How Much Nonsense Do You Believe?

Just a little test here, folks – a challenge, if you will.  It is my contention that most of us believe a series of falsehoods which distort our ability to make rational decisions.  This is far more prevalent on the left than on the right, but all of us are immersed in a sea of lies and thus even when we’re trying to get it right, we can often get it wrong because some facet of our action is motivated by a lie.  So, here’s something to think about – how many times have you heard the phrase, “believe in yourself”?  Ten thousand times?  A million?  I’ll bet that 100% of us have heard it and that 99% of us believe it.  If you just believe in yourself, you can get on.  Just this past Saturday morning I was watching the TV for a few minutes and there was Donald Trump saying “I believe in myself”.  But, is there anything to it?  A quote:

Thoroughly worldly people never understand even the world; they rely altogether on a few cynical maxims which are not true. Once I remember walking with a prosperous publisher, who made a remark which I had often heard before; it is, indeed, almost a motto of the modern world.  Yet I had heard it once too often, and I saw suddenly that there was nothing in it.  The publisher said of somebody, “That man will get on; he believes in himself.” And I remember that as I lifted my head to listen, my eye caught an omnibus on which was written “Hanwell.”(the name of a lunatic asylum – ed.)  I said to him, “Shall I tell you where the men are who believe most in themselves?  For I can tell you.  I know of men who believe in themselves more colossally than Napoleon or Caesar.  I know where flames the fixed star of certainty and success.  I can guide you to the thrones of the Super-men. The men who really believe in themselves are all in lunatic asylums.”  He said mildly that there were a good many men after all who believed in themselves and who were not in lunatic asylums. “Yes, there are,” I retorted, “and you of all men ought to know them.  That drunken poet from whom you would not take a dreary tragedy, he believed in himself.  That elderly minister with an epic from whom you were hiding in a back room, he believed in himself.  If you consulted your business experience instead of your ugly individualistic philosophy, you would know that believing in himself is one of the commonest signs of a rotter. Actors who can’t act believe in themselves; and debtors who won’t pay.  It would be much truer to say that a man will certainly fail, because he believes in himself.  Complete self-confidence is not merely a sin; complete self-confidence is a weakness. Believing utterly in one’s self is a hysterical and superstitious belief like believing in Joanna Southcote:  the man who has it has  ‘Hanwell’ written on his face as plain as it is written on that omnibus.”  And to all this my friend the publisher made this very deep and effective reply, “Well, if a man is not to believe in himself, in what is he to believe?”  After a long pause I replied, “I will go home and write a book in answer to that question.” This is the book that I have written in answer to it. – G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, Chapter II, The Maniac

Kind of puts a new perspective on it, doesn’t it?  The phrase “believe in yourself” has been entirely ingrained in your existence (I speak here to the 99% who currently believe in the notion – if you are of the 1% who saw through it all along, then you may skip this).  It is just part of your mental make-up…it is a dogma you not only don’t question, but don’t even see a reason to question.   If you bother to read the rest  of the book, you’ll find the answer to what you should believe in instead of yourself:  God.   If you believe in God then you’ve taken that first step to wisdom (and if you maintain a genuine belief in God while you believed that you should “believe in yourself” then you avoided the worst errors attendant upon believing in yourself).  To believe in yourself is a form of idolatry – it is part of the first lie of hell (“you shall be as gods”).  And it leads to all sorts of errors – like, just for one in ten thousand examples, the man who will leave his wife and children so that he can pursue some dream or other…breaking his word and destroying a family because he “believes in himself”.

This is not to say that you can’t go places by believing in yourself.  Lenin and Hitler showed what can be accomplished by people who set themselves up as their own god and follow that god to the bitter end.  But if you want to have wisdom – basic sanity – then your first action is to not believe in yourself.  It is to believe in God – because then you’ll always understand that there is someone greater than yourself.  With that in mind you are far less likely to go as far wrong as those who believe that no one can call them to account.

Now, why bring this up?  Because, as I’ve said, we are awash in a sea of lies – they are everywhere and affect everything we do.  The lie about “believe in yourself” is relatively harmless on the individual level…it merely prevents a person from really seeing what is important but does not, unless married to extreme pride, lead to any difficulties for others.  But it is a lie, and it should be known as a lie – and people should stop believing it.  There is no effort made in the world today which is not hampered at every turn by the lies we believe.  Until we stop believing the lies and seek what is true we simply will not be able to even start fixing what ails us.  My advice to everyone is to think carefully about everything which is said to you – especially by government and corporations (religions, too…but as religions don’t tend to try and sell you an actual product nor having the power to jail you, they are less likely even when false to cause you a problem).  Especially here in 2012, when the ultimate fate of our nation hangs in the balance, we are required to get at the truth and act fearlessly upon it.   As things are said and done, think about them…think about what is said and carry it through to its logical conclusion, no matter how absurd that conclusion may seem.  Don’t fall for anything unless, after careful thought, you believe it rings true.  If we all do that, then none of us can be fooled and we will do the right thing.

About these ads

95 thoughts on “How Much Nonsense Do You Believe?

  1. Retired Spook

    Interesting concept, Mark. I must be one of those 1% because I can’t recall ever approaching anything I’ve accomplished with the pre-conceived attitude that, “I can do this because I believe in myself”. If that were true, I’d be a successful professional golfer. I guess I’ve always been one who has recognized my limitations, even though sometimes I exceed those limitations. But, on those occasions where I’ve exceeded my limitations, it’s usually been because I under-estimated my limitations or a rush of adrenalin allowed me to do something I normally wouldn’t have been able to do.

    It is my contention that most of us believe a series of falsehoods which distort our ability to make rational decisions. This is far more prevalent on the left than on the right, but all of us are immersed in a sea of lies and thus even when we’re trying to get it right, we can often get it wrong because some facet of our action is motivated by a lie.

    Back when I was an unexamined Republican, I’ll have to admit that I actually sought out information that supported my beliefs, such as they were, without regard for whether or not it represented the truth. With the advent of the Internet, I started researching almost everything I saw, heard and read without regard for whether or not it fit my preconceived notion of what was right or wrong, true or false.

    One of the problems we’re faced with today, is that Progressives began seriously re-writing history back in the 20′s and 30′s, in an effort to obscure the truth. Much of the historical lies our resident Lefties post here are based on what someone has written about a person or event. All one has to do is go back and look at the actual writings, speeches, etc. of historic individuals to find the truth, but most people are simply too lazy to do that.

    1. neocon1

      1.God
      2. Family
      3. Country

      I believe in my self to be able to accomplish that which the lord has blessed me to do.
      I always wanted to be a blues guitarist, but having thick muscular hands that wasnt in the game for me, my musical talents (except for an exceptional ear for music) is more like the movie the jerk……
      But I did find I am exceptionally good at the trade I finally ended up gravitating to and have made a good living off of it. even at 66 yo I work every day and enjoy it.
      I contend my talents and blessings come from God, but you under his blessings still can believe in your self to be able to accomplish all he has given you.

      Like we used to say in the Marines……..“I CAN, and I WILL !!

      1. neocon1

        love the mans music…..socialist? just proves even great musicians can be brain dead at politics.

        My two favorites though still remain to be BB King and EC with Bonnie coming in a close 3rd
        but Jimmy was the all time greatest. party’d to alot of his music back in the day.

      2. Amazona

        I always preferred classic blues, from Billie Holliday to Kansas City blues. I just unpacked some things that had been in storage for years, and found a framed signed photo of Jay “Hootie” McShann, a KC piano player who married jazz and blues and was a wonder.

    2. Mark Edward Noonan Post author

      Spot on about the re-write – the Great Depression was caused by inherent flaws of the free market! No; it was caused by the fact that 10 years prior the combination of war and disease had killed about 30 million people in the prime of their lives (literally – the war, of course, ravaging young men…but the global ‘flu pandemic had the curiousity of hitting hardest against men and women in the prime of their lives). Think about it – if those people were even buying just one shirt per year, that is 30 million shirts less which could be sold starting in 1920. And that just points out the consumption end of it – how many Henry Fords died in the trenches? How many Einsteins? A gigantic hole was ripped in to production and consumption while at the same time the stored wealth of a century was literally shot out of a cannon. The Great Depression was inevitible – the only reason it didn’t get going earlier was that central banks around the world fudged the money supply thus giving an appearance of economic health to the world.

      Another example – Joe McCarthy was an evil man who was hunting mythical commies and making wild, unsubstantiated allegations…and the proof of this is that he kept changing the number of card-carrying communists in the State Department! I mean, come on! Why on earth would McCarthy keep changing the number? Does anyone really think that anyone is that stupid? Truth of the matter is that he didn’t change the number – there were just two different lists of suspected communists (both prepared by the government, not McCarthy). But it is ingrained in us, now – even people on the right accuse people of “McCarthyism”. Never mind that McCarthy was right – there really were card-carrying communists in the State Department (and, further, the Truman Administration was desperately trying to cover this fact up, with the connivance of Congressional Democrats)…

      The main thing is to think it through – whatever is presented, think it through; take it to its logical conclusion and see if it makes sense. If it does, then its probably true…if it starts to sound stupid about half way down the road, then it is almost certainly nonsense.

      1. Amazona

        Mark you touch upon something that is serious problem in our country and may be irreversible. That is, the acceptance of myth as fact. Your excellent example is that of Joe McCarthy.

        McCarthy rightfully and truthfully called attention to the fact that people who belonged to a political system that had openly declared its intention to destroy our country were working at the highest levels of our country’s government. This was serious. Most people today don’t know, or have forgotten, that the United States and the Soviet Union were, at that time, on the precipice of war, which would have been nuclear. Having Communists with access to state secrets, military strategy, etc. was a serious threat to our national security, McCarthy knew this, and he talked about it.

        Every claim that McCarthy made was proved to be true. Every name he named was proved to be an actual Communist. We watch football on TV and understand why the coaches keep their mouths covered when they talk to the quarterback. We understand that it would be a disadvantage to have the other team know what the first team is planning. But we are strangely complacent about having spies for an enemy deep within our own government, and we allow the Left to define our terms for us so now even people on the Right accept the claim that McCarthy was somehow wrong, evil, malignant, or the worst thing in all of the universe, ‘UNFAIR”

        The term “McCarthyism”, which should mean “vigilance in the protection of our nation” is so imbedded in the national consciousness that now people of both political pursuasions use it as a pejorative.

        We accept bogus terms like “abortion RIGHTS” and even use this term when talking about the evils of abortion, which is foolish because there is no “right” to have an abortion, only the legal ability to do so, which was granted based on the assumption of an invented right, which cast a penumbra (or halo) from which emanated the feeling that abortion must not be prohibited. But when the word “right” is used, it implies a serious, must-be-honored, human right equal to that of life and liberty, though it is denial of both.

        The Great Depression was part of an economic cycle, exacerbated by the conditions you reference, but it was caused by the reaction to this cycle, not by the downturn in the economic picture of the country. We had a much worse downturn in 1920, but without the meddling of Leftist economic theory it self-corrected and now no one even knows about it. Yet what do we “know” about the Depression? That it was finally “fixed” by the economic policies that in fact created it.

      2. Mark Edward Noonan Post author

        Amazona,

        Some day there will be justice for McCarthy and a truly patriotic Senate will revoke his censure and we’ll erect a statue of him on the Mall. Part of the problem we had, of course, is that McCarthy really wasn’t at all what he was made out to be – he is accused, of course, of hounding people out of public life, but the fact is that most of those he accused just went back to writing books, working in media, making movies (and oh, so many movies about the evils of the McCarthy Era!). If McCarthy had been an evil thug (like, say, Stalin) then it is McCarthy’s critics who would have been silenced. But, of course, he was a decent, patriotic American who wanted no more than to ensure our nation’s secrets against our nation’s avowed enemies.

        The damage is reparable – remember, what they have foisted upon the American people is nonsense, and people will believe that only as long as the nonsense is endlessly repeated. If we can win big enough and go about defunding the left (the dirty, little secret of the left is that it is largely taxpayer funded) then the nonsense will just stop…and rational, truthful argument will blossom on the grave of liberalism.

      3. Mark Edward Noonan Post author

        Spook,

        He, and those like him, got lucky in the fact that radio, movies and television came along at the right time…without the relentless propaganda noise and pictures, his sort of manipulation would not have been nearly as successful. But, the invention of the internet makes a redress of the balance possible…while propaganda is relentless on the ‘net, it is also possible to counter it with a swiftness and force never before seen. Which is why, of course, large corporations and government want to gain control over it by hook or crook.

      4. Amazona

        One of my favorite whines about McCarthy was his alleged pursuit of Communists in Hollywood, the dreaded “blacklisting” (racist?) by the House Committee on Unamerican Activities, supported by film clips of parts of the hearings.

        McCarthy was a Senator and played no part in what the House of Representatives did.

  2. Amazona

    I think faith in yourself is crucial if you are going to succeed, but it can’t override faith in God. I’ve done some things I wasn’t supposed to be able to do, because I was confident that I was right.

    When I wanted a good horse hauling rig I designed a large camper to build on the chassis of a 2 1/2 ton truck, a GMC Top Kick, and I was told it was the stupidest idea ever could not be done. I found two young guys who had worked in an RV factory and they built it for me. I am not saying it inspired people because I don’t know how many people saw my truck and said “I want one of those” but I see them all the time now, usually pulling race car trailers. That was faith in my vision.

    Obviously faith in myself would not make me an Olympic skier or overcome my real limitations, but it is essential to any entrepeneur.

    I have three brothers. One has vision and determination and discipline, one has vision and some determination but less discipline, and one has good ideas but not what I would call “vision” until he has seen how someone else’s vision is laid out, and then he can grasp it and build on it. It’s an interesting dynamic as they are in business together, and prove that without discipline and determination faith is probably more like wishful thinking.

    I also think that passively placing trust in God and waiting for something to happen is foolish. If your vision of God and our place in His world is that he has given us certain gifts of aptitude but it is our responsibility to develop and use them, faith in yourself and willingness to take responsibility for what you do are essential parts of the relationship.

    Yes, Spook, I have experienced the same inclination to dismiss what does not support my chosen narrative. I think it is human nature. But, like you, I have forced myself to look beyond the agenda and look for the truth. Sometimes I don’t like it, but it is important to know it.

    What that has done, though, is force me to go even deeper, and not just settle for the superficial—-for example, if someone I like said or did something I don’t like or agree with, I have to examine the context, the history, and analyze why this was said or done. Sometimes it leads me to reevaluate the person, sometimes it supports my original inclination as I learn the background for the event, but it always provides a context.

    Speaking of which, I just heard Hugh Hewitt interview people who were part of the drama surrounding the attemped assasination of Regan in 1980. He made an interesting comment—that a high school history course should begin with an in-depth study of this book, as it shows how “history” is such a distillation of fact that it can lose its meaning, but reading the minute-to-minute accounts of what happened that day, who did what and why, the thought processes that led to what reactions, brings a historical event to life and would show that every historical event has an equally complex and compelling reality as it occurred. The book is “Rawhide Down” and I may even venture out into the blustery April will-it-snow-or-rain weather outside to buy it today.

    1. neocon1

      he blustery April will-it-snow-or-rain weather outside to buy it today.

      UGH

      78 sunny bit of a breeze here……might take the iron horse out for a ride with the princess.

      1. Amazona

        I’m putting a new top on Ruby, the ’78 450, and looking forward to more predictable weather here. I’ve seen lots of people with the tops down the last week or so, which got me eager to do the same, and though I miss the high 70′s and sunshine the rancher in me is hoping for rain or a nice sloppy wet snow. Ruby will wait. She doesn’t like bad weather anyway. For a car designed to be the best touring car of its time, the 450 is notoriously picky about traction—show her a shiny road and she might just go into a ditch.

        BTW, wouldn’t it be nice if mitch were to focus on ideas instead of the vague category of “attitudes”? That T Bird is a good # 2 car because of they way it’s built, not the way it looks, a good philosophy to apply to political discussion as well.

  3. mitchethekid

    Bonnie? As in Raitt? I live in KC and we have a huge Blues fan base. In fact one of the best live venues (according to Blues Magazine) is located here. It’s called Knuckleheads. And Neo you will appreciate this. During the day they are a Harley repair shop. At night they have national acts. I’ve seen James Harmon, James McMurtry (he’s phenomenal. I’ll bet you’d like him as well) Leon Russel just to name a few. There is also a radio program that’s been on the air for 26 yrs every Sunday night for 2 hrs that’s hosted by a guy named Lindsay Shannon. I’ve learned more about the blues from him than I ever could on my own. And as a bonus he owns a roadhouse called Lindsay’s Lawnside BBQ. Google it for a quick tour.
    Even though I despise your attitudes it’s nice to know that we have something in common. Music is a great leveler. I also have a ’66 TBird. Blues and the bird! Maybe you’d like to see it some time. I have pictures. It’s completely restored and everything works. As they say a very strong #2 car…

    1. neocon1

      yes as in Raitt

      that club sounds cool we just had a blues festival in St Pete unfortunately we had other commitments and could not attend this year.

      had to go to Sanford and patrol with the other white racists (sarcasm) :)

  4. mitchethekid

    To quote someone “There you go again” Ama. The ’66 was the most refined of what’s called The Flairbird era. They were notoriously undependable, overheated and went through front end parts like a crack addict. They didn’t handle worth a damn and weighed over 2 tons. The 390′s had a habit of developing cracked blocks but the way the car looked is everything. Not as you so demurely put down. Obviously you know nothing about how classic cars are categorized. A #1 is a car that’s been restored from the ground up; usually a frame-off restoration that is rarely driven and is for show purposes only. A #2 is a driver. A car that has some flaws and is not 100% factory original. Since there have been technological developments in the past 46 yrs my TBird will never qualify as a #1 for I have replaced the points/condenser with a Pertronics ignition and have replaced the sequential turn signal motor and cam with an electronic unit. Just as an example.
    You seem to lack the capacity to ever miss an opportunity to degrade someone.
    I found it interesting that Neo is a blues guy. That’s why I commented. I don’t think that the idea of god has anything to do with my “success” or failure as a human being nor do I choose to get involved in an academic discussion about self-actualization or defining my political perspectives. You key on every word and make disparaging, snide comments because words one uses are defined before hand. Even on a Sunday you are miserable.
    Maybe you should listen to some music. It might change your “attitudes”.

    1. Amazona

      Thank you for the education on the meaning of # 2 car. It just happens to be how we have referred to backup transportation in my family. Right now my # 2 car, according to our traditional use of the word, is sitting in my driveway waiting for a tow. At 178,000 miles, give or take a few, she lost a transmission seal—fortunately after a 200-mile trip pulling a trailer, right in front of my front door as I got her home.

      Now I know that my 450 is a #2 car, as she has only 28,000 miles but an unfortunate (and undisclosed) repaint job that keeps her from being completely original. As I am not a car snob, I really don’t mind, other than having to have the poor repaint job repainted. However, in my family lexicon she will be my # 4 car, after the pickup, the repaired Excursion, and my sedan.

      I am quite sorry that a comment about despising attributed attitudes rather than discussing more substantial ideas hit you with such emotional violence that you had to respond so strongly. The thing is, several of us feel that on a political blog the most important things ARE ideas, and that attitudes can be superficial. It’s odd that you took a reference to this as an effort to demean you, or any of the rest of your litany of complaints about what I said.

      Let’s look at what I said, OK? BTW, wouldn’t it be nice if mitch were to focus on ideas instead of the vague category of “attitudes”?

      What about this is demeaning, degrading, snide, etc? I wrote it as a rather wistful wish that more of the posts here would refer to ideas instead of perceived attitudes—that is why I put “attitudes” in quotes as the word seems to mean how someone reacts to something rather than to what was actually said. (For an example, look at your post, above.)

      The rest— That T Bird is a good # 2 car because of they way it’s built, not the way it looks, a good philosophy to apply to political discussion as well. —is just my misunderstanding of a technical car-guy term, a comment on my ignorance of classic T-Birds, and a general comment that political discussion seems to work better when people talk about how things actually work instead of how things look.

      I do like words defined beforehand. It makes it easier to communicate if “hat” can be counted on to refer to a head covering and not a style of stained glass window. I am not used to people who react with such emotional violence to an effort to clarify language to make sure everyone is actually talking about the same thing. You certainly lost no time in setting ME straight, in no uncertain terms, about the definition of
      #2 car”.

      Guess I missed the part about looking forward to driving my new-to-me classic car as proof of being “miserable”. Looks like another example of the importance of defining terms.

      You have a really really special Sunday, OK?

  5. bardolf

    Polonius:
    “This above all: to thine own self be true,
    And it must follow, as the night the day,
    Thou canst not then be false to any man.”

    Hamlet scene 3

    Of course Polonius is accustomed to platitudes and is spying on Hamlet so it should give pause to consider what if the self that one is being true to is a greedy, manipulative, Don Trump kind of guy.

    Consideration of the doctrine of original sin and that you aren’t too different from the guy you think is an animal should be enough to dispose of the “believe in yourself” stuff. It has pervaded the US mentality in a deep way, reinforced by new age theology and seen in every commercial on TV.

    I see the rise of the corporate individual as part of the problem. That is the idea that people think of themselves as a corporation unto themselves with the same shallow ethics implied where responsibility is diffused. This is of course more true of big government, but people don’t enliken themselves to a singular form of big government. If corporations are people and the first legal obligation of a corporation is to watch out for itself and make a profit what can be deduced? Lots

    How about the break up of the middle class family? One can lay the blame of the break up of poor black families at the stoop of the house built by LBJ but what about the divorce rate among Southern Baptists e.g? Albert Mohler writes “Evangelical Christians are gravely concerned about the family, and this is good and necessary. But our credibility on the issue of marriage is significantly discounted by our acceptance of divorce. To our shame, the culture war is not the only place that an honest confrontation with the divorce culture is missing.”

    The breakdown of the middle class family is the brought upon by the nonsensical idea that everyone should maximize their own utility. Their own ‘happiness’ whatever that can possibly mean. That we are homo economicus.

    That your material property is of so much importance that defending your stuff to the death is reasonable. That we can have neighborhood watches without knowing our neighbors and maybe even make strict covenants to make sure they keep their yards as we like them. The point of a covenant is because your house is an investment first and a home second and you don’t want your investment to go down in value if the riff-raff move in. Ideally neighborhoods would be completely homogeneous in today’s theory so we could tell easily who belonged or not.

    How about education? Well if all that matters is how my kid does, I care about the schools in so far as they accomplish things for my kid. No pressure from the parents of the bright students since the schools provide gifted programs and AP classes with fellow students that look the same. No pressure from the parents of poor performing students. The schools are daycare centers after all. Among the middle performers you get people who hope public universities will undo the mess of the public schools. Of course the psychology major at public university does no such thing and you have created a future counselor.

    1. Amazona

      A corporation is a legal entity. It is not a person and there is no legal opinion that it is. When a corporation is publicly held it has a moral and legal obligation to its shareholders. What can be reasonably and rationally deduced is that it has a legal and moral obligation to those who have invested in it.

      I have never heard of individuals thinking of themselves in such detached terms as being mere legal entities, and think the stretch to claim they do is merely an effort to state an opinion, as if fact, that corporations have “shallow ethics”.

      This is somewhat analogous to saying a car is reckless because its driver has run into a pedestrian.

      Covenants in housing developments are mutually agreed-upon restrictions upon things the homeowners have decided might have a negative impact on their property values. Buying into a covenant-protected property is a voluntary act by which a buyer makes the decision to trade some freedoms for protection from loss. Those who do not wish to do so are quite free to buy elsewhere, to make other decisions. People who want nice yards do not feel that a requirement to do yard maintenance is a restriction of freedom, just as people who do not steal do not fret over laws against theft.

      Ideally neighborhoods would be completely homogeneous in today’s theory so we could tell easily who belonged or not. is just another dolfism, in which he tries to pretend that people think what he claims they think, which is of course morally and intellectually inferior to his own beliefs. The only way dolf can keep up his pretense of moral and intellectual superiority is to invent fantasy thoughts and beliefs of others, so he can point out how foolish, stupid or petty they are.

      I believe our laws allow each individual to decide how far he is willing to go to protect whatever he is wanting to protect. It’s part of that individual rights thing. As far as going so far as to inflict death or serious harm on one who is trying to take what is not his, the lack of accurate crystal balls and other divining instruments, to allow the victim to know precisely how far the criminal is willing to go, means that the defender often has to assume the worst and act accordingly. When and if a system is devised to accurately project upon a victim’s mind the end intent of his attacker or robber, he can then make a better decision: “He only wants the TV so I won’t shoot him” vs “He’s the same home invader who raped and shot those people last week so I’m not going to take any chances”.

      The thing about being an attacker, or a robber, is that there is no way to know how the attack or robbery is going to be perceived, how much of a threat it might seem to be, and how it will be treated. It’s one of those personal decision things again. It’s a decision to do what the criminal wants to do and take the chances associated with that act.

      It’s quite interesting to see a mindset that arbitrarily assumes that Person A is willing to take the life of Person B merely to protect “material property”.

      We might consider one symptom of the breakdown in education the failure to teach that the number of the noun must match the number of the pronoun. Singular noun—singular pronoun. Failure to do so seems to create future teachers.

      People who volunteer for Neighborhood Watch do tend to know their neighbors. People with a sense of civic responsibility also report suspicious behavior in neighborhoods not their own.

      I am curious about the AP and gifted classes that require uniformity of appearance in their students. Perhaps Professor Dolf can explain—do these students look alike because only students who look alike are admitted, does participating lead to erosion of physical differences so they end up looking alike, or is this just another fantasy dictated by voices no one else can hear?

  6. GMB

    It all depends on what you define as nonsense. Who here could without any help assemble a working locomotive from scratch. It all goes to the definition of nonsense. Most of us would call nonsense on any claim by any poster here that could assemble said locomotive.

    Well get ready to call nonsense because I have assembled a working locomotive. It did not work very long or very good but it did work.

    Did I mention it was in HO scale? No? Sorry.

    Perception on what is nonsense and what is not varies from person to person. What you percieve as real may not percieved by the next individual as being possible.

    I never believed for a minute that I could get that little locomtive to work. I knew nothing about miniture motors or anything about electricity. A bit of work and a lot of frustration later and I had a working self built ho scale engine. Not much of an accomplishment I admit but it was something.

    If you let your perception tell you something is nonsense then I think we would never have advanced out of the caveman days. A little bit of nonsense is a good thing.

  7. Jeremiah

    “believe in yourself”

    This is an idea that is regularly advocated by Joel Olsteen. He believes that as long as we are “good” and “believe in ourself” that everything will be just peachy … irregardless of the fact that upon the confession of Christ as Savior we must work daily to stay true to that confession of being and sinner and now proclaiming that we want to follow Christ in every step from day to day. And if we do sin, we have an advocate with the Father which is Jesus Christ, in whom we bring our petitions through prayer to in order to receive forgiveness from sin.

    When listening to Joel Olsteen, you never hear anything about sin, or being unworthy of God’s favor. This is why he has such large crowds at his mega-church … his message pleases the ears … and if you go to one of these individuals that attends Mr. Olsteens congregation, and try to talk to them about sin or hell, or any of the grievous sins that are reprehensible to the Lord God … they don’t want to hear it. If Mr. Olsteen preached the Cross, to his lost and dying congregation, he would not have near the members attending … this is why many of the smaller non-denominational and baptist churches in America are only half to one-third full when Sunday services come. This conviction that comes down on the ears of such individuals, this message, this Truth, that says “if you’re in the sinning business, you’re out of the will of God” is what the devil uses to keep people away. Satan captializes on this message to convince people to, “Hey I don’t want to hear that, my sins have been covered, and I can do no wrong.”

    This is not to say that everybody does bad things, but one can be a good person, per se, and yet are not washed in the blood. And this is what God looks for in every individual, a penitent heart, that is open to the receiving of Christ’s free gift that is Salvation to all of mankind.

    So, yes, “believe in yourself” is a [worldly] message that is designed to keep you out of the will of God, allowing the devil free reign to continue deceiving precious souls into denying Christ.

  8. dennis

    GMB, back in 1973 I lived in SoCal and worked briefly for a company that cleaned rich people’s homes. One time I had the experience of working in the home of a Disney artist who also was a machinist. He had built a working scale model railway all over his grounds, with a steam locomotive strong enough to pull a train of cars carrying adults. The track as I recall was about a foot or so wide – it crossed his driveway with a RR crossing and everything. It was pretty impressive to me, in my early 20s. He had a big machine shop in his basement where he built an amazing variety of mechanical stuff.

    As for nonsense, there are lots of kinds. Aspects of quantum mechanics (such as quantum entanglement) appeared as nonsense to Einstein, and still do to many people today except for the evidence that they are real. Most pernicious kinds of nonsense, however, are the kinds that flow from an absolutist mindset. Add to that self-exaltation, and its flip side, contempt for others different from ourselves. Believing magnetism can cure your arthritis might be nonsense, but it hurts nobody (although it could prevent one from seeking more effective relief).

    On the other hand belief in the infallibility of one’s own world view or opinion is a pernicious kind of absolutist nonsense. It’s like a person looking at a scene from a single vantage point and seeing everything in two dimensions. To temper such absolutism with the realization that no human philosophy is perfect, that synthesis between points of view is possible, is like taking a step sideways to view from another vantage point, and suddenly we can see the scene in three dimensions.

    Such an approach, philosophically speaking, leads to more effective solutions of real world problems, especially in a world as complex as ours. We need many vantage points to best perceive the whole of our reality. Trying to address complex reality through some rigid political ideology, a fixed point of view, would be nonsensical in my view.

    1. Amazona

      Quite a volume of words to say nothing really but “It’s good to see things as they really are, unless of course you are like me and choose not to”.

  9. tiredoflibbs

    At one time, “I believe in myself” was an appropriate thought for self-motivation and self-confidence. This WAS a theme in American culture, part of the American dream to live your life and be very successful in this vast land of opportunity. If you believed in yourself and were self-motivated to accomplish almost anything then you realized the “American Dream” and were successful.

    However, self-motivation and the “American dream” is not the theme any longer. Now it’s more like “I deserve (fill in the blank)” or “I have a right to (fill in the blank)”.

    For example, working hard with confidence and self-motivation to eventually buy a home and a piece of land – that was part of the American Dream. The DEMOCRATS have taken that and declared purchasing a home as a “right”.

    Ideas like these have been distorted as a “right” for reasons no one can define other than a declaration by a proggy politician. We have seen the “right to own a home” and the policies put in place by proggy Democrats have trashed the housing and mortgage markets – just one example of many

    What will the policies for “the right to health care” trash next? Of course, everyone already has a “right to health care”, it is just not on their list of priorities, since the Democrats have deemed it a “right”. These individuals would rather spend their hard earned money on cell phones, ipods, ipads, large flat screens than cover their health needs first.

    Now, instead of “i believe in myself” it is “I have a right to (fill in the blank)” and someone else should provide for that.

    Pathetic.

    1. neocon1

      spook

      the dirty little seret is that McCarthy had young assistant who was a “RABID” anit communist and was the pit bull behind McCarthy in ferroting out communists.

      his name? Robert F. Kennedy

  10. Retired Spook

    Since the “Green Movement” is largely nonsense, this couldn’t come at a more opportune time.

    The Chinese government dealt the public relations strategy of green technology advocates in the Obama administration a blow last month when Premier Wen Jiabao announced that the state-run economy would stop expanding its wind and solar industries, choosing instead to focus on nuclear, hydroelectric and shale — or fracking — as the energies of the future.

    “It is getting tougher and tougher for the Obama administration to argue that somehow we’re in this big race for green power worldwide when the rest of the world seems to have decided that the race isn’t worth winning,” Daniel Kish, the senior vice president for policy at the Institute for Energy Research, told The Daily Caller.

    President Barack Obama, whose administration has held up solar and wind energy while stunting shale and snubbing hydroelectric, has deployed nationalist lingo, holding the specter of global Chinese green technology dominance as a driving motivation behind the administration’s expensive and embattled green energy subsidy programs. In his 2012 State of the Union address, Obama said, “I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here.”

    1. Amazona

      Well, Barry’s not the king so what HE will or will not do is pretty irrelevant, isn’t it?

      Let’s just get back to the people of the nation deciding what they will and will not make, and why.

    2. Cluster

      “I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here.”

      Just another false premise that Obama has thrown out there to foam the base. He does it everyday on nearly every issue. Take the Buffett rule of which he has spent a lot of time on, and of which will do nothing to actually remedy the deficit or debt. But it does give a chance for liberals to have a nice, feel good, sound bite and to demonize the rich.

      Much like barstool trotting out Breviks, who has zero connection to conservatives here in America, but it does give stool a chance to use the words “right wing extremist”. He must love the sound of that phrase.

      1. Amazona

        The “Buffet Law” is crap.

        Right this minute Buffett, like every other investor above a certain income level, pays the highest level of income tax on all earned income.

        Start attacking unearned income, such as dividends and interest, and you will be gutting the economy by stifling investment.

        Which I think is the goal, once more hiding behind a stalking horse of “fairness” and “taxing the rich” and the out-and-out, blatant, bald-faced LIE about people like Romney and Buffet paying less in taxes than the middle class.

  11. bardolf

    The right wing extremist who has confessed to murdering 77 people — many of them teenagers — in a shooting and bombing spree in Norway cried at the start of his trial today, but not for his victims.

    Anders Breivik told the court he acknowledged the mass murder but pleaded not guilty, claiming it was done in self-defense as part of his war against “multiculturalism” in the European nation

    1. GMB

      So thats an indictment of every other right wing person out there? I am not responsible for what Breivik did. I am only responsible for what I do.

      Nice try Bardolf.

    2. Amazona

      dolf, please define “right wing” and “extremist” in the context of Norwegian politics, and then explain how this is any way relevant to the terms as they relate to the 21st Century American Right.

      1. Amazona

        And then tell us why you found it necessary to add the description of “right wing extremist” to the story.

        More to the point, why you posted the story at all, except to give you a chance to link the term “right wing extremist” with mass murder.

        Why was that so important to you?

  12. GMB

    Believe in yourself up to a point. The talents that God gave do not include building a life size locomotive. With Gods help and a few volunteer hands, it would be interesting to try though. If real life did not hand over other responsibilities to deal with.

    To beieve that I can change the world? Well there are hundreds of thousands jurnolism graduates out there working for fast food joints right now. They believed in themself. Now a lot of them are walking around with signs saying “eat the rich”

    Only because they are not rich themself.

  13. Cluster

    How much nonsense do I believe? None if it really, but when you’re dealing with liberals, there sure is a lot of nonsense to wade through. Take this for example:

    Debbie Wasserman Schultz has an annual salary of $174,000, which is the standard rate for members of Congress. As newsbusters.org notes, “her Congressional salary is more than three times greater than the median salary for individuals in her own district (FL-20) which is $54,194.”

    Has never releaed a tax return?? And has a salary three times that of the median for her district?? That sure doesn’t sound very fair to me. I thought liberals were for fairness.

    1. J. R. Babcock

      I thought liberals were for fairness.

      Nah, turns out that they’re just interested in fairness as a wedge issue WRT class warefare — real fairness, not so much.

      1. neocon1

        oops here

        Barney Frank: President Made a ‘Mistake’ Pushing So Hard for Obamacare

        “I think we paid a terrible price for healthcare.”

      2. neocon1

        suicidal…….??

        American Jews Favor Muslims & Mormons Much More Than Conservative Evangelical Christians

        “Jews hold considerably unfavorable feelings toward members of the Christian Right.

      3. J. R. Babcock

        “I think we paid a terrible price for healthcare.”

        And I don’t think they’re anywhere near done paying.

      4. Amazona

        Well, Barn, if by “we” you mean the American people, damn straight.

        The real funny thing about this is, the price was paid and yet there is no change in healthcare. That is, the financial price, the many millions already down the hole without a single thing to show for it.

        But I don’t think Barney is fretting about wasting American taxpayer money.

        I think ol’ Barn is complaining that the Dems paid a terrible price—that is, in tipping their radical Leftist hand too quickly, shoving their agendas down the throats of the people, acting imperious and condescending by scolding us with threats by Mad Daddy and comments like “We’ll have to pass the bill to see what is in it” and in general alienating too many of the American electorate to make them secure in hopes for hanging on to power.

        He doesn’t care what price is paid by the American people, but he is starting to realize that the cost to his party and his agendas is steep, far more than they can afford.

        He could go on to say “I think we paid a terrible price for Obama” and be admitting to a harsh truth there, as well. Barack Obama, his hubris, his overreaching, his clumsy efforts to impose his Marxist will upon the people, the incredible damage he has done to the social fabric of this nation through his class and race warfare gamesmanship,all are part of the cost of the radical Left maneuvering an empty suit into such a position of power so long before the nation could accept it.

        They turned up the heat too far, too fast, and now the frogs are jumping out of the kettle. And the radical Left is paying the terrible price for their miscalculations.

        Which is as it should be. If, like Britain, we are saved from disaster by a pendragon, it is a surprise that it has come in the guise of a radical Leftist intent on “fundamentally transforming” the nation and inadvertently saving it by giving it a vivid picture of a future such as the one he intended to provide.

      5. Amazona

        “Christian Right” and “Religious Right” = just another bogeyman invented by the radical Left to scare the ignorant and gullible. Just another imaginary demographic they can then use as the basis for lies and hate-mongering and scare tactics.

    1. neocon1

      Loooooove at first bite?

      Rep. Barney Frank plans to marry longtime partner before retiring from office

      and we wonder why our nation is in deep SHIITE

    1. Cluster

      The first sentence of dennis’s link:

      Conservative political ideology in Western democracies may
      be identified by several components, including an emphasis
      on personal responsibility, acceptance of hierarchy, and a
      preference for the status quo

      So the premise is completely bullshit, which would in turn lead to an erroneous conclusion – don’t ya think denny?

      I will agree with the personal responsibility, but hierarchy and a preference for status quo? Not even close.

      Maybe if they would start from a valid premise, they might have something worth reading.

      1. Amazona

        I think that even defining personal responsibility as “conservative political ideology” is just more proof of the lack of comprehension of what it really is.

        While personal responsibility is implied in a belief in the Constitutional model of government, given its refusal to allow the federal government to indulge in social engineering and acts of charity, it is not actually a part of the core ideology itself, just as dependence on a massively powerful Central Authority is not a tenet of Leftism but a result.

        Doncha love the way dennis tried, albeit clumsily, to set up a paradigm by which if you do not agree with the article you prove it is true?

        So let me see if I have this right—the people who refuse to even study and understand the underlying political philosophy of the system they blindly support sneer at the opposition, which is based on actual study, comprehension and allegiance to a well-understood system, based on a claim that the latter engage in what is called “low-level thought”?

        When you look at the dreck offered up as Leftist political philosophy, when and if an effort is even made, and you compare it to the thoughtful presentation of the conservative model we see here, and support for it based on historic and verified results, for a Lefty to claim that conservatism is rooted in “low-level” thought is really just an indictment of the supporters of the Left who never even approach that level of intelligent and objective analysis and comprehension.

        Poor sad silly dennis seems to serve mostly as an ongoing example of GIGO.

    2. GMB

      Just a new variation on an old liberal theme. Liberals are just so much smater than you neanderthals. Yada yada yada.

      1. Amazona

        Yes, GMB, as they love to remind us, they are the political movement of “intellectuals”.

        Which, as we know, is a ten-dollar word for people who produce nothing but ideas, with no requirement or even expectation that the ideas be correct.

        An engineer whose bridges fall down is a failure. A Leftist economist whose economic plans lead to economic misery is still an “intellectual”.

      2. GMB

        Die erste Regel der Löcher, ist graben zu stoppen.

        It just sounds so much better in my mother tounge. Harsh. :)

  14. Retired Spook

    With the exception of Dennis and Mitch, our resident Libs seem to have largely disappeared. Media Matters and Center for American Progress must have run out of petty cash.

    1. Cluster

      I think they may see the writing on the wall, of course Frederick and James were about just the other day. But honestly, I don’t think any liberal can be overly optimistic about their chances, considering the 2010 elections, the economy, gas prices, unemployment, and the dubious health care bill.

      And blaming the republicans just isn’t getting any traction anymore with informed voters.

    2. Amazona

      I think that being expected to offer something besides dreck and drivel, and being called on it when they fail, has discouraged them. All they have to offer is bigotry, hatred and warmed-over talking points, which just don’t stand up.

    3. mitch

      Don’t be snide. The reason there are few “libs” who post here is that they were banned years ago and; no offense intended, this isn’t exactly a popular blog. The banning is really nothing more than a cheap denial of any point of view, facts etc that counters with the extreme ideology discussed here. I’m not sure if any of you have noticed, but there is a level of hostility, anger, dismissal and insults directed at anyone who challenges you guys. There is also an infusion of christianism that blurs the line between politics and religion that offers simplistic solutions to complicated problems. Then there is the issue of the demographics. Most of you are highly conservative, closed minded and well over 60. Not exactly representative of a changing culture. I like posting here because I am a masochist and I enjoy engaging you to witness the futile machinations and academic pontification about contemporary politics over which you have insignificant influence.

      1. Retired Spook

        Don’t be snide. The reason there are few “libs” who post here is that they were banned years ago and; no offense intended, this isn’t exactly a popular blog. The banning is really nothing more than a cheap denial of any point of view, facts etc that counters with the extreme ideology discussed here.

        Mitch, you are partially right. I don’t believe anyone has ever been banned because of their POV, and the only poster I can recall who has been banned in the last year or two is Wallace/Bodie/Jeffie/et al. To the best of my knowledge, the main reason people have been banned is because of racial and religious bigotry and nasty/crude/lewd language. Mark can probably address this better than I can.

        I like posting here because I am a masochist and I enjoy engaging you to witness the futile machinations and academic pontification about contemporary politics over which you have insignificant influence.

        That’s just sad that you get your jollies from attacking the views of others without ever proclaiming or defending your own views. Takes all kinds, I guess.

      2. tiredoflibbs

        bitchie, quit your whining.

        Few posters have been banned for one reason and one reason only – excessively breaking the rules of the blog. MAINLY, personal attacks – whether its gender, race, age and/or religious based attacks with crude and vile language (since they could not win a argument using their knowledge and ideas)

        Wally is the perfect example. Several time he was reduced to spewing the f-bomb since he could not win with his pathetic argument using his predictable and obvious lies. The only time wally shows up now and then is to continue his childish insults and contributes nothing to the debate.

        No one has been banned for their politics or opinions AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT BREAK THE RULES.

        Few libs come here. Most who do come here have demonstrated that they are incapable of reason and logical thought. They just spew the talking points that are heard repeatedly from the politicians and the media talking heads.

      3. Amazona

        When a person’s entire worldview is based not just on emotion but on hostile emotion, any disagreement will naturally be classified as hostile and angry. And any reference to the inherent wrongness of a statement will be dismissed as an “insult”.

        Yes, the Libs who publish here are often insulted by the reaction to what they say, but this does not necessarily mean they are insults.

        If you wade through mitch’s complaints, you see his bias in nearly every word. To him, we have an “extreme” ideology. Really? What is it, and what about it is extreme? The ideology is basically a belief that the nation should be governed according to its actual word of law. Perhaps “extreme” means that we really REALLY REALLY believe that we should be governed by the Constitution.

        Oooooh—scary.

        This, by the way, from someone who can blithely identify another ideology as “extreme” but can’t define his own.

        “Highly conservative”? Again, ???????????????? See “really REALLY REALLY believe that we should be governed by the Constitution.” above.

        There are the mandatory biases about age and religion, both of which seem to be muddled up in mitch’s mind with politics. And which he also finds to be negatives.

        “Not exactly representative of a changing culture.” is probably supposed to be a criticism, yet those of us who fit his ageist demographic have seen many cultural changes and been quite comfortable with them. It’s hard to tell if mitch is conflating culture with politics, the way he has confused politics with age and faith, but in any case he seems to be arguing for a noncritical acceptance of any change even when it is seen as harmful or malignant.

        Those of us brought up with a sense of responsibility do not find it an insult to have it pointed out that we do not “represent” a culture we find to be contradictory to our values. “Change” is not automatically good, slick political slogans aside. New Orleans was changed by Hurricane Katrina. I suggest that if one wants to defend change, the specific change must first be identified and then defended on objective analytical grounds.

        “…representative of a changing culture…” is meaningless.

        I have never seen a poster banned for simply having an opposing point of view. Of course, I have not seen all posts before they were deleted, but I have seen enough to realize that they were not discussions, pro or con, of any actual ideas, but were for the most part tirades of profanity, racism, sexism, and sometimes examples of pathologies so deeply disturbing that they would fit into profiles of the mentally ill. There is no responsibility on the part of those who run this blog to make it a repository for any and all mental and verbal excrement the demented choose to deposit here. And it is simply a lie to claim that deletion of such offensive material is in any way a form of censorship or opposing opinion.

        Dissecting a false assertion and illuminating its defects is not hostile or an insult, nor is it the result of anger. However, it seems that having ones’ false assertions dissected and their defects pointed out creates reactions of anger and hostility in those who were corrected. Fine. That is understandable from those who operate so thoroughly on raw emotion. It’s the effort to assign those negative emotions to those who did the analysis that is so dishonest.

        And feeling insulted is not the same as being insulted.

  15. rpu3141

    This is not the age of “self-reliance”. It’s the age of pure selfishness. People can rationalize that anything is okay, if it is good for themselves.

    People will vote for Obama because they believe it will be beneficial to them – period. Obama might be shown to be a total failure with no ethics and a out and out liar, but his supporters will still vote for him simply because they have convinced themselves that doing so is beneficial to them.

    1. J. R. Babcock

      Can’t argue with that logic. There were a lot who voted for him the first time around out of self-interest who haven’t yet benefited. It’ll be interesting to see who THEY vote for this time around.

    2. Jeremiah

      rpu3141 writes: It’s the age of pure selfishness.

      Absolutely. In fact, I was talking with a friend just recently about this … people today are like Cain who murdered his brother Abel. Why did Cain murder his brother Abel? Quite simply put, he wanted God’s favor without giving to God what He asked of him, the best of his crops, and stock, firstborn animals. Abel obeyed God, and thus received his reward, but Cain became jealous because of his own selfishness and struck his own brother.

      Same thing today, you tell people if they spent more time in the Bible than they do on the Internet or television, they could make good things happen on a large scale, not just on a personal level, but affecting everyone around them, and even those not in contact with. But they don’t want to hear it.

    3. neocon1

      jr

      all those in the hoodies labled “i an tra von…….easy to pick out,,,the rest will be in military garb and have night sticks.

  16. bagni

    mark
    nice to see you again
    interesting post
    got me thinking….i may go off a bit here….on a tangent ::))

    when you talk of ‘believing in yourself’
    don’t think you used the word ‘faith’ in your post?
    but you do talk about believing in god, which is faith in one form, right?
    or religion….faith being the politically correct word for it
    yet religion isn’t really synonymous with faith at all?
    faith is the capability of an individual
    religion carries the message of faith
    but like all carriers, they’re subject to all sorts of imperfections, corruptions?
    but you can’t disregard faith because of this

    in religion god is the primary object of faith
    but you don’t have to have faith to believe in god
    even jesus used the term faith in non religious ways
    after he performed miracles, jesus said, “your faith has made you well”
    he didn’t say “my faith has made you well” or “god made you well”
    he rarely took credit for being the healer
    jesus himself viewed faith as something everyone has, whether religious or not
    he thought too many of us have too little of it though

    faith held hostage by religious or spiritual becomes doctrine or dogma
    which is cool if you’re part of the program but not so great when it leads to misunderstanding, divisiveness, sparking bigoted, prejudicial behavior?
    ex: fundamentalism

    anyway
    faith is mostly seen as the opposite of science or analysis
    faith can also create knowledge and innovation
    so i guess you can believe in “yourself” or your “potential energy” as a humanoid
    without turning your back on god, mankind, yourself, etc…..
    a person can believe in god with little or no faith
    and people who don’t believe in god or religion can have strong fortitude in how they handle life
    when in context of science faith is associated with truth,(real or perceptual)
    faith is a way of ‘knowing’
    and knowing is a way of believing in yourself to get great things done
    ????

    1. Amazona

      What a lovely exposition of chaotic thinking and strange conclusions. Thank you so much for your illustration of how to get absolutely everything wrong, from faith to religion to self-confidence to bigotry.

      1. mitchethekid

        Who are you to make the judgement you just did in reply to bagni? What secrets to the universe to you hold to determine that his thinking is “chaotic” and his conclusions “strange”. They are only strange TO YOU. You are not some supreme arbiter of absolute truth Ama. You have an OPINION. And your opinions have as little or great significance as anyone else. You have a horrible flaw and it is an insistence on being smarter than everyone else, being more aware of what is “right” and the horribleness is compounded by being expressed in deriding adjectives. You truly come across as just plain mean, angry and miserable. I challenge you to defend your contention that bagni’s conclusions about faith, religion and science are chaotic and strange. Humility is a virtue.

      2. neocon1

        ROTFLMAO………bmitch

        FIRST……@”Who are you to make the judgement you just did in reply to bagni? What secrets to the universe to you hold to determine that his thinking is “chaotic” and his conclusions “strange”. They are only strange TO YOU. You are not some supreme arbiter of absolute truth Ama. You have an OPINION. And your opinions have as little or great significance as anyone else. You have a horrible flaw and it is an insistence on being smarter than everyone else, being more aware of what is “right” and the horribleness is compounded by being expressed in deriding adjectives.”

        THEN……….“You truly come across as just plain mean, angry and miserable.

        OMG you just cant make this SHIITE up BOINGGGGGG CHUCHO !!!!! X1000

    2. neocon1

      nanu nanu dork

      sparking bigoted, prejudicial behavior?
      ex: fundamentalism islam and atheist leftist marxism.

      1. neocon1

        Yawn…….

        Farrakhan Warns Whites: ‘Unless You Change, Your End Has Come’…

        NOTE to calypso louie……..WE are the 85%, WE have most of the money, WE have most of the guns, WE have most of combat trained veterans you have 40% in jail.
        so either PUT up AH, or STFU!!!!

    3. neocon1

      faith is mostly seen as the opposite of science or analysis

      islam? YES
      Christianity? Nah…….REAL .science, proves Christianity and Gods laws.

    4. Mark Edward Noonan Post author

      Bagni,

      The problem with believing in yourself is that you are necessarily believing in something far too limited to determine what is right – you, as an individual, simply lack the knowledge, wisdom and even the time to figure it all out. You must, to do anything right, refer to Authority – if you ignore Authority, then you will certainly go wrong, the further you go. This is why fear of God is the root of wisdom – not that we are to tremble in our boots at the mere thought of God, but that by fearing to defy Him we will take the first step in wisdom…as we make our choices, if we have this wisdom, we won’t go completely wrong because we’ll always have a care to try and determine what God would have us do in any given circumstance.

      1. bagni

        hey mark
        i never said believing in your self was paramount and top of list
        instead it’s the faith that drives forward
        whether spiritual or towards an end goal personally or professionally
        however
        not sure i agree that the humanoid lacks knowledge, wisdom and time to figure things out
        the potential is there
        and it might be a lovely combo of belief/faith in something bigger and the ability to achieve (albeit virtuous in nature) that make this crazy blue spinning ball go round
        ::))

      1. bagni

        dearest matt neo
        my sarcasm was off too……
        now go back to your perfect, self idolizing world….please

    1. Amazona

      Only two identities ever got away with typing exclusively in lower case. One was e e cummings, and one was a cockroach.

      And you, Baggy, are no poet.

  17. mitchethekid

    Can’t reply directly so I’m at the bottom. :-(
    Many yrs ago I was banned repeatedly. Not because I broke the “rules” about profanity or personal attacks (although I have yet to see Neo banned when he spews the epithets he does, although Frmr Marine (Neo?) and Kahn (again Neo?) were. No. I was banned because I challenged Mark Noonan’s worship of all things GWB and Marks simplistic absolutism when it comes to his evangelical religious beliefs.
    An example of which is when Neo just stated that “real” science “proves” Christianity and gods laws. My god man, you are as dense as lead. Your mind is a tightly shut as a hatch on a bathysphere. So what you are saying is that you have empirical proof. Irrefutable, repeatable and testable proof that science confirms your religious beliefs.
    This attitude is exactly what I am talking about. Nominate yourself for the next Pope.I’ll bet you’d look real cute in a funny hat and a dress. lol!
    And Ama: all words are metaphors. That’s why laws are subjected to interpretation and the constitution even more so. It is simply not possible to have a discussion here based on facts, reason and analysis. What happens is name calling and references to 40 yr old stereotypes. The very characteristics Ama accuses me of being she expresses herself. It’s called projection. Sunday was a great example of her dismissiveness. I was pleased to find some common ground with Neo through our appreciation and enjoyment of Blues. he also mentioned he is a Biker. As a Biker, I thought it was a reasonable assumption that he like old cars as well so I told him about my TBird. When i stated that it was a #2 car, Ama immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was my second car.
    This is the problem with the ambiguity of language. How it shapes images in our minds because thought in and of itself is visual and why all words are metaphors. So the next time you try to pigeon hold me by trying to shape shift what I am saying by associating negative connotations to the words I use perhaps you should re-examine your motivations and what YOU ALL are defending.
    The word is not black and white. Gray rules. Or is it Grey?
    I will leave you with this experiment.
    On a table there is a circle, a square and a circle attached to a square. The instructor says “Move the circle with the square.” What are the possible results? Which do you move? Is there a correct answer?
    My point is, when discussing the issues that we do here, it is counter productive to take an absolutist position. In physics there is something known as The Uncertainty Principle.
    And it applies to everyday life as well.

    1. neocon1

      the uncertainty “principle” is only uncertain to numbed minds….like the 10 THEORY’S of the origination of the universe in the 29 th century or the COMING ICE AGE in the 70′s and who could forget piltdown man ?

      lets see lightning strikes mud which through Frankenstein electrodes forms 1 cell live VOID of any form or substance then BINGO we have a T-Rex, monkeys then liberals (the MISSING link) Pffffftttttttt

      love the Elvis sightings though, and the EVER present race card……peeled from the bottom of the slimy cesspool deck of donkrats and marxist liberals.

      1. neocon1

        bmitch
        do you believe there is a spirit world?
        poltergeists? a third dimension? a parallel universe?
        if energy can not be created or destroyed what happens to the energy and intelligence of a man once the body is dead?
        cant God be a huge (the biggest) energy source ? filled with all the knowledge and wisdom of a trillion years?
        cant there be beings of lesser energy, power and knowledge?
        IE what we call angels and demons with individual personalities some good some evil?

    2. tiredoflibbs

      sorry bitchie, but the RULES apply to racial and religious bigotry as well. Attacking a race or someone’s religion will get you banned as well. As we have seen, james has been warned repeatedly about his bigotry. But as usual, proggies can’t seem to take the hints that are directed to them.

      Why is it so hard for these proggy trolls to understand? Racial or religious attacks, vile and disgusting personal attacks, will get you banned. I know you have the reading comprehension of a rock but sheesh, the rules are too simple.

      But then again, you bitchie are way to simple minded to even understand those. If you want to stay stop your whining and stop insulting and attacking others’ age, race and religion.

      If you have the guts, what other identities did you have? So we could possibly validate your claim of being banned because of a simple disagreement….

    3. neocon1

      bmitch and YOU……So what you are saying is that you have empirical proof. Irrefutable, repeatable and testable proof that science doesnt confirm my religious beliefs.?

      mmmmm?

    4. neocon1

      OOh NOOO of course NOT…….

      “Not because I broke the “rules” about profanity or personal attacks

      Marks simplistic absolutism

      Nominate yourself for the next Pope.I’ll bet you’d look real cute in a funny hat and a dress.

      Ama accuses me of being she expresses herself. It’s called projection.

      Nah……NO personal attacks anywhere in sight

    5. Mark Edward Noonan Post author

      Mitch – if you think I have an evangelical outlook then you paid very little attention to what I said.

      1. neocon1

        another of Ubomas sons…….

        2 life sentences for cutting out Jacksonville DJ’s eyes

        Anthony Blakely answers questions from the media in the hallway at the Duval County Courthouse after Foster Leon was sentenced to 2 life terms for the attempted murder of Blakely. Even though the light was bright in his face, Blakely will always be in the dark. Leon cut out Blakely’s eyes when he attacked the DJ after he left a Five Points club on July 4, 2008. JOHN PEMBERTON/The

        The question on everyone’s mind never got answered in a Jacksonville courtroom before Foster Rayfield Leon was sent to prison Friday for cutting another man’s eyes out.

        “Why? Why? I really want to know why. I pray to know,” Leon’s permanently blind victim, Anthony Blakely, testified. “Why? That’s all I ask.”

        “I, too, wonder why,” Circuit Judge Mallory Cooper added, rebuking Leon for smirking at her.

        Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2010-05-07/story/man-gets-2-life-sentences-cutting-jacksonville-djs-eyes-out#1#ixzz1sLvCWnmc

Comments are closed.