mckinley: "I didn't say slavery had nothing to do with the war. I said it was about economics and not morals."

Apparently I don't know what you mean by morals. I'm not able to separate morals from what goes on in our daily lives, and I think it may have played a bigger part in politics back then than it does now.

But assuming ecomonics was the major reason and driving force behind the civil war (and slavery only a sideline issue?), then can you explain what part economics played in sparking that war?

My understanding is the tension between the North and South led to the South wanting to secede from the Union, and it appears you are saying the reason for that tension had more to do with economics than with slavery. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm just trying to understand what you mean.

If the South's economy was not so closely tied to slavery, and Northern abolitionists were not against slavery, then how could economic forces alone have played a part in sparking the war? Are you saying the war had more to do with money than with ideological differences? If so, what did the South have that the North wanted so badly it was willing to go to war for it?

If you could tell me what you mean by economic reasons for the war, I'd have a better idea of what you are talking about.

Artful Dodger: That pretty much sums it up.

Artful Dodger: "I can make that effect in the tub."

The water looks like that in your tub? How often do you take a bath?



oh, you meant the bubbles... never mind.

I don't need to smile... a cup of coffee is enough to get me into a good mood.

There's probably a good reason for that smile.

Artful Dodger: "Looks like the liberal guy down the street."

I see it now. He looks like he's judging you... you must have done something wrong.

Oh no, it's true... I just now scrolled down the page. I can't unsee it!!

Artful Dodger:" would be funny if a bird flew out at just the right place!"

May the bird of paradise fly out...

"I flipped a guy the bird but the bird flew away."

Bet ya can't flip this bird... he's big enough to flip you!

Artful Dodger: I figure what the heck, he says he never clicks on my links. But he can still mail my check for the number of links I posted before the 27th, or bring them by my office... the gardener is waiting to help him with figuring out how much he owes me.

Back then Republicans were "racists" because they were in favor of blacks being free. Now Republicans are "racist" because they believe everyone should be treated the same. So what's changed? The only thing that's changed between then and now is what Democrats mean when they say the word "racist", and the only reason Republicans are called "racists" is because the Democrats say so. Go figure.

It's too easy to be a Democrat. All you need to know is how to wet your finger and hold it up to see which way the wind is blowing... this is all it takes, and it is the litmus test for defining "core values" in the Democratic party.

"Racism is alive and well and it's in the democratic party. It always has been."

What that old political ad was trying to get across is glaringly obvious... you should vote Democrat, because it is the Republicans who are responsible for the "Negro" living among us as free men and women.

SCANDALOUS!!

Artful Dodger: time. "Racism is alive and well and it's in the democratic party. It always has been. Once it was overt but now it's covert. But it's still there strong as ever."

mckinley: "The civil war was about economics and not the immorality of slavery"

It wasn't one or the other, it was both. If slavery was not immoral, there would have been no civil war. If the souths economy was not so closely tied to slavery, there would have been little objection to obolishing slavery. It was more economical (convenient) to use slaves, if you were able to overcome or simply ignore any moral objection to enslaving people and forcing them to work.

The same kind of ideological debate is going on today in regard to abortion. It's more convenient and economically more feasible to not have a child than it is to have one. Kids are expensive and time consuming. If someone wants to fool around but not deal with needy little people (who will drain his/her finances and freedom) then they too need to either ignore objections to or to justify ending the little gubers life.

Seeing the baby makes it much more difficult for overcoming the moral objections to killing it, that's why the pro abortion crowd objects to right to life groups encouraging mothers to get sonograms.

Pro abortionists will also tell you that you can't compare abortion to slavery, because one hasn't anything to do with the other. If this is true, then why was it necessary to make blacks out to seem less than human and the fetus not at all human? The only way to overcome moral objections to killing people is to make them out to not be people. This was true with slavery then, and is true today with abortion.

The Col: "I stopped looking at the links months ago"

Aww, that's too bad. Oh well, your loss. You can drop the money off at my office when the deadline arrives. My gardener will be on the grounds to assist you if you have any trouble adding up how much you owe me.

The Col: "...you will be posting them for me...you will be working for nothing , on my behalf"

The Col: Make it this much money per pic and you got a deal.

The Col: ($.$)

Respecting those who respect themselves

new critter on the endangered species list

Warning: Can cause severe headaches and challenge long held preconceptions.

Simpletons are strongly advised to avoid reading this book. No Free Lunch not only contradicts randomly assembled interrelated complexity, but liberal ideology as well. Be vigilantly intolerant of anything that appears to make sense and cause you to think... because thinking is overrated, and it may lead to cancer.

Artful Dodger: [ When a bass poops in the lake, is that a bass turd? ]

Where else would a bass poop?

Artful Dodger: [ Don't stay up too late lemon. I need my sleep! ]

You'll be fine tomorrow, don't sweat it... I'll drink lots of coffee tomorrow morning.

Artful Dodger: lol Yeah, erosion will do that.

Stay gassy, my friend...

Iamon lyme: Oh, that one... you put that one up there. If you're a paying member can you delete your own post?

Artful Dodger: My dad is waiting until he turns 90 before having another birthday party. He's almost there. After that he wants to wait another decade before having another birthday party. I know the feeling, one birthday party after another after another... all that partying is exhausting, it can poop a guy out real quick. I'm not even close to 70 yet, and I know what he means.

Artful Dodger: [ Iamon lyme: root beer but also have gas. Not sure where that came from but likely the politics board ]

Oh yeah, this is the politics board. I should say something political. Ummm... the debates will start soon, sometime early in October. In other news, another long running debate is still going strong.

And going, and going, and going...

Artful Dodger: I'll put it into my photo album. In the meantime check this out. I'm going to send this one to my dad on his birthday.

Stay gassy, my friend...

Artful Dodger: Gas? Kind of tastes like rotten cherries...

Blaah!! patuie! Ack... blahpoo..

Artful Dodger: Ahhhhhh, okay! That makes sense! I had hot dogs and mashed potatos for dinner, but I couldn't understand where the pizza after taste was coming from.

Something else, tastes like Dr Pibb or Dr Pepper... it tastes like rotten cherries. Did you have a diet cola?

The media savvy president of the Unite... of the Earth to Mars orbital launch pad!

Being impoverished doesn't mean you're poor.

A moment of comedic relief for president Obama.

We want to be fair, so here are two reasons to vote for Obama.

(V): [ You've decided your able to say who is and who isn't a Christian!!! ]

Where do I say that? You are playing with straw man dolls again. Man up, and play with real people for a change.

[ "True Christians are the first to regulate themselves, and to call fakers what they are." Isn't that what I'm doing? ]

No. Do you not know what you are doing? You said:

[ I just see the way they are doing it and understand that a good percentage of the money will never reach any 'causes'.. but will be spent on 'admin' costs. ]

[ It's all they want your money. They are even starting to use Glenn Beck style educating.. just a few pens and a white board though. With lovely scenes of Flames/Jerusalem/the cross all to show they are genuine ]

[ It's based on past events. It's also based on knowledge of certain charities in the past caught paying themselves a high wage. ]

You are saying (or implying) frauds and rip offs are the rule. I'm saying they are the exception. In what universe or parallel dimension is that saying the same thing?

So let's try this again...

[ "True Christians are the first to regulate themselves, and to call fakers what they are."

Isn't that what I'm doing? ]

Nope, sorry... the answer is still no.

Then you respond to something I say that answers your response before you responded...

[ "I'm not above using cliches. They have their purpose, but all the time and for every occasion? Are you kidding me?"

Then why do you and Art keep on using the same tired ones on liberals, etc all the time? ]

Because we are responding according to your own method of debate. Duh!

Is it unethical (or illegal) to do as you do? Is it do unto others better than they do unto you unless it is you who are doing the doing unto?

doo doo ka choo?

(V): I don't know how you manage to misunderstand anything I've said. I thought I was being clear... you know, transparent?

When I said "compared to what" I meant if you compared Christian programing to any secular business or governing agency (assuming no bias, one way or the other) then your complaint is baseless.

I didn't mean compared to other Christian activities. And I believe I've already addressed the issue of fraud. There are fakers out there ready to take advantage of anyone, no matter who they are or what they believe. I don't assume everyone who calls himself "Christian" is who they say they are.

True Christians are the first to regulate themselves, and to call fakers what they are. You seem intent on ignoring this and repeat the same tired old cliches about Christians that I've heard most of my life. I'm not above using cliches. They have their purpose, but all the time and for every occasion? Are you kidding me?



A girl who went to my high school was always getting angry with me for using cliches. I told her if I had a nickle for everytime someone scolded me for using a cliche, I'd have a pocket jam packed full of nickles. That just made her more angry, so I told her if you say "That's a cliche" enough times it becomes a cliche. This is probably why I didn't go on many dates in high school... I never could stop myself from saying what I thought. I suffered from an inability to lie to girls...


heh heh heh heh heh heh... I still have that problem.

(V): [ I just see the way they are doing it and understand that a good percentage of the money will never reach any 'causes'.. but will be spent on 'admin' costs. ]


Compared to what? Governments? Unions? Other sorts of television programs?

I don't see it that way at all, what I see is extraordinary accountability... holding themselves and other TV ministries accountable for what is said and for how they spend the money. There have been a few fakers from time to time, but they've never lasted very long. Scrutiny from other ministries and from most people in general have either kept the fakers out or prevented them from lasting very long.

By the way, any admin costs related to television are going to seem unusually high, because the cost of broadcasting is extremely expensive. I don't feel at all pressured when watching those programs because they are being broadcast over the airwaves. I don't pay one thin dime for watching and listening... and neither does the taxpayer.

Can government subsidized public television make that claim? Viewer contributions don't pay for all of it, and none of the programing is "Christian friendly", if you know what I mean. Anytime Christianity is mentioned it's been portrayed in the worst possible light... even in programs that claim to take a fair and balanced approach to religion, they do a great job of misrepresenting what Christians do and believe.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. I think your mind has already been made up, because you imply unusually high admin costs and claim the lions share of the money doesn't go to help anyone. That claim is completely baseless, and represents nothing other than what you want to believe.

Iamon lyme: [ This takes me back to over 40 years ago.. ]

Shoot, I did it again! Not over 40 years ago, more like between 35 and 40 years ago...

Hey, I'm younger than I think I thought I was! Uh, I mean younger than I thought I was thinking I was, am... something like that.

(V): "Salesmen" and "contracts" is what I called it, because of how they were going about it. I did a quick look through the paper, and although it did appear to be written as a crude "legal" document, I seriously doubt it was legally binding. My dad was an attorney, and so the free advice I got growing has been invaluable to me when dealing with any sort of "salesman". I learned a lot about sales resistence regarding anything someone tries to sell me, including the ideas bandied about in a debate or in other kind of discussion.

I understand the 'feeling' of being presurred into sending money to Christian TV evangelists. I used to get the same feeling... but let's face it, it's just a feeling. If you feel compleled to send money just because someone asks for it, then you probably should not watch Christian television. I don't watch Christian television to get religion, and I don't feel compeled to send money, I just watch and listen to learn more about what Christianity is all about.

I've often heard TV ministers say if you can't afford to pay for some book or other thing, they could send you one for free. And I've also heard them say tithing is something you should give to your church and not to them. I don't know about you, and this may just be a feeling as well, but for some reason I don't see this as evidence of someone wanting to take me to the cleaners.

mckinley: I'm now starting to understand what (V) means when he says he wants nothing to do with organized religion. I believe what he is refering to is what are called the gnostic gospels.

This takes me back to over 40 years ago, when I lived in a town that went nuts over any new age fad... I'm not kidding, incense and crystals, drugs for "expanding the mind", but in reality served more to "expend the mind". I saw first hand what happened to some of those folks, and it wasn't pretty. I could go on and on about some of the cults there. The moonies were on a roll, signing up people left and right. My wife and I went to one of their meetings, and it didn't take long for us to figure out what was really going on. Shortly after the meeting started the moonies started pressuring people into signing contracts. They had pictures on the wall of Jesus and Buda and other pictures representing other religions... we left when their salesmen started passing out the contracts.

Anyway, I think what (V) is talking about are gospels that either have little or no validity, or are invented imitations based on how the four gospels you already know about appear to be written. There is even a gospel of judas... that was my first clue that something wasn't right. The Gospel of Judas has been called an "authentic fabrication", because it has some of the earmarks of a regular gospel.

MissDelish: [ ah so :) thanks, under-con-stumble now. ]

ah, you will come...

( I jest now fingered out what ewe wer dooing )