You’re right. Thanks for the correction. I was thinking of the introduction to “We Are The Folk Song Army” (and the song itself, for that matter), but I enjoy the song “Smut” more, so I typed that. Total brain fart on my part. 
milum hasn’t been back to accept wagers on his prediction? I wonder if he believes what he posted and is willing to back it up, or if he’s just posting this stuff “for effect.”
SimonX:
Whatsamatter,** SimonX**, can’t a girl have an outing? Here’s the deal…
Since the beliefs and non-beliefs of the strident atheists of this board are little more that whims, I won’t chance to offend anyone here by participating in a political wager that could be misconstrued by them as gambling.
Instead I will simply promise to send to any paid up member of this message board a bottle of 100% Dixie Dew corn whiskey ($9.99 at the state store) if Kerry happens to win by fluke in November, if in return they promise to send me a bottle of ten dollar wine when Bush wins and favors this blessed nation with a grand total of twelve wonderful years of leadership under a Bush.
Fair enough?
What happened to the points?
a.) Now how the hell did atheism get dragged in to this?
b.) And since when has being an atheist been correlated to opposition to gambling?
They floated away.
ME Bruckner:
I’m sorry,** ME Bruckner**, you see, SimonX’s implication that I had turned tail and run out on my beliefs about the coming November rout of Kerry by Bush, left me with a dilemma; I needed to respond forcefully to his slight dig but at the same time I didn’t want to bore the good people who follow these discusssions on Great Debate by posting a tete-a’-tete between SimonX and me. So…
a.) I drug “atheism” into my reply to give my post substance.
b.) Who knows what atheists believe? By not believing any set creed they are free to believe anything they want to believe, and as such their beliefs are all over the moral and ethical spectrum. Some of them, I am sure, don’t believe in gambling.
But I digress.
SimonX:
Actually SimonX, I got a little carried away with my points.
At first I figured that Bush would beat Kerry by seventeen points like Reagan beat Mondale back in 1984, which I rounded off to a twenty points spread in my first posting. In moments of exuberance, I later raised my prediction to twenty points, and then still later, to twenty-five. I got carried away.
But really ** SimonX**, a bet between two gentlemen should not be sullied by petty greed or gambling spread points. Agreed?
Believe me, you need a lot more than this to achieve “substance”.
Suggesting that those to the left of you on the political spectrum are atheists is pretty loopy, even for Milum.
If you don’t want to make a bet with points then just say you don’t want to make a bet with points. No need to obfuscate the issue with talk about gentlemen.
[QUOTE=Milum0But really ** SimonX**, a bet between two gentlemen should not be sullied by petty greed or gambling spread points. Agreed?[/QUOTE]
Ah, yes, weaseling already. Gentlemen don’t weasel. They don’t whine either.
What, never? Well, hardly ever.
From facts not quite empirical, immune to wit satirical
He is the very model of a Tighty Righty gentleman…
Ah, you digress. Who would have thought it?
-
The cause for which the Confederate States of America seceded was undoubtedly slavery, along with white supremacy. The words of the Confederate Founding Fathers make that abundantly clear; Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens called slavery the “cornerstone” of the new government; the Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union proclaimed that “[o]ur position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world”, and the Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union declared that all “white men” are entitled to equal rights, and that “the African race” was “rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race”.
-
The United States of America was not founded as a “Christian nation”. The Constitution prohibits any religious test for holding office under the United States; thus, Christians have no monopoly on government in this country. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion; thus, neither Christianity nor any other religion can be given the imprimatur of the state. Furthermore, the First Amendment’s guarantee of the unrestricted free exercise of religion flatly contradicts numerous Biblical injunctions against allowing the worship of “false gods”. The Fourteenth Amendment proclaims equal citizenship and equal rights for all Americans, without any reference to their religious beliefs. To top it all off, in 1797 the United States Senate unanimously ratified a treaty which stated in part that “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion”.
-
And speaking of the Bible, it’s absurd on the face of it to claim that the Bible is inerrant, as if flatly contradicts itself in numerous places. For example, the authors of the Gospels can’t even keep straight who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary mother of Jesus and (according to the Bible) “stepfather” of Jesus: Was it Jacob or Heli?
-
The fact that the U.S. Flag Code calls for American flags to be burned under some circumstances indicates that, contrary to the claims of some that laws criminalizing flag “desecration” are seeking to ban an “act” and not “speech”, it is in fact precisely the message conveyed by setting fire to the piece of cloth that is being banned, and not the physical act of setting fire to the piece of cloth. Additionally, a secular republic has no business making laws against the “desecration” of anything–questions of “sacredness” are not controlled by the government in a free society (see paragraph 2.) I would also think that Christians would find imputing “sacredness” to the national emblem of a secular republic to smack of idolatry or blasphemy, but I am not a Christian. The Supreme Court was entirely correct in striking down such laws as an encroachment on freedom of speech, and, however offensive the message being conveyed by flag burning may be, we ought not to amend the Constitution and abridge the very freedoms the flag represents, but should instead let flag burners stand “as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it”.
There. That enough substance for ya?
Oh, and it’s “MEBuckner”. Only one “R”. Heck, you could just copy and paste it if it gives you that much trouble.
-Actually, you ought to read the last two or three weekly commentaries over at James Randi’s www.randi.org. He’s noted precisely that at least twice- It seems while the US Constitution “prohibits” a “religious test”, at least two State Constitutions currently state something like “as long as the person admits to a higher power or entity”, or some such.
In other words, anyone’s welcome to become a senator, governor or legislator, as long as they believe in (a) God.
It’s quite interesting.
Those would surely not withstand a court challenge; the main obstacle to getting them overturned is the issue of “standing”. (“Well, come back to us when you actually get elected governor, and we’ll take a look at your case.”) You should Google “Herb Silverman” and “notary public” some time.
My Higher Power can kick your Higher Power’s Ass.
MEBuckner declared…
Oh but it wasn’t me, MEBuckner, who posted your name “MEBruckner”. It was my subconscious. I’m sorry he put an extra "R’ in your email name, he did it once before when he addressed you as “MR Buckner” and when you didn’t complain then, I forgot it. Now I understand. Like the new movements in the symphonies of the Austrian conductor Anton Bruckner, your thoughts are well written and spring forth suddenly from deep interludes of silence; varied themes which explode dramatically into this tranquil world of polytalk without any preamble or pretense, but with an air of self importance that demands the attention of all who listen. Look what you have done…
From a tranquil discussion of 'Why Bush will landslide the coming election "you jumped incongruously to nicely documented but discordant observations, as in…
- That some of the Confederate States thought that the black race was inferior back in 1860.
to - That the United States was not founded as a “Christian Nation”.
to - The Holy Bible is not clear on whom is the real mother of Christ so therefore it is flawed.
to - Because flag burning is a proscribed way of disposing of a worn flag, then the burning of the US flag in protest must be considered an example of free speech.
Wow! Talk about digression!
And hey, MEBuckner, stop throwing soft balls.
I agree with everything you said.
elucidator penned…
Say elucidator, I’ve had my eye on you for a time. You with your clever, but youthful, wit seem ripe for a conversion. Don’t kid me luci, lefties rarely have the balance and love of life to formulate high humor, of which on more than a single occasion, I’ve seen you aproximate.
Yeah luci (may I call you luci?), now is the time to let that which is in you, come out. (John Lee Hooker).
Come summer, you’ll be writing odes to Condi Rice, and in November you will proudly cast your vote (maybe two) for the new Cinncinnatus George W Bush.
Welcome aboard.
Jeez, aren’t you behind the times. 'luci bagged Condi back in, what, was it '83? The Stanford Sandanista Love-In, I think it was. Fairly frigid, or so he says, and the woman simply would not shut up about the Afghan freedom fighters, but there you go.
MINTY! YOU ANGEL! YOU HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR TOO!
Thirty points. Forget what I said, Minty Green will end up voting for Duba Bush too!
I love America.
I’m not sure why, but I’m giving your posts the voice of Cobra Commander from GI Joe. This may or may not be a compliment, depending on your point of view.