on everyone for years. You want everyone to sit down and shut up and let you have your way like a cranky child. Some Christians can’t think that someone dares disagree with them and they think they have some right to force their religion on others because they think it is the “truth”. It’s the same attitude of slave owners who just couldn’t understand why people had to make such an issue about them owning human beings, why it’s always been that way, right?

        Humans give ourselves our rights and those rights have changed over time as we realize that the supposed holy books we were getting our laws from are just human nonsense. We have realized, at least most of us, that being human doesn’t change with skin color. We realized that someone’s religion wasn’t any better that someone else’s since there is no evidence for any of them being true.

        It’s is amusing to see someone complain about religious discussion in the public square when they want to shut down the public square to everyone but themselves. The FFRF has put up numerous banners in various public squares celebrating the solstice and funny just how many of those banners were destroyed by TrueChristians™. Those TrueChristians™ who are stealing from others by destruction of property, and ignoring their own religion in their desperate need to pretend that only they deserve to celebrate their religion. For someone who whines about delicate snowflakes, it’s the poor ignorant and selfish Christians who are causing the problem and who can’t stand being around anyone who disagrees with them. As I’ve pointed out, Tom, Christians have churches on most street corners, hundreds of TV and radio stations, they can scream their religion from street corners, etc. They aren’t happy with this freedom but must try to impose their religion on everyone by attempts at making their religion law. Public servants, who knew that they must treat everyone equally when they ran for he position, try to impose their personal religion on others by making government more difficult for them. Idiots like Roy Moore try to get the commandments of one version of one god into courts in order to play pretend that US laws came from them and that all Americans must worship one certain god instead of which one they choose or choose not to worship at all. If it were, we’d just see “US Constitution – See Bible”.

        We have some Christians, like you, who want their own version of Sharia law, based on their particular cherry picking of the bible. The US didn’t start as a theocracy and it will not end that way, no matter how hard the small fraction of conservative Christians want it to happen. I can just imaging the religious war if one of your sects became the state religion, the rest of you would have a fit and take up arms.

      • Instead of just dealing with the issue, first you attack. It seems to me you awfully anxious to go on offense. Before you do that, you may wish to think more about what you are trying to accomplish.

        The Bill of Rights was designed to prevent government from infringing upon a list of negative rights, and I was quite clear that our negative rights end when we infringe too much (there is a balance) upon the negative rights of others. So your quotes of Thomas Jefferson were not needed.

        You also cannot provide evidence that significant numbers of Christians are imposing their beliefs on anyone. Your existence and ready hostility certainly indicates otherwise. Who is trying to slap you down?

        Anyway, I unambiguously pointed out the problems with positive rights, and look at your comeback. You pretend there are no issues, just ignorance and greed. That’s what you call reasoned response, I suppose. Meanwhile, our nation is how many trillions of dollars in debt? I suppose an absence of fiscal discipline and a Federal Government that does things it has no charter to do would not prove anything either?

        Have you ever consider why the Tenth Amendment exists? Don’t you realize that the Constitution is a charter that authorizes the Federal Government to do certain things and no more? Where in the Constitution is the Federal Government empowered to spend most of the money it spends these days? Can you point to something in the Constitution that authorizes programs like Social Security and Medicare? These programs are not about buying votes? You know better.

        Yet I must be a liar. A vile, evil Christian who wants a theocracy. What I think is that it unwise to trust men and women with great power when it is not needful. That just make me guilty of telling you what you don’t want to hear. It is funny how that works.

        You are quite ready to hate me and call me names. You detest Trump, but you are ready to entrust the government with huge powers. And that is rational? It is perfectly feasible for us to elect a demon for president, but we are suppose to give the Federal Government powers we don’t need to give it? Powers that are not even mentioned in the Constitution?

        If you think Thomas Jefferson is worthy of quoting, would you mind considering what he thought of limited government? How about reading what some of the other founders wrote, like “The Federalist Papers”? Seriously, you are in position to call anyone else a liar.

        The primary way we protect our rights to live our lives as we wish is to not put anyone else in charge of them. When we insist upon positive rights, the government giving us “rights”, we begin loosing control of our lives. Eventually, if we insist upon being given enough “rights”, we become dependents of the entity that gives us our ‘rights”. That entity then has the power to control us.

        And you are worried about Christians! You are just trying lock yourself in pretty and shiny chains and give the fast-talking people who gave those chains the key.

      • It’s quite interesting that you whine about me pointing your failures when you came to my blog and made false statements and then made false claims about “snowflakes”. Yep, Tom, we can feel the Christian love in your posts and shucks, you are just ever-so innocent. You seem upset that I won’t accept your nonsense and I can show where you make false claims, aka lies. Knowing your type of Christian as I do, I don’t accept your claims of it is raining when you are doing your best to piss on my head. You try to take away a reader’s ability to make an informed decision with your false claims, and I won’t have that.

        The US Constitution, and yes, the Bill of Rights, keeps a government from infringing on a list of rights. Not positive, not negative, just rights. And it keeps a government from declaring one religion superior over another. Conservative Christians have repeatedly tried to take rights from others, and to get their beliefs enshrined as law. I did need to quote Jefferson because you were misrepresenting what he wrote. I know you didn’t like that because it showed that you were wrong, but I certainly won’t stop posting things because you try to claim they weren’t needed.

        I’m glad I can show you to be a liar again when I can show that your claim that I cannot show that “significant numbers of Christians are imposing their beliefs on anyone”. Now, be sure I do see your wiggle word “significant” there and completely expect you to declare any number I can state as “insignificant” as any good liar would try.

        Let’s see what conservative Christian candidates for president of the US have promised conservative Christians to make happen when they would become president. Now, how many voters would this be that want this, Tom? Hmm, around maybe 36% since that is what follows Trump because he promises that they’ll get a theocracy, which would be around 100,000,000 people? Is that “significant”?

        Rick Santorum has made the following false claim about the US: “a country that is given rights under the god, under god, not any god, the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, and that God that gave us rights also gave us a responsibility, and laws, by which our civil laws have to comport with. A higher law. God’s law.” And promised to make the US this again.

        Huckabee said this “I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.”

        Now, I do like how Huckabee and Santorum contradict each other here.

        Then we have people who promise that rape victims will be forced to have a child of their rapist because that’s what these theists think their god wants and promise that will become law like Rep. Trent Frank: “The incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low,” when trying to make his personal views based on religion into law and showing just how ignorant they are about biology and sex. And remember when Todd Akin tried the same thing and made s similar claims ““From what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

        We’ve also had here in PA similar attempts at legislating religious opinion when it comes to abortion, with Gov. Corbett and all of the republicans in the state house and senate trying to force women to have an ultrasound. You do remember those, don’t you, Tom? When we had governor down in VA try the same thing, based on his religion?

        Now, let’s look at how religious groups tried to restrict homosexual marriage. The Mormon church spent nearly $200,000 on trying to influence the laws in California regarding gay marriage. How many Mormons are there? Around 6.6 million. Is that “significant”? The Roman Catholics have spent nearly $2 million to affect marriage laws in Maine through their Knights of Columbus. $40 million dollars was raised in total for the “Protect Marriage” campaign in California per its organization. Is that “significant”? Per an anti-choice group, Americans United for Life, has admitted that there has been 360 attempts at laws in 48 states in 2013 to force their beliefs on others. By the first quarter of 2016, conservative Christians tried to get 1022 anti abortion bills based on religion through. Is that “significant”?

        And finally we have Trump promising conservative Christians “power” like I’ve already quoted. How many people support Trump, Tom? He certainly claims a lot. Is he a liar or is the numbers he claims “significant”?

        Glad to see I could show you lying again. These are the people who are trying to force their religion on others. I’m sure you’ll deny it, but alas for you, facts just don’t disappear if you try and pray really hard.

        You made claims about “positive rights”, and those claims were not supported. You did your best to try to claim that “Once you realize there are no such things as a free job, free education, free health care, free retirement, and so forth, I suspect you can begin figure out the nature of the first problem on your own. The second problem is only slightly more complex.” And tried your best to insist that anyone would arrive at the same conclusions you do. However, I don’t and you have yet to show why I should. Again, we have the usual coward Christian who has nothing to support his claims. It is not that I pretend there are no issues, you have presented none. But thanks, Tom, for showing you ignore my points. It’s what I expect a TrueChristian™ to do.

        Yep, our gov’t is trillions in debt, at this very moment around $21 trillion dollars. Now, please do show how there is fiscal discipline with the GOP, who offered tax refunds with Bush and increased the debt, who want to build more weapons which even the military doesn’t want, and who want to give tax refunds to the rich? Now, what are these things that the gov’t has “no charter to do” that you don’t want to have anymore, Tom? Infrastructure? The US constitution says nothing about that, but golly, you do drive on roads don’t you? How about medical research? Do you use modern medicine, Tom? What about clean water? Do you like that to drink? Do you respect veterans and want them to have the best medical care and our soldiers to have the best armor and weapons? What do you want to cut? The money you get when you are over 65? No “charter” but Tom benefits from all of these things.

        The tenth amendment is “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” It was put in place in 1791. I know exactly what the US constitution is. It’s so cute to see you whine about getting benefits from it. Poor Tom, I guess you need to go live in the woods and use nothing that the gov’t supports. However, like most hypocrites, you just whine, you don’t actually have the integrity to refuse those benefits. I do hope you never ever use Medicare or Social Security, Tom. I hope you don’t dare drive on an interstate or fly in a plane that is using air traffic controllers or use the internet that came from gov’t funding of Arpanet, which darn, the US Constitution never ever mentions. Oh, and you might want to read the 9th amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

        These programs aren’t about funding votes(were you bought, Tom?). They are about helping people. I know, I know, a TrueChristian™ is a person who doesn’t want to help people. Pity that anyone ever thought that people should help people, you know, the least among us.

        Yep, you are a liar since you make false claims and baseless claims and refuse to support them. You lie about other people with no evidence your lies are true. You are a great example of how some Christians just ignore their supposed holy book. You lied about me not being able to show a “significant” number of conservative Christians who want to force their religious beliefs on others. You are just such a failure. You certainly have told me things I don’t want to hear but they are all lies. However, Tom, please do show the evidence for your claims. Or will you be like Silenceofmind who runs away as soon as evidence is requested? I agree that it is unwise to trust people with power. I also think it is unwise to trust people like you who lie intentionally and who cannot support their claims.

        Alas for you, Tom, I don’t hate you. I think you are pathetic. You lie and you reflect badly on Christians who don’t find it necessary to lie. I do detest Trump, but that’s because he lies, disrespects veterans when he was a draft dodger (and Clinton was too), he cheats people out of their fair payment, he is a white supremacist and he thinks wannabee Nazis are “fine people”.

        You benefit from people with those “great powers”, so give it a rest, little hypocrite.

        Let’s see what Jefferson said about limited government. It’s hilarious that poor Tom can’t actually quote him.

        “Let us, then, with courage and confidence pursue our own Federal and Republican principles, our attachment to union and representative government. Kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc of one quarter of the globe; too high-minded to endure the degradations of the others; possessing a chosen country, with room enough for our descendants to the thousandth and thousandth generation; entertaining a due sense of our equal right to the use of our own faculties, to the acquisitions of our own industry, to honor and confidence from our fellow-citizens, resulting not from birth, but from our actions and their sense of them; enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter — with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens — a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.”

        Nice one, shows that no one should be injure another, and that no one religion gets power. Now, I wonder, what does Tom think of the corporate welfare that Trump et all are pushing?

        “Liberty then I would say that, in the whole plenitude of it’s extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will: but rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.”

        Another nice one. Still doesn’t match with what wannabee theocrats try to insist on.

        Now compare with what Jefferson wrote and what conservative Christians want. Doesn’t match up at all.

        Let’s look at the Federalist Papers too. Adams writes in the Federalist paper 45 that a Federal government is necessary to balance the powers of the states and its first and greatest responsibility is to keep the people happy. Again, it seems that you try to make a claim and the actual document show that you are making yet one more false statement about them.

        And thanks for saying exactly this “Seriously, you are in position to call anyone else a liar.” Freudian slip, anyone?

        The primary way we protect our rights in the US is to hopefully elect people who value those rights as we do and kick out people who don’t. We have a representative democracy. The gov’t is in charge of making sure that majorities do not lord over minorities and minorities do not try to force the majority to follow their baseless opinions. We have control over our lives, and are responsible for our actions. We also have the humanity to use the government to help others, rather than being ignorant tribalists who want to believe that only “them” deserves anything good. How is the gov’t controlling you, Tom? Is it keeping you from believing as you will? Or it is keeping you from forcing your religion on me and you want to interpret that as not getting your way?

        I am worried about ignorant, deceitful Christians like you. Happily, the majority of Christians aren’t like you. You want me to accept your chains and make up delusional nonsense about others in order to try to scare me and others. Your religion is based on ignorance, lies and fear. I have no respect for a religion or a theist who trades on those things.

        Still waiting for you to answer my questions and provide evidence for your claims.

      • clubschadenfreude

        Whatever my personal defects may be, you are not fit to judge them. Perhaps that is what upsets you. You want that authority. Is that why you constantly pronounce meaningless and futile judgments? It would seem so.

        The Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, says what says. Christianity and other religions have been in this nation since colonists started settling our land. The court’s interpretation of the First Amendment has changed quite a bit over the years, but the language of the First Amendment has not changed. Given the explanation for the changes court interpretation, it is obvious the change in the interpretation had more to do with court packing than honesty.

        What is the point of Conservatism? Conservatives want to retain what is best about our heritage. When change is needed, change should be thoughtful and conducted using appropriate legal means.

        Was the United States founded as a theocracy? No. Would an originalist interpretation of the Constitution make the United States a theocracy? If the United States was not founded as a theocracy, how could an originalist interpretation of the Constitution turn it into one?

        Santorum, Huckabee, Frank, Mormons,…. Is it my job to chase off all the bogeymen your fears have created? I don’t think so. So I won’t try.

        I posed what I think is a rational argument for limited government. I pointed to a problem with insisting that government is suppose to give us our rights. Do I expect everyone to agree? No. Factional politics have been around for thousands of years. As long as there have been men, there are men who wanted special rights and privileges for themselves. Aristole wrote about such issues. Since Christians believe only Jesus is fit to rule, it would foolish of me to think I could end factional politics.

        Why do we have a huge debt? Most of the money the Federal Government spends it spends on Social Security health care, and welfare programs. Military spending has little to do with it our exploding budget. Are there wasteful politics in defense spending? Of course, but there is actual justication for defense spending in the Constitution.

        Anyway, you ought to read what you reference. Here is how the last paragraph of Federalist paper 45 begins.

        Within every district to which a federal collector would be allotted, there would not be less than thirty or forty, or even more, officers of different descriptions, and many of them persons of character and weight, whose influence would lie on the side of the State. The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

        War makes people unhappy. The primary function of the Federal Government was to keep the peace, including peace between the States. The Constitution is not a charter for a welfare state. To suggest otherwise… Well, what is your favorite word?

      • I can judge anyone I wish, Tom, and I’m as fit, or unfit, as any other human being, including yourself. Your personal faults are unfortunate and you evidently need to be called on them because perhaps no one has in the past. You come to my blog and lie and then try to insult people. Even when I was a Christian I knew that this wasn’t a nice thing to do. It’s also hilarious to see you trying your very hardest to judge me, acting as you had some authority given from, hmm, would that be your version of your god?

        Yep, the DOI and the US Constitution says what it says and I am quite happy that I could show that you were making false claims about them. It was even more pleasant that I could show that I know the federalist papers, and it doesn’t say what you try to claim.

        Yep, many variations of Christianity have been in the US since the beginning, all hating each other and trying to form theocracies early on, throwing people out for not obeying religious nonsense, etc. The interpretation of the US constitution has come about because of changes in society, you know, like not wanting people to own other people, to consider women able to vote, and to allow the free expression of all religions without gov’t interference. The US Constitution started by white land owning males and they didn’t think much beyond that. Their descendents fixed the problems. Of course, perhaps you don’t find them fixed, and like so very many conservative Christians, you are also a white supremacist and a misogynist. Are you? And hmmm, court packing. You mean like what they GOP is trying to do? Tsk. It’s also great to see you yet again bear false witness against others with no evidence for your claims. Your claims of things being “obvious” are no more than the lies by someone who doesn’t have any evidence for his claims, but desperately wants others to believe he does.

        Conservatism is not wanting to retain what is “best about our heritage”; it is wanting no change so you don’t have to realize that the world is changing around you. For example, Trump lies about “making America great again”, because there was no “perfect” time in America. All he wants is to go back when bigots and idiots could do what he pleased, without consequence for being bigoted and ignorant. American is far more than a sad little group of white men and women who can’t stand realizing that human beings deserve equal rights. It is no surprise that when a conservative Christian like you is asked when is it appropriate to protest, you have no answer and run away. You only want people to sit down and shut up so you can feel better about yourself.

        Yes, Tom, we’ve established that the US was not founded as a theocracy. What is happening is that conservative Christians are doing their best to ignore the US Constitution and turn it into one. Conservative Christians are not “originalists”, they are wannabee theocrats with their attempts at influencing elections and making their religious views law.

        No surprise that you can’t refute my points, and my list of wannabee theocrats and you are such a sad little liar when you claimed I could not show a significant number of conservative Christians trying to legislate their beliefs into law. I did and now you run away from the facts just as expected. It’s a pity that you repeatedly lie and show that you don’t follow your bible at all. Thanks again for showing just how pathetic some Christians can be with your actions. I wonder, would you show your fellow Christians your actions here?

        You stated opinions, Tom, and you have yet to support them. This is why I’ve asked you repeatedly for evidence of your statements and you have chosen not to reply. I do agree, there have been people who want special rights for themselves, and that includes conservative Christians who want to have all the rights for themselves and no one else when they do their best to force their version of their religion on others. In that Christians can’t even agree on what Jesus or this god wants, there is no reason to think that Christians or their religion or their imaginary god/savior is fit to rule anyone.

        Why do we have a huge debt? Oh, various reasons. That idiotic tax cut that Bush gave everyone. Men with little penises needing bigger and better weapons. There is indeed a lot of money that goes to Social Security for the aged, SSDI for the disabled and helping those who are poor and who need help. It always bemuses me when I see a TrueChristian™ complain about those things, Tom. It seems you’ve created Jesus Christ in your image, hateful and selfish. 62 percent of the budget goes to mandatory spending like SS, SSDI, Medicaid, Medicare. The 38 percent left, half of it goes to military spending. This doesn’t even cover the $76 billion that is kept to fund wars called the Overseas Contingency Operations fund, which is how Congress gets around the budget looking even worse than it does for military operations. This indicates that your claim that military spending has little to do with our budget is simply a lie. As usual, you are ignorant of the things you try to discuss.

        You keep ranting about the Constitution as if it is the only law of the land. It isn’t and has never been, and it shows just how ignorant you are regarding how government works. I have read the Federalist papers and that means I read the last paragraph of 45 and funny how it works so well with the first part which you of course have to ignore to keep your lies to yourself intact. Now, tell me what you think it means, Tom, and how it applies to the discussion we are having. You might also want to explain why you use all of the benefits of the federal government if you are so against them. What hypocrisy will you offer? The US has changed vastly since 1791 and the amendments to the Constitution demonstrate that. I wonder, do you think the original unamended Constitution could govern a country of 300 million people of differing beliefs? Do you think that women still shouldn’t have the vote since, why, the Constitution didn’t originally say that? Do you think people still should be slaves since no mention of them not being that was in the Constitution? Should states still allow slavery and still require that people follow a certain religion to live there like they once did?

        Why yes, wars do make people unhappy, except for arms manufacturers. Funny how your god has been all about wars including genocide. Ah, the whine about the welfare state. So, Tom, again, why do you partake of that “welfare state” that helps everyone including you, if you are so against it? Or is it that you just don’t want those “other people” to have the same benefits as you?

      • I have better things to do than continuing a pointless discussion with someone who for no good reason detests other people and would destroy them if they could get away with it. So I will just make one observation and end the charade, the proposition that is it possible to have a useful discussion with you.

        Why do we have a huge debt? Oh, various reasons. That idiotic tax cut that Bush gave everyone. Men with little penises needing bigger and better weapons. There is indeed a lot of money that goes to Social Security for the aged, SSDI for the disabled and helping those who are poor and who need help. It always bemuses me when I see a TrueChristian™ complain about those things, Tom. It seems you’ve created Jesus Christ in your image, hateful and selfish. 62 percent of the budget goes to mandatory spending like SS, SSDI, Medicaid, Medicare. The 38 percent left, half of it goes to military spending. This doesn’t even cover the $76 billion that is kept to fund wars called the Overseas Contingency Operations fund, which is how Congress gets around the budget looking even worse than it does for military operations. This indicates that your claim that military spending has little to do with our budget is simply a lie. As usual, you are ignorant of the things you try to discuss.

        Just because we call spending mandatory does not make it mandatory. The Constitution requires the government to pay its debts; it does not require our government to pay for welfare programs. So all those bonds the government has issued — those have to be paid off. Of course, now that we have fiat money, when anyone buys a government bond they have to hope inflation won’t destroy the value of the currency.

        Why do people like you play these word games using words like “mandatory” and “entitlements”? Because we are sinners, we want what belongs to other people.

        You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
        — Exodus 20:17

        It appears to be old problem. Nothing new under the sun.

      • Ah, the claim of having “better things to do” when you have been shown to be a liar and a failure. It’s no surprise, Tom. Let’s see what you claimed on my blog comments:
        “You also cannot provide evidence that significant numbers of Christians are imposing their beliefs on anyone. Your existence and ready hostility certainly indicates otherwise. Who is trying to slap you down?”

        And then when I did show these significant numbers of Christians, then you tried to ignore the evidence I gave and said this “Santorum, Huckabee, Frank, Mormons,…. Is it my job to chase off all the bogeymen your fears have created? I don’t think so. So I won’t try.”
        It’s always good to see a TrueChristian be so bad at lying.

        Nice to see you also continuing to make strawmen and bearing false witness against others. Poor wannabee martyr, who needs to lie and claim I would “destroy” other people. Why do you find you need to lie, Tom? It’s a shame that you ignore your bible in the few good parts where it says lying is a bad thing. Oh and if we’re quoting Exodus20:16 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”

        I do love how you have done your best to ignore my points when it comes to government spending and how your claims were simply wrong. Again, the Constitution doesn’t say a lot of things, and it is not the only law of the land. It has also been amended many times to correct its failures. Nope, it doesn’t say anything at all about welfare programs. So? We have other laws that says it does. Yep, government bonds do need to be paid off, that’s the nature of bonds. I have some gov’t bonds myself, and it’s worth a nice amount, and more valuable than when it was bought. You also seem to have no idea what the term “fiat” actually means, when talking about money. Fiat indicates that something came into being without effort, and money does not coming to being like that. Do you know anything about investing at all? Evidently not. Your ignorance, as usual, destroys your attempts to gin up fear.
        You use all of the things that government makes possible and then you whine about it. Such a pathetic hypocrite. It’s also great to see you, my dear TrueChristian, insisting that helping people is something horrible and something you don’t want to do, and offering the excuse that how dare anyone take anything from you. We get the things we have from government because alone we could not do those t things alone, like good roads so goods can be moved around efficiently, modern medicine, the internet, modern foodstuffs, a military to protect us, a decent life for those who cannot support themselves whether from age or disability or just bad luck, etc. It seems that Tom just wants people begging on the roadside, or by a dirt path since he doesn’t want everyone to benefit when we put our money together.
        I don’t want what other people have, but I do want to share what I have with those less fortunate and work with others to have a better life for us all. You are a miserable greedy hypocrite, Tom. I’m glad that most Christians aren’t like you.

        Now, let’s review some of the questions you have refused to answer

        Of course, perhaps you don’t find them fixed, and like so very many conservative Christians, you are also a white supremacist and a misogynist. Are you?

        I wonder, do you think the original unamended Constitution could govern a country of 300 million people of differing beliefs? Do you think that women still shouldn’t have the vote since, why, the Constitution didn’t originally say that? Do you think people still should be slaves since no mention of them not being that was in the Constitution? Should states still allow slavery and still require that people follow a certain religion to live there like they once did?

        So, Tom, again, why do you partake of that “welfare state” that helps everyone including you, if you are so against it? Or is it that you just don’t want those “other people” to have the same benefits as you?

        Let’s see what conservative Christian candidates for president of the US have promised conservative Christians to make happen when they would become president. Now, how many voters would this be that want this, Tom? Hmm, around maybe 36% since that is what follows Trump because he promises that they’ll get a theocracy, which would be around 100,000,000 people? Is that “significant”?

        Now, I wonder, what does Tom think of the corporate welfare that Trump et all are pushing?
        How is the gov’t controlling you, Tom? Is it keeping you from believing as you will? Or it is keeping you from forcing your religion on me and you want to interpret that as not getting your way?

        And this is a religion that the adherents can’t even agree on what should be done to follow it, so why should you expect anyone else to care about your religion or to kowtow to your demands that everyone worship as you do and have laws that agree with you?

        It is a pity that you seem not to think that human beings deserve to be healthy, to be educated, to be employed, etc. And just how does having any of these “abridge” any rights that you have, Tom? What “breaks your leg”?

        It’s the same attitude of slave owners who just couldn’t understand why people had to make such an issue about them owning human beings, why it’s always been that way, right?

  3. That’s right, Shelldigger.
    (interesting handle…is that a euphemism?)
    Schade is definitely cherry picking.
    Not surprising though….and by Schade’s definition, that makes Schade a liar!

    • I’m not the one picking and choosing…I just provided the link and said Theocracy in the US (by the dubious standard presented here, “bringing back Christmas” cited as evidence) has been going on for a long, long time.
      That doesn’t mean every single individual card of all Christmases past hits that standard, not that many do. BTW, the federal government didn’t mandate that third parties subsidize individual recreational bedroom activity back then either. Yet more evidence (by Schade standards) of theocracies in Christmases past.

      • Since you intentionally tried to cite the only very religious card, and tried to make the false claim that all presidents sent religious cards, yes, froggy, you were trying to lie and to cherry pick the white house xmas cards. Again, you also show that you never read my post or comment and were only following SOM’s lead since I never only cited bringing back Xmas as the only reason to see Trump and Sessions trying for a theocracy that was based on evangelical Christianity. You might also want to refer to the nonsense Trump spoke at the Value Voters conference. It’s always fun to watch “values voters” have no problem with a man who has claimed he has committed sexual assault, has gotten divorced repeatedly, has cheated workmen for their pay, and routinely lies about such petty things as the size of his inauguration crowd. It’s great to see you intentionally lying about what I’ve said and willfully ignorant what I’ve said to create a strawman argument. But I guess that is all you have.

        Thank you for continuing to lie and to show that some Christians depend on willful ignorance and intentional lies to keep their religion going.

        As for the gov’t mandating that anyone subsidize sex, hmmm, it seems that, like SOM, you have no problem with third parties being required to pay for drugs like Viagra so men can have erections for that “recreational bedroom activity” but are having a hissy fit if women get that same benefit. Also, birth control pills are often used for other reasons than just birth control, and pregnancy is a dangerous thing so some women don’t want to have pregnancies every time they have sex. Now, if you have a problem with this and argue that they just shouldn’t have sex, then men just shouldn’t need to have erections since they are only for sex.

      • As usual, a TrueChristian(tm) stoops to lying.

        Let’s see what Trump said at the Value Voters meeting:

        “We are stopping cold the attacks on Judeo-Christian values. (Applause.) Thank you. Thank you very much. And something I’ve said so much during the last two years, but I’ll say it again as we approach the end of the year. You know, we’re getting near that beautiful Christmas season that people don’t talk about anymore. (Laughter.) They don’t use the word “Christmas” because it’s not politically correct. You go to department stores, and they’ll say, “Happy New Year” and they’ll say other things. And it will be red, they’ll have it painted, but they don’t say it. Well, guess what? We’re saying “Merry Christmas” again. (Applause.) “

        Poor thing has no idea evidently that green *and* red are Christmas colors. I guess he thinks red Christmas ribbons, ornaments are communist or something. He’s also lies because many many stores say Merry Christmas, even the one that my mom worked at that was owned by a Jewish family. This is the attempt by the ignorant president to gin up fear with his evangelical voters who are claiming to have values but follow blindly a man who has none of those supposed values. It’s also pretty amusing that Trump has repeatedly send out holidays cares with a nice secular “Happy Holiays”. What a sad liar and what willfully ignorant people to believe him.

        and here’s nice quote from him from 2016, yep, last December, with saying “happy holidays.”Trump's 2016 Xmas card It is a shame that some Christians choose to believe a liar and a hypocrite.

        “I’m a good Christian, okay? Remember that,” he said at the Burlington, Iowa, event. “I guarantee, if I become president, we’re going to be saying ‘merry Christmas’ at every store … Every store. Every store.” – October 2015

        Now, hmmm, what is it called when you say the government will make everyone follow a certain religion? Oh yes, THEOCRACY.

        Here is the rest of the speech: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/10/13/remarks-president-trump-2017-values-voter-summit

        Please, froggy and SOM, tell me how this does not support the desire for a theocracy by evangelical Christians. I do expect you to read it and go into detail. Of course, you won’t.

    • Now, what does our TrueChristian(Tm) think shelldigger is a euphemism for? And nice try to lie and misrepresent what I and Shell said. Please do keep up with the lies, froggy. You are an excellent example why evangelical Christianity is declining in the US. Who wants to be with people who lie all of the time and who are constantly caught at it, especially when they ignore their own supposed holy book to do so?

      Please do show where I am cherry picking, froggy. I’m waiting for the evidence, and you can certainly cut and past where I have, right. However, like SOM, I will guess that you will refuse and run away. Funny how SOM has yet to support one of his claims against me. Now, why would this be, froggy? Why would a Christian refuse to support his claims when his bible says never to lie and that liars will end up in the lake of fire?

  4. Pingback: THESE SURE AREN’T THE DEMOCRATS I GREW UP WITH – Citizen Tom

    • As usual, we have Citizen Tom, not our recent Tom Salmon salmon_richard@hotmail.com from around Manassas, making more false claims and doing his best to try to convince anyone who disagrees with him to sit down and shut up. He claims that Democrats aren’t the ones he grew up with. I guess he didn’t grow up with many considering his nonsense. But it’s always fun to watch these certain Christians craft their lies and then get caught in them.

      For a bunch of folks who keep insisting that the end times are a-comin’, they do make for some good examples of anti-christs.

      I think this is the best out of his screed “The Democratic Party is not what it use to be. There was a time Democrats respected America’s founding principles. Now? Not so much.” Funny how CT thinks that American’s founding principles were about forcing religious beliefs on others. That’s exactly what they didn’t want to have happen. But as we know, TrueChristians like CT are either ignorant of American history or they choose to intentionally lie about it.

      And because I have no reason to trust those who lie so often, this is my reply on his rather amusingly ironic post. He does a great job of showing just how contradictory some Christians can be

      “clubschadenfreude

      October 18, 2017 at 8:18 pm

      Alas for Tom, Democrats are always for the founding principles and have been like this even when you were growing up with us. We aren’t for having wannabee theocrats forcing their religious beliefs on others like the founding fathers knew was a problem.

      But Tom doesn’t let facts bother him. What should one make of a man who claims to be a Christian but followed those who lie and who spreads those lie himself? Exodus 23 “You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness.” Tom is certainly a wonderful TrueChristian, with no evidence for his claims, and cherry picking his religion as much as he likes.

      this is pretty hypocritical “If we don’t want our own conscience abused, then we should strive to let our neighbors live by the dictates of their own consciences.”

      Nice idea but Tom has no intention of this happening at all. This is why the Catholic Church spent millions to take the ability of living by the dictates of one’s own conscience from them by opposing marriage rights. The Mormon Church did the same thing. Roy Moore did his best to force his religion in the courthouses. And protestant pastors like Huckabee, Graham, etc have repeatedly spent money and tried to influence politics to make sure that only their religion was followed. Indeed Trump himself promised “power” to evangelical Christians and promised that he would force people to obey their religion.

      If Tom was honest and really meant what he said, then he would not be shilling for a politician to get his way in forcing his religion on others. Christians would spend that money on helping the least of these and letting everyone live by the dictates of their own consciences”

  5. “Since you intentionally tried to cite the only very religious card, and tried to make the false claim that all presidents sent religious cards, yes, froggy, you were trying to lie and to cherry pick the white house xmas cards.”

    I did neither. And everyone who actually reads what I said knows it.
    Nice try though.
    Also, what do you have against the French?
    How rude.

    • Oh my. Well Froggy (your email address is froghelmetla (I removed the last bit) I have nothing against the French. I took three years of French in high school. Now, again, why do you think I call you froggy?

      Is that the best you’ve got, a false accusation? and yes, everyone who reads what you’ve written knows that you make false claims and run away from answering questions. It’s hard to miss that.

      • You’re allowed to post my e mail address?
        That’s interesting. I don’t care enough to comment, but I hope some other posters will take note on how much you value their personal information.
        My e mail address might just be a tongue in cheek hat tip to my heritage.

        I have nothing more to say to you.

      • Yep, I did, but then went back and removed the source. Now, Froggy, do you know why I call you froggy, and have again showed that you are a liar when you try to accuse me of having “something against the French”? And since you yourself indicated that “frog” was a insult to the French, it would be rather silly to believe that you used it as a “tongue in cheek” tip of the hat to your heritage. Alas, your insult and your new excuse don’t quite make sense together. But nice attempt.

      • It does say under WordPress that the address “will never be made public”.
        Someone should alert them.

  6. Club, please demonstrate to Anon that email notifications not only include emails, but also IP addresses. You don’t know where I am, right? You know I’m in Brazil, but not the city, correct? In the email notifying you of this comment, copy and paste the IP (down at the bottom of the email) into an IP locator/finder, and post my city here in your reply.

      • “Hope Anon now understands.”

        I understand that WordPress specifically indicates the e mail address will never be made public (their words, not mine).
        As I mentioned at Silenceofmind’s I am an RN and the unethical, non-consensual (you, on the other hand, have consented) release of private information is very very egregious to me.

      • What is an RN?

        WP didn’t publish your email. Club did. And she’s within her rights to do so.

        Could you tell me, though, what the problem is? I mean, your email is secretive. What are you so bothered about. If you tell me, I might understand a little better.

      • Hmmm, my intent in showing your webname is that you were lying about me, froggy. You chose to lie. So as ye sow, so shall ye reap. And still can’t quite get what my name is or what my blog name is. That’s rather silly and sad at the same time. Poor froggy, seems to be sure that “shaden” is somehow my last name.

      • “WP didn’t publish your email. Club did. And she’s within her rights to do so.”

        She is not “within her rights” according to the WordPress user agreement she sign on to.

        “Could you tell me, though, what the problem is? I mean, your email is secretive. What are you so bothered about. If you tell me, I might understand a little better.”

        Yes, I dislike fraudulent, intentionally malicious behavior. Is that really so hard to understand? An RN is a registered nurse. If I were to conduct my business as “Club” does I would lose my license (and I would deserve to).

      • Where is it fraudulent?

        You’re a registered nurse?

        OK, you do realise you’ve just given me more information about yourself than Club did by publishing your (anonymous) public email adress?

      • funny how I used to work for a state board of nursing. I am seeing why you don’t want to be held accountable for the lies you’ve told and the baseless claims you’ve made. Not that a nursing board would give a airborne copulation about what you do online.

      • Fraud is intentional deception (often used for personal gain or to commit harm). Per my profession…you understand the difference between consent and non-consent, correct? I have consented to the release of information when I offer it myself. I have NOT consented to the release of information when I place my e mail address next to the line “address never made public”

      • Contractually, that applies to you and WP, not you and Club.

        I still don’t see what the problem is. Your email is anonymous. You appear to just like to whine. Did you vote for Trump? I’m guessing, yes.

      • You still seem to not get that I can see your email address and IP address. You have chosen to admit you are an registered nurse, which no one knew until you said it. So much for you wanting to remain anonymous. But I do see where being held accountable for your baseless claims, silly attempts at insults and outright lies might make an RN worried that other people might know that they are a twit. You’ve chosen this, froggy, and your ignorance of what others can see about you and find out about you has surprised you.

      • “Contractually, that applies to you and WP, not you and Club”

        Contractually, Club agreed to the terms when she signed up with WP to create this blog.
        I see that fraud doesn’t matter to you if it’s someone you disagree with politically. That says a lot about you. You’re in good company at this site.

      • as I’ve said, then report me if you think you have a case. Again, if you don’t provide answers to the questions that have been asked of you and evidence for your claims, you will be restricted.

      • John,
        I doubt this is the first time you’ve held a turd, continuing to polish it fervently hoping it will shine and stop stinking….
        But perhaps you’ve never actual been told:
        It doesn’t work.

      • and Froggy is still a failure. Still waiting for you to answer questions and provide evidence for your claims. If you don’t do so, then you will be placed on restrictions from posting unless you actually participate.

  7. So weird when I read that “Address never made public” statement I actually believed the site owner would agree to the terms of service.
    What was that you were saying about awful Christians, adding e mails to sites…and this “does a great job of showing what they will do when they think they are being clever”.
    What does this say about you?
    Far worse. They didn’t make your private information public.

      • no, froggy. I have given you my personal email address and I find it highly amusing you aren’t happy with that and now demand my name. It doesn’t work so well when someone calls your bluff, does it? I won’t put up my name, though it wouldn’t be that hard to figure out. Still waiting for you to support your claims and to answer questions put to you. Since you either refuse to put up this evidence or you don’t actually have any, my accusations of you being a liar seem to be on quite solid ground.

      • Hurray for you! You violated the terms of your agreement with WordPress, then admonished the person you attacked with a, “Hey, sucks not to be anonymous, eh!?”
        Then hide behind anonymity and claim you’re “calling my bluff”.
        No, I’m calling you a hypocrite who should longer be entitled to use WordPress as a free blog service.

      • sigh. again, you are quite ignorant. It can be free but it is not if one wants a domain name. I do like that you have confirmed what JZ has been telling you, that even you know that a email address isn’t the same as knowing someone’s actual name and is indeed anonymous if no one knows who is behind the address.

        still waiting for you to be able to support your claims, froggy. it is no surprise that you have yet to do so.

Leave a Reply (depending on current posters, posts may be moderated, individually or en masse. It may take a day or two for a comment to be released so don't panic). Remember, I control the horizontal, I control the vertical.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s