101 comments posted · 10 followers · following 0

10 years ago @ Reason Being - Response to criticisms... · 1 reply · 0 points

.... and you contradict yourself again .... I'm sorry - but this is clearly not a place where rational discussion can occur. You are simply too inconsistent. Good luck to you.

10 years ago @ Reason Being - Response to criticisms... · 3 replies · 0 points

To address what you perceive to be inaccuracies ....

In all fairness, I'm not one of your regular readers so any details that may have shed light on this and the OP were anywhere but "on my radar." Perhaps it would've been helpful to at least acknowledge that you have addressed them elsewhere and then link to them.

My critique was based solely on my first impressions and I stand by the impression that you switched gears. You clarify here "This post is .... a brief list of topics I feel the need to be vocal about in light of my disagreement with (largely) Christianity’s very vocal comments on the same topics." This is what I surmised after I finished reading your post, but it was your initial title and statements (and point 1) that led me to believe that you were speaking on rights and not on those topics that feel the need to be vocal about. So really I fail to see how I was inaccurate about this and you've just conceded to my point. Furthermore, in the comment above you said "The entire point of the OP was more or less a list of things that piss me off---and my stating that I have a right to speak on them." Do see how you've contradicted yourself? In the first place you admitted it was about your right to speak out, and it wasn't about what pisses you off, and now the post is about what pisses you off and is not about rights.

I'm all about some civil and logical discourse, but I can't do that when you are being inconsistent and even contradictory.

10 years ago @ Reason Being - Response to criticisms... · 5 replies · 0 points

First let me say that my comments were not a critique of your beliefs, but rather a critique of you ability to convey a logical reason as to why you have a RIGHT to hold those beliefs. Your blog begins by speaking to your rights and why you (nor any other atheist) need keep to themselves. I acknowledged at the outset that your premise is correct - you have the right to be an outspoken atheist. After the first point, which I feel that you totally butchered from the beginning b/c of your statement that the Constitution restricts religion, you switch gears and go into all the reasons why you detest religion (and let's face it, you're really turned off by the Abrahamic religions and less so by religions like Hinduism and Buddhism).

And for the record, I didn't simply "read what I wanted," and to be honest I'm feeling that I could say the same about you and my comments. I don't believe that theists (or Christians specifically) have the authority to use the government to strong arm obedience. I am as conservative in my beliefs as they come (I'm a Calvinist), but I'm also a libertarian which means that I do not support legislation that is theologically based and intended to curtail sin.

My overall point is that your posting is inconsistent. If you wanted to talk about your disagreements with theism, then a better premise would've been "Why I feel the need to speak out" rather than "Why I have a right to speak out." Those are two entirely different statements with different reasons to support. And especially with a blog entitled "Reason Being" you certainly don't want to be putting forth one premise and then supplying reasons which amount to fallacies based on that premise.

13 years ago @ Weekly World News VIP - GIRL HAS 56 STARS TATT... · 0 replies · +1 points

She "fell asleep" during the tattooing .... yeah, right! I don't buy that story for a minute.

13 years ago @ Glenn Beck - The 912 P... - Stand Up & Lead - 3/24 · 0 replies · +1 points

There is already a Constitution Party ...

13 years ago @ Glenn Beck - The 912 P... - America's Wish List · 0 replies · 0 points


13 years ago @ Glenn Beck - The 912 P... - Stand Up & Lead - 3/24 · 0 replies · +1 points

What if the plan was to only buy local .... OR try bartering for a period of some many days, that way we don't hurt ourselves or local markets, but the government doesn't get the money.

13 years ago @ Glenn Beck - The 912 P... - America's Wish List · 0 replies · +2 points

We need to abolish the Executive Order. What many Americans don't realize is that the President can write his own law at the simple stroke of a pen, and even President Bush is abused this privilege. You can verify this in the National Archives of course, but Bush wrote a number of EOs giving himself totalitarian power. Even if Bush was completely pure and innocent in writing this EO, it means the Obama (or any other future corrupt President) can take advantage of it. NOTHING we do will stick if the President has complete and total control to write any law he wants. We MUST abolish the Executive Order!

13 years ago @ Glenn Beck - The 912 P... - 4/9/09 - 4/13/09 · 1 reply · +2 points

EXTRA! EXTRA! DO YOU OPPOSE THE "GIVE" ACT / SERVICE AMERICA ACT? Did you here Senator Jim DeMint's comments on the Senate floor regarding this legislation? I have put together a thank you letter for Sen. DeMint to be forwarded to the rest of Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court. To view this letter click here http://lettertocongress.homestead.com/index.html You may sign it at the bottom if you would like to thank Mr. DeMint (and the other Congressman who voted against it) as well as send a message to Washington that the People are watching and will not be silent. PLEASE COME SIGN THIS LETTER. YOU HAVE UNTIL APRIL 15TH AT NOON, MST.

13 years ago @ Glenn Beck - The 912 P... - Stand Up & Lead - 3/24 · 0 replies · +1 points

Congress cannot make a law prohibiting the free exercise of individuals in their religion. Since prostelyzing is actually Christ's final command to Christians, we are bound by our religious faith to do this. It is part of our religious practice, and therefore the Congress has no right to make a law against it; they just can't make a law requiring it.