[The Urban Sombrero]

Oh you can deny it, but your arguments as recorded on this forum speak for themselves. You always, and I mean always come down on the liberal side of every discussion.

There is quite a lot of leeway afforded in article 11 of that treaty. One can easily state with surety that the US was not actually founded on religion, and I have not said that we are. I said, as do the documents in all their glory, clearly set forth, that we are founded upon Christian principles. Which are as I keep pointing out to you factually and demonstrably true both in nature and in our national history. I can prove the tenets of Christianity, but no Hindu or Muslim can do the same. BTW, I couldn't help but notice that the thread you started on it is really poppin! LOL Just as I knew you'd bring it up in a thread people actually had interest. God said He created the sun, He just spoke it into existence if I recall. Does that make mention of the sun in the public square a religious taboo to you there Sombrero?

As I have argued in the past, (very likely with you BTW) there are no known remaining copies of the actual treaty in our day. And that there is inconsistency in the liberal argument; "In recent years, some “Christian nation” advocates have argued that Article 11 never appeared in the treaty. They base the claim on research conducted by a Dutch scholar, Dr. C. Snouk Hurgronje, published in The Christian Statesman in 1930. Hurgronje located the only surviving Arabic copy of the treaty and found that when translated, Article 11 was actually a letter, mostly gibberish, from the dey of Algiers to the ruler of Tripoli."

It’s clear that the English version of the treaty, which Congress approved, contained the famous Article 11. Why the article was removed from the Arabic version of the treaty, who did it and when remains another mystery.

Even if the article was in the final draft as presented and signed by the Muslim authorities, it doesn't in and of itself slam the door on the rest of the record or our heritage. Diplomats will do and say things as we heard only yesterday from John Kerry. I can tell you right now that the congress does not agree with what he said and I know I don't. To think that this obscure document to a bunch of pirates, supersedes actual constitutional documents would be the foundest desire of a Christ denying lib. The US Navy was a joke, and thus our shipping had lost the protection of the English Navy in the shipping lanes off the coast of North Africa. We needed to do something. But I will give you credit, finally you come up with something not based entirely on innuendo and dripping with unabsorbed estrogen.

Wow. The stench of an unnecessary apologist manure cannon just went off in here.

The four points of consideration? Innuendo? Hardly.

To consider the Vietnam War a failure of vision and policy, and to point out atrocities that have been documented is not immoral. That's foolish talk.

The Treaty of Tripoli was read in session, was unanimously ratified. BGR originates in a place where the Bob Segars and TRT's and Granny Bears are a firm majority. Why would I expect threads that walk down bubble bursting paths and interrupt the samctuary of magical thinking to "pop"? I did not think a man of faith and the Word would believe the test of truth is a chorus of "Amens" from the crowd. But, oh well, what's another inconsistency of straw to add to the multitude?

[The Urban Sombrero]

Running up the score is an artform.

In the magical kingdom where debate is about scoring and points and such, I guess.

However, you and I were discussing Israel. To which I stated that Israel is indeed in a difficult position also, visa vis the fact that so many Arab actors don't recognize it as a legitimate state and make statements about its demise. I also stated that this precarious circumstance does not mean that everything Israel does is just fine and dandy. The Palestinians have too long been a dispossessed people, plagued by weak and/or corrupt leadership in my view. To arrive at a place for security for Israel and justice for the Palestinians is as complex a problem and loaded with nuance as any around.

[TheRealThing]

Wow. The stench of an unnecessary apologist manure cannon just went off in here.

The four points of consideration? Innuendo? Hardly.

To consider the Vietnam War a failure of vision and policy, and to point out atrocities that have been documented is not immoral. That's foolish talk.

The Treaty of Tripoli was read in session, was unanimously ratified. BGR originates in a place where the Bob Segars and TRT's and Granny Bears are a firm majority. Why would I expect threads that walk down bubble bursting paths and interrupt the samctuary of magical thinking to "pop"? I did not think a man of faith and the Word would believe the test of truth is a chorus of "Amens" from the crowd. But, oh well, what's another inconsistency of straw to add to the multitude?

Oh I know you guys can make anything say whatever you want it to. But believe me, you left more than a few names off of that 'firm majority' list. I gave you the only credit you deserved, as you actually sourced something other than DNC talking points for once. Having done so, though admittedly a different tack for you, doesn't make your argument right or even necessarily compelling. But as always, you sidestep and reject anything which does not advance the cause of the progressive. The Tripoli argument is certainly not anything new, nor is it new to discussion on here. To say that we are in no sense a nation founded upon the Christian religion does not exclude the founder's sense of morality, or their understanding of creation. I believe their efforts to draft a practical government necessarily would have excluded specific mention of Christianity, but all one must do to recognize their mindset is compare our system of law against the tenets of Christianity. The fact that the founders took up the space to state clearly within the text of the Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equally, certainly reflects the Christian doctrine which identifies the true state of all men: Romans 5:12 (KJV)
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

You bump into article 11 someplace and immediately, you're a constitutional expert and know more than those who've researched and written extensively on the subject. In the entire body of official 'founding' documentation, there is nowhere to be found the faintest glimmer of support for the revisionist crowd, the deniers of Christ. Just like there exists no mention of essential liberty, freedom of conscience, or room to render the concise language of the Constitution in any way flexible. The founders were nobody's fools, they knew all too well the liberals would come against this land and their work therefore, provides no opening for frothing libs from that day or this, to alter away the original intent until it becomes unrecognizable. Society (the guileful, be they elected or civilian) owing to man's depraved nature will always seek to work the system.

And after all, this is but the latest in your effort to sell the idea that the Constitution is a living document, meant by our founders to be flexible to the times. But that is not what Jefferson said, "Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed " But since your intent is obviously to sway the opinion of BGR readership, I've not seen a shred of evidence that you have. If you ever do manage to burst anybody's bubble, I will be first to give you credit. Frankly, I know and have known, a lot of Christian men. Many of them Democrats. They vote for Dems, and do so using the time honored and dishwater weak argument which was conceived prior to 1960. But as this past election revealed, the baseless rationale which holds that Democrats are the party of the working class, is the only bursted bubble I know of. But as exasperating as the failure of these men to see the truth has been, I've never heard even one of them dive into liberal apologetics the way you do. I've seen Church brothers hump up and act as if Christianity and Democrat politics just go together, end of story. I've seen union brothers just hump up and get mad, while people like Sombrero try to wax intellectually superior just because, (about like girls are right all the time just because.)

Satan used the same rationale of compromise when he strove with Eve to disobey God's clear (and singular) commandment in the garden of Eden. Which was of course, not to eat of the one particular tree. Satan talked her into doing something she knew was wrong and as the result, Satan was forever cursed of God. Satan lied, and he is the father of lies. We refer to such compromises of truth as guile, deceit, trickery, pick your own noun. Sadly, such is and has been the liberal's modus operandi. The court on like grounds established in 1948, a Satanic version of separation of Church and State which, has led to the slaughter of 10's of millions of the unborn under Roe v Wade, and the repeal of DADT. Libs refer to such hellish behavior as "moving the country forward." I mean, we talked ourselves into legalizing murder by the million. What could possible remain that we could not rationalize after that?

I know you're desperate to move the country forward but like I keep telling you. Eight years of Trump and the resultant SC appointments will transform the direction of this nation for the next 50 years. But I don't expect you to stop playing the devil's advocate. You have scarcely 20 days of darkness left in which to revel.

[TheRealThing]

...

[Stardust]

We have the power to "FIX" the UN. If conducted appropriately, the UN has positive value that allows the US to dictate policy through a united front. Otherwise, all countries are acting on their own accord for no formal process to manage their activities. I do not support backing out, I support us taking over!

[TheRealThing]

We have the power to "FIX" the UN. If conducted appropriately, the UN has positive value that allows the US to dictate policy through a united front. Otherwise, all countries are acting on their own accord for no formal process to manage their activities. I do not support backing out, I support us taking over!

I see your point. Like the saying goes, there's a reason they call it an administration. If the books written on the subject and the news reports are correct, the various cabinet and agency heads of the current US Government to include the State Department run by John Kerry, must carry the water for Barack Obama and him only. Every detail is micromanaged and comes down the chain from White House rabid chipmunks the likes of Ben Rhodes. Hence the mess we're in. Even Huffington Post Editor Sam Stein has awakened in the aftermath of the past election to that fact as the following video and article shows:
EXCERPT---
The Huffington Post's senior politics editor, Sam Stein, says President Obama oversaw "the destruction of the Democratic Party," leaving it "in a much worse position" than before his presidency started.
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/312023...on-of-dems

If we had an ambassador corps staffed with good people, of which there are many available, we could conceivably straighten out the mess to some degree and hold sway in the manner of past years. There is no question that we've benefited from certain information and diplomatic success. It's just than in the past 8 years we've been particularly eager to renounce our role across the globe and the UN.

There's so much to undo and all of it imminently important, that one wonders if 8 years is enough time to set it all straight. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

[Bob Seger]

We have the power to "FIX" the UN. If conducted appropriately, the UN has positive value that allows the US to dictate policy through a united front. Otherwise, all countries are acting on their own accord for no formal process to manage their activities. I do not support backing out, I support us taking over!

However the guy that has been sitting in the oval office for the last 8 years would never go with that under any circumstance....He strongly objects to any form of American exceptionalism. He's apologized for 8 years about the United States as it stands now.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Oh I know you guys can make anything say whatever you want it to. But believe me, you left more than a few names off of that 'firm majority' list. I gave you the only credit you deserved, as you actually sourced something other than DNC talking points for once. Having done so, though admittedly a different tack for you, doesn't make your argument right or even necessarily compelling. But as always, you sidestep and reject anything which does not advance the cause of the progressive. The Tripoli argument is certainly not anything new, nor is it new to discussion on here. To say that we are in no sense a nation founded upon the Christian religion does not exclude the founder's sense of morality, or their understanding of creation. I believe their efforts to draft a practical government necessarily would have excluded specific mention of Christianity, but all one must do to recognize their mindset is compare our system of law against the tenets of Christianity. The fact that the founders took up the space to state clearly within the text of the Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equally, certainly reflects the Christian doctrine which identifies the true state of all men: Romans 5:12 (KJV)
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

You bump into article 11 someplace and immediately, you're a constitutional expert and know more than those who've researched and written extensively on the subject. In the entire body of official 'founding' documentation, there is nowhere to be found the faintest glimmer of support for the revisionist crowd, the deniers of Christ. Just like there exists no mention of essential liberty, freedom of conscience, or room to render the concise language of the Constitution in any way flexible. The founders were nobody's fools, they knew all too well the liberals would come against this land and their work therefore, provides no opening for frothing libs from that day or this, to alter away the original intent until it becomes unrecognizable. Society (the guileful, be they elected or civilian) owing to man's depraved nature will always seek to work the system.

And after all, this is but the latest in your effort to sell the idea that the Constitution is a living document, meant by our founders to be flexible to the times. But that is not what Jefferson said, "Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed " But since your intent is obviously to sway the opinion of BGR readership, I've not seen a shred of evidence that you have. If you ever do manage to burst anybody's bubble, I will be first to give you credit. Frankly, I know and have known, a lot of Christian men. Many of them Democrats. They vote for Dems, and do so using the time honored and dishwater weak argument which was conceived prior to 1960. But as this past election revealed, the baseless rationale which holds that Democrats are the party of the working class, is the only bursted bubble I know of. But as exasperating as the failure of these men to see the truth has been, I've never heard even one of them dive into liberal apologetics the way you do. I've seen Church brothers hump up and act as if Christianity and Democrat politics just go together, end of story. I've seen union brothers just hump up and get mad, while people like Sombrero try to wax intellectually superior just because, (about like girls are right all the time just because.)

Satan used the same rationale of compromise when he strove with Eve to disobey God's clear (and singular) commandment in the garden of Eden. Which was of course, not to eat of the one particular tree. Satan talked her into doing something she knew was wrong and as the result, Satan was forever cursed of God. Satan lied, and he is the father of lies. We refer to such compromises of truth as guile, deceit, trickery, pick your own noun. Sadly, such is and has been the liberal's modus operandi. The court on like grounds established in 1948, a Satanic version of separation of Church and State which, has led to the slaughter of 10's of millions of the unborn under Roe v Wade, and the repeal of DADT. Libs refer to such hellish behavior as "moving the country forward." I mean, we talked ourselves into legalizing murder by the million. What could possible remain that we could not rationalize after that?

I know you're desperate to move the country forward but like I keep telling you. Eight years of Trump and the resultant SC appointments will transform the direction of this nation for the next 50 years. But I don't expect you to stop playing the devil's advocate. You have scarcely 20 days of darkness left in which to revel.

The Treaty of Tripoli is in the historic record. The version read contained exactly what I posted.

I am, again, surprised TRT that you would posit Donald Trump as an angel of light, with Barack Obama being his soul of darkness foil, all the while lecturing, ad nauseum, about how know-it-all posting just really gets on your nerves. What rot.

As for essential liberty and freedom of conscience being the reason the majority rendered Roe v. Wade, I did not suggest that and do not believe the Court reasoned that in rooting Roe as a right to privacy matter.

In my view, PE Trump will replace Justice Scalia, and no more unless he wins in 2020, unless death or health issues are cause. I don't believe any retirements by liberal justices are forthcoming.

The George H W Bush just returned before Christmas from training exercises performed during a three week stretch in preparing for major deployment after the first of the year. Do you do any checking of your source material at all? Or didn't that matter at Bob Jones?

[TheRealThing]

The Treaty of Tripoli is in the historic record. The version read contained exactly what I posted.

I am, again, surprised TRT that you would posit Donald Trump as an angel of light, with Barack Obama being his soul of darkness foil, all the while lecturing, ad nauseum, about how know-it-all posting just really gets on your nerves. What rot.

As for essential liberty and freedom of conscience being the reason the majority rendered Roe v. Wade, I did not suggest that and do not believe the Court reasoned that in rooting Roe as a right to privacy matter.

In my view, PE Trump will replace Justice Scalia, and no more unless he wins in 2020, unless death or health issues are cause. I don't believe any retirements by liberal justices are forthcoming.

The George H W Bush just returned before Christmas from training exercises performed during a three week stretch in preparing for major deployment after the first of the year. Do you do any checking of your source material at all? Or didn't that matter at Bob Jones?

I am happy to hear that I get on your nerves so badly. Scholars have made an exhaustive effort over the years to get to the bottom of the dubious insertion of article 11 and are highly skeptical as to its true origin. Most have declared it to be a fraud and I have at least, taken the time to research the matter some years back.

Though you appear to be hopeful, your view is wrong. What pray tell makes you think Trump won't be reelected?

Just because there are only 18 days of lunacy left, (I prefer not to count inauguration day because breakfast will scarcely be past until Mr Trump will hold up his right hand. In fact, I'm sure the Obama legacy are being boxed up as we speak). But as I say, just because time is short doesn't mean the chipmunk spinners are not busy. Sailors charged with protecting national interests don't come home for Christmas, but Ben Rhodes et-al knew loyalists would buy the rationale without question. The pitfalls of not knowing what you're talking about and believing everything you hear. But not to worry, since vetting is obviously not your forte, the next 8 years will be kind to you in spite of the lies which will emanate from the press.

[The Urban Sombrero]

I am happy to hear that I get on your nerves so badly. Scholars have made an exhaustive effort over the years to get to the bottom of the dubious insertion of article 11 and are highly skeptical as to its true origin. Most have declared it to be a fraud and I have at least, taken the time to research the matter some years back.

Though you appear to be hopeful, your view is wrong. What pray tell makes you think Trump won't be reelected?

Just because there are only 18 days of lunacy left, (I prefer not to count inauguration day because breakfast will scarcely be past until Mr Trump will hold up his right hand. In fact, I'm sure the Obama legacy are being boxed up as we speak). But as I say, just because time is short doesn't mean the chipmunk spinners are not busy. Sailors charged with protecting national interests don't come home for Christmas, but Ben Rhodes et-al knew loyalists would buy the rationale without question. The pitfalls of not knowing what you're talking about and believing everything you hear. But not to worry, since vetting is obviously not your forte, the next 8 years will be kind to you in spite of the lies which will emanate from the press.

Check the record of the George H W Bush and number of sailors on leave for Christmas, before the ship deploys. Yet more blather on your part.

All your "researched" blather is just that. The Congressional record is what it is. You prefer the Magical Kingdom of TRT and corresponding worldview to history, and you confuse the two, which is dangerous if it becomes the collective.

Trump could be re-elected in 2020. I am speaking of the initial four years where I would suggest only the Scalia seat will be filled, barring unforseen circumstances.

One of the pitfalls of being, basically, a propogandist who vomits up straw like a sick mare, is you can't see, and you won't see, believing you have sight.

[TheRealThing]

The Treaty of Tripoli is in the historic record. The version read contained exactly what I posted.

I am, again, surprised TRT that you would posit Donald Trump as an angel of light, with Barack Obama being his soul of darkness foil, all the while lecturing, ad nauseum, about how know-it-all posting just really gets on your nerves. What rot.

As for essential liberty and freedom of conscience being the reason the majority rendered Roe v. Wade, I did not suggest that and do not believe the Court reasoned that in rooting Roe as a right to privacy matter.

In my view, PE Trump will replace Justice Scalia, and no more unless he wins in 2020, unless death or health issues are cause. I don't believe any retirements by liberal justices are forthcoming.

The George H W Bush just returned before Christmas from training exercises performed during a three week stretch in preparing for major deployment after the first of the year. Do you do any checking of your source material at all? Or didn't that matter at Bob Jones?

A further clarification is needed here. The notions of essential liberty and freedom of conscience, are vaporous nothings from the liberal blather-sphere. And represent therefore, another in a continuing string of your predilection to non sequitur. I made no reference to them whatever.

What I was writing about specifically, was the liberally inspired distortion of the concept of separation of Church and State and how said distortion led to the legalization of two sins, abortion and homosexuality. Where once the likelihood of federal legalization was impossible to conceive, in this day it would seem that fools have rushed in where Angels fear to tread. And contrary to today's academic, the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom and open mindedness, not the end. So to get men to agree to formal legalization of things like infanticide, they would have to be separated from the influence of the tenets of Christianity.

Every journey begins with that first step they say. In the field of law then, it is necessary to gain an inroad by which to begin the process of change, especially if the changes in question are not agreeable to the majority. In the case of separation of Church and State, that separation, referred to as a wall, was originally intended to keep government out of the affairs of the Church. Some hot shot lawyer stood that 300 year long understanding on it's head, arguing that said wall was meant to keep the Church out of the affairs of the State. And what was the dispute where the Church invaded so grievously into the affairs of State that the attention of the Supreme Court was required? Why the unthinkable trespass of parolchial school students being offered the privilege of riding half full school buses in Pennsylvania, and being dropped of without deviation from their assigned routes. Some scornful curmudgeon with nothing better to do could not stand kindness being shown to Christians.

And such was the first step in this journey, for with the coming of that misguided distortion, America abdicated the moral authority on which our system of law was founded. We lost the capacity to grasp the basic understanding that there is a fine line between right and wrong, and the surety of God's Word was replaced by endless debate. Men began to pass legislation at some point, that superseded God's law. We redefined marriage, and we legalized infanticide. We talk for example, about things like child abuse and glossing over the failure of clueless parents, we provide them food and education directly from the hand of Uncle Sam. The same hand BTW which last year gave 540 million to planned parenthood, who then used much of that money to provide abortions for more clueless parents.

Therefore are all absolutes things of the past, as is any semblance of the rule of law. We can't legislate anymore because the outcomes in the Congress are directed by debate. Guileful debate, divorced from the source of all true morality, which of course are the clearly set forth tenets of Christianity. Not only can we not legislate, neither can we effectively adjudicate. Identity politics mitigate everything the government tries to do, and everything the courts try to do. Nonetheless, it has been declared that we have "moved the country forward." LOL, such is the motivational speech of the lead lemming.

You like Seinfeld there Sombrero? Where is comes to such mindlessness, "I'm out!"

[The Urban Sombrero]

A further clarification is needed here. The notions of essential liberty and freedom of conscience, are vaporous nothings from the liberal blather-sphere. And represent therefore, another in a continuing string of your predilection to non sequitur. I made no reference to them whatever.

What I was writing about specifically, was the liberally inspired distortion of the concept of separation of Church and State and how said distortion led to the legalization of two sins, abortion and homosexuality. Where once the likelihood of federal legalization was impossible to conceive, in this day it would seem that fools have rushed in where Angels fear to tread. And contrary to today's academic, the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom and open mindedness, not the end. So to get men to agree to formal legalization of things like infanticide, they would have to be separated from the influence of the tenets of Christianity.

Every journey begins with that first step they say. In the field of law then, it is necessary to gain an inroad by which to begin the process of change, especially if the changes in question are not agreeable to the majority. In the case of separation of Church and State, that separation, referred to as a wall, was originally intended to keep government out of the affairs of the Church. Some hot shot lawyer stood that 300 year long understanding on it's head, arguing that said wall was meant to keep the Church out of the affairs of the State. And what was the dispute where the Church invaded so grievously into the affairs of State that the attention of the Supreme Court was required? Why the unthinkable trespass of parolchial school students being offered the privilege of riding half full school buses in Pennsylvania, and being dropped of without deviation from their assigned routes. Some scornful curmudgeon with nothing better to do could not stand kindness being shown to Christians.

And such was the first step in this journey, for with the coming of that misguided distortion, America abdicated the moral authority on which our system of law was founded. We lost the capacity to grasp the basic understanding that there is a fine line between right and wrong, and the surety of God's Word was replaced by endless debate. Men began to pass legislation at some point, that superseded God's law. We redefined marriage, and we legalized infanticide. We talk for example, about things like child abuse and glossing over the failure of clueless parents, we provide them food and education directly from the hand of Uncle Sam. The same hand BTW which last year gave 540 million to planned parenthood, who then used much of that money to provide abortions for more clueless parents.

Therefore are all absolutes things of the past, as is any semblance of the rule of law. We can't legislate anymore because the outcomes in the Congress are directed by debate. Guileful debate, divorced from the source of all true morality, which of course are the clearly set forth tenets of Christianity. Not only can we not legislate, neither can we effectively adjudicate. Identity politics mitigate everything the government tries to do, and everything the courts try to do. Nonetheless, it has been declared that we have "moved the country forward." LOL, such is the motivational speech of the lead lemming.

You like Seinfeld there Sombrero? Where is comes to such mindlessness, "I'm out!"

The legalization of two sins? Shall we name the "sins" offered Constitutional protection? Or, would you imprison the man who hits his finger with the hammer and screams out an oath violating a commandment?

Nah, by your very own words and zeal without knowledge, I think the need for essential liberty and freedom of conscience to be acknowledged and enshrined is readily apparent.

[TheRealThing]

- Check the record of the George H W Bush and number of sailors on leave for Christmas, before the ship deploys. Yet more blather on your part.

- All your "researched" blather is just that. The Congressional record is what it is. You prefer the Magical Kingdom of TRT and corresponding worldview to history, and you confuse the two, which is dangerous if it becomes the collective.

- Trump could be re-elected in 2020. I am speaking of the initial four years where I would suggest only the Scalia seat will be filled, barring unforseen circumstances.

- One of the pitfalls of being, basically, a propogandist who vomits up straw like a sick mare, is you can't see, and you won't see, believing you have sight.

- Right, why not let them go home since they're not required to be at sea? I agree. But as always your argument is straight off the pages of liberal apologetics. This is still the first time in more than a half century we did not have even one carrier at sea. And government authorities say it is because of budgetary shortfall. Who cares where the heck the sailors went when the carriers are in port? Your argument then if I understand it, is that carriers are not moving because they're sitting still, and the sailors are all home on leave for Christmas. That about right? Now that's foreign policy La-La style.

If you'd served, you'd know that Christmas for the US military is largely something that is observed while on duty. Like a Christmas tree on the hangar deck. Only a relative few service-wide get to go home on leave, and then only if they actually have the leave time and can afford the travel expenses. In any case up until the romper roomers got put in charge of the armed services, there were carriers at sea manned by able bodied seamen no matter what day it was. I guess there is some question about whether or not our enemies give a flip about holidays as observed by the US. :eyeroll:

- I will concede that one of us is confused.

- Ol Ruth will be 84 this March and ain't lookin so good. I believe she will hang in there as long as she can, but she'll never make it till 2024. Steven Breyer is 78. If both check out in the next 8 years and it is better than 50/50 that they will, that would leave only 2 La-La's.

- LOL, even if I couldn't see I'd still remember the truth.

[TheRealThing]

The legalization of two sins? Shall we name the "sins" offered Constitutional protection? Or, would you imprison the man who hits his finger with the hammer and screams out an oath violating a commandment?

Nah, by your very own words and zeal without knowledge, I think the need for essential liberty and freedom of conscience to be acknowledged and enshrined is readily apparent.

Sidestepper to the last. It's one thing to cede God the authority to deal with matters of His own purview, listing sins is such and men often defy Him. It is a whole different deal when men pass laws overturning His.

[The Urban Sombrero]

I ran your rot by a plane captain on the George H W Bush who avidly supported DJT. He said you sounded like a guy who hated Obama so much that you believe everything you read that makes him look bad. He directly contradicted you.

The only sidestepping I'm doing is to avoid the mounds of crap in your posts. The SCOTUS did not seek to weigh in on gay marriage as an arbiter of morality. They applied a civil principle: equal protection under the law. Now, you may be too vested in your particular way of seeing to admit that, but that's the truth, whether you can see it or not.

[TheRealThing]

- I ran your rot by a plane captain on the George H W Bush who avidly supported DJT. He said you sounded like a guy who hated Obama so much that you believe everything you read that makes him look bad. He directly contradicted you.

- The only sidestepping I'm doing is to avoid the mounds of crap in your posts. The SCOTUS did not seek to weigh in on gay marriage as an arbiter of morality. They applied a civil principle: equal protection under the law. Now, you may be too vested in your particular way of seeing to admit that, but that's the truth, whether you can see it or not.

- LOL, I can't believe you actually got one of those guys to answer you on facebook. I know darn well he didn't tell you one thing of substance. But you think I came up with that on my own huh? The fact that this past weekend marked the very first time since the days before WW2 the US did not have a carrier group at sea is all my imagination, nobody reported on the situation. Listen, I know how desperate you are to be right. I got that. But I'm just not going to compromise in order to help you out. And this plane captain of your acquaintance denied the carrier in question was docked I suppose? Because I got news for you and him, it was.

And FTR, I had my own title while in the service of my country and I guarantee I'm not taking any backwater to whoever you say you're talking to on (CVN77) In any case, you put me and you and him at the bar, and in about 2 minutes he'd be seeing things my way.



- Thomas Jefferson September 16, 1787---- "My own general idea was that the States should severally preserve their sovereignty in whatever concerns themselves alone, and that whatever may concern another State or any foreign nation should be made a part of the Federal sovereignty; that the exercise of the Federal sovereignty should be divided among three several bodies, Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary, as the State Sovereignties are; and that some peaceable means should be contrived for the Federal head to force compliance on the part of the States"

Now, I don't know whether you know this or not but the Constitution does not guarantee marriage as a right. Marriage is a matter regulated by the individual states ala the vision of Jefferson. The States then, having dealt with the emerging threat of homosexuality, held referendums on the issue of gay marriage and the left's attempts to redefine marriage. Time after time the issue of gay marriage went down in defeat. Like I said, every journey begins with the first step, and now after activist judges have done their work, and through the repeal of DADT forced the US military to accept the practice from a legal standpoint, the scourge of homosexuality was thusly foisted upon this nation.

I saw the fight happen. The left usurped the will of the people in using the SC to legislate the rest of us into submission. The people tried to protect themselves from being forced into submission, but duly run State referendums were abolished by the ruling. The Court of course, had to craft their decree on law no matter how thin a stretch it was. Roe v Wade is supposedly a matter of privacy. Homosexuality got pushed through using the equal protection clause. Only problem the dissent had was in the court's creation of a class based on sexual depravity.
Antonin Scalia June 26, 2015---
“The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me,” he offers. “It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best.”

“But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law,” he opines. “Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its ‘reasoned judgment,’ thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect.”

Scalia even offered what may be the first legal citation of a hippie.

“‘The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality,’” he quoted from the majority opinion before adding, “Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie.”

Now if you will notice, what the SC did in legalizing gay marriage was in the opinions of both Jefferson and Scalia contrary to the Constitution. Not only did the ruling strip the States of sovereignty and deny the people's will, the Court's having usurped the power of State government was not as Jefferson wrote, "divided among three several bodies, Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary." They (SCOTUS) jumped up and did that on their own, and Scalia was right. The Court is trying to rule by 5/4 edict.

The fact that there are people like you out there, and I mean 'out there,' makes me more than grateful to consider that you only have one vote. Hence my immense satisfaction with the results of the last election. Here's to another in the mold of Scalia and at least two more to follow! And since it is now past midnight, there remains a scant 16 days until Golf One is returned to the people's service, and the rabid chipmunks are run out of the White House.

[The Urban Sombrero]

- LOL, I can't believe you actually got one of those guys to answer you on facebook. I know darn well he didn't tell you one thing of substance. But you think I came up with that on my own huh? The fact that this past weekend marked the very first time since the days before WW2 the US did not have a carrier group at sea is all my imagination, nobody reported on the situation. Listen, I know how desperate you are to be right. I got that. But I'm just not going to compromise in order to help you out. And this plane captain of your acquaintance denied the carrier in question was docked I suppose? Because I got news for you and him, it was.

And FTR, I had my own title while in the service of my country and I guarantee I'm not taking any backwater to whoever you say you're talking to on (CVN77) In any case, you put me and you and him at the bar, and in about 2 minutes he'd be seeing things my way.



- Thomas Jefferson September 16, 1787---- "My own general idea was that the States should severally preserve their sovereignty in whatever concerns themselves alone, and that whatever may concern another State or any foreign nation should be made a part of the Federal sovereignty; that the exercise of the Federal sovereignty should be divided among three several bodies, Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary, as the State Sovereignties are; and that some peaceable means should be contrived for the Federal head to force compliance on the part of the States"

Now, I don't know whether you know this or not but the Constitution does not guarantee marriage as a right. Marriage is a matter regulated by the individual states ala the vision of Jefferson. The States then, having dealt with the emerging threat of homosexuality, held referendums on the issue of gay marriage and the left's attempts to redefine marriage. Time after time the issue of gay marriage went down in defeat. Like I said, every journey begins with the first step, and now after activist judges have done their work, and through the repeal of DADT forced the US military to accept the practice from a legal standpoint, the scourge of homosexuality was thusly foisted upon this nation.

I saw the fight happen. The left usurped the will of the people in using the SC to legislate the rest of us into submission. The people tried to protect themselves from being forced into submission, but duly run State referendums were abolished by the ruling. The Court of course, had to craft their decree on law no matter how thin a stretch it was. Roe v Wade is supposedly a matter of privacy. Homosexuality got pushed through using the equal protection clause. Only problem the dissent had was in the court's creation of a class based on sexual depravity.
Antonin Scalia June 26, 2015---
“The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me,” he offers. “It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best.”

“But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law,” he opines. “Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its ‘reasoned judgment,’ thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect.”

Scalia even offered what may be the first legal citation of a hippie.

“‘The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality,’” he quoted from the majority opinion before adding, “Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie.”

Now if you will notice, what the SC did in legalizing gay marriage was in the opinions of both Jefferson and Scalia contrary to the Constitution. Not only did the ruling strip the States of sovereignty and deny the people's will, the Court's having usurped the power of State government was not as Jefferson wrote, "divided among three several bodies, Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary." They (SCOTUS) jumped up and did that on their own, and Scalia was right. The Court is trying to rule by 5/4 edict.

The fact that there are people like you out there, and I mean 'out there,' makes me more than grateful to consider that you only have one vote. Hence my immense satisfaction with the results of the last election. Here's to another in the mold of Scalia and at least two more to follow! And since it is now past midnight, there remains a scant 16 days until Golf One is returned to the people's service, and the rabid chipmunks are run out of the White House.

Thank you for your brief remarks.
Scalia's Catholicism notwithstanding, State's rights do not supercede basic Constitutional rights. The right to equal protection under the law does not query a person's sexual preference before exercising. Your whole "state's rights" view does not cut the mustard when applied to those seeking equal protection from the law, a principle established, in best form, to protect the weak, the small, the minority from being trampled by the majority. If 62% of Alabamans don't want 13% to vote, the test is not "state's rights."

Kudos to PE Trump for checking House Republicans on the shredding of the Ethics Committee.

The ship, having completed a three week training exercise prior to deployment, is docked. However, your "too broke to sail" garbage, and misleading, propogandist inferences about the Navy? Nonsense.

[TheRealThing]

Thank you for your brief remarks.
Scalia's Catholicism notwithstanding, State's rights do not supercede basic Constitutional rights. The right to equal protection under the law does not query a person's sexual preference before exercising. Your whole "state's rights" view does not cut the mustard when applied to those seeking equal protection from the law, a principle established, in best form, to protect the weak, the small, the minority from being trampled by the majority. If 62% of Alabamans don't want 13% to vote, the test is not "state's rights."

Kudos to PE Trump for checking House Republicans on the shredding of the Ethics Committee.

The ship, having completed a three week training exercise prior to deployment, is docked. However, your "too broke to sail" garbage, and misleading, propogandist inferences about the Navy? Nonsense.

I just got through pointing out the US is a republic and not a democracy, and as such protects the rights of the minority even in the face of majority will (the single qualifier of a pure Democracy) as in the case of the left's on going call, in light of the past election results, to overrule or abolish the role of the electoral college. And as usual, literally hours after I make an argument you try and reverse it on me as if you're the enlightened one. Try to focus here, marriage is not a right under the US Constitution. Neither is the ongoing human butchery under the guise of women's health. The left's method of redefining their dubious agenda as rights, and to either add to or otherwise redefine unalienable rights in order to legislate in support of the latest social fad, is at best un-American and at worst subversive. But, you've got it all right while possibly the greatest mind to ever grace the bench in the person of SC Justice Antonin Scalia, has this whole deal about gay marriage all wrong. :hilarious: Why don't you just admit you can't quite grasp exactly what Scalia wrote? And FTR, Scalia made absolutely no dissent based on religion whatever. What a low blow.

And again, you have it right while former UN Ambassador and veteran of several administrations John Bolton, currently a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, senior advisor for Freedom Capital Investment Management, a Fox News Channel commentator, and counsel to the Washington, D.C. law firm Kirkland & Ellis. He was a foreign policy adviser to 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney, is also involved with a number of politically conservative think tanks and policy institutes, including the Institute of East-West Dynamics, the National Rifle Association, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, the Council for National Policy, and finally the Gatestone Institute where he serves as the organization Chairman; But he too in your opinion is obviously wrong when he said no carrier task force was at sea and that this unfortunate lapse in national defense, according to administration officials, was owing to budgetary shortfall. [Wiki] I mean who are guys like this compared to The Urban Sombrero, right?

The argument in defense of my premise was never to track seaman on leave, that was an intellectual rat hole of your device. The point was that no, that's zero, carriers were at sea for the first time since Dec 7, 1941. Reportedly, (and I assume the DOD still reserves the right to deploy carrier task forces as they and the pajama boy presently over our national defense policy see things), but the USS GHW Bush just happened to be up for the next deployment and was the only reason the press brought up said carrier and the unprecedented void of carrier protection.

I favor one of my own analogies in cases like this, you continue to flounder about in the very shadow of darkness cast by the mountain of evidence that disproves all your arguments.

[The Urban Sombrero]

I just got through pointing out the US is a republic and not a democracy, and as such protects the rights of the minority even in the face of majority will (the single qualifier of a pure Democracy) as in the case of the left's on going call, in light of the past election results, to overrule or abolish the role of the electoral college. And as usual, literally hours after I make an argument you try and reverse it on me as if you're the enlightened one. Try to focus here, marriage is not a right under the US Constitution. Neither is the ongoing human butchery under the guise of women's health. The left's method of redefining their dubious agenda as rights, and to either add to or otherwise redefine unalienable rights in order to legislate in support of the latest social fad, is at best un-American and at worst subversive. But, you've got it all right while possibly the greatest mind to ever grace the bench in the person of SC Justice Antonin Scalia, has this whole deal about gay marriage all wrong. :hilarious: Why don't you just admit you can't quite grasp exactly what Scalia wrote? And FTR, Scalia made absolutely no dissent based on religion whatever. What a low blow.

And again, you have it right while former UN Ambassador and veteran of several administrations John Bolton, currently a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, senior advisor for Freedom Capital Investment Management, a Fox News Channel commentator, and counsel to the Washington, D.C. law firm Kirkland & Ellis. He was a foreign policy adviser to 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney, is also involved with a number of politically conservative think tanks and policy institutes, including the Institute of East-West Dynamics, the National Rifle Association, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, the Council for National Policy, and finally the Gatestone Institute where he serves as the organization Chairman; But he too in your opinion is obviously wrong when he said no carrier task force was at sea and that this unfortunate lapse in national defense, according to administration officials, was owing to budgetary shortfall. [Wiki] I mean who are guys like this compared to The Urban Sombrero, right?

The argument in defense of my premise was never to track seaman on leave, that was an intellectual rat hole of your device. The point was that no, that's zero, carriers were at sea for the first time since Dec 7, 1941. Reportedly, (and I assume the DOD still reserves the right to deploy carrier task forces as they and the pajama boy presently over our national defense policy see things), but the USS GHW Bush just happened to be up for the next deployment and was the only reason the press brought up said carrier and the unprecedented void of carrier protection.

I favor one of my own analogies in cases like this, you continue to flounder about in the very shadow of darkness cast by the mountain of evidence that disproves all your arguments.

I think, TRT, that Justice Scalia would be smart enough to not couch opposition in religious terms. The idea that straight people who marry should get certain privileges from said marriage, with those privileges, and marriage itself, being denied is an "equal protection" issue. Justice Scalia was wrong, and, in debate, shows no greater or lesser grasp of the law than Justice Breyer. You and Bolton et al. are just Homers. Period.

As for floundering, check your logical lunch box: something stinks in there.

[The Urban Sombrero]

🔼🔼

Here's the spin: the insinuation, TRT, is that since 1941, President Obama has allowed the US Navy to be at its most vulnerable, and our country. That is what was directly contradicted by a plane captain of the George H W Bush.

[TheRealThing]

I think, TRT, that Justice Scalia would be smart enough to not couch opposition in religious terms. The idea that straight people who marry should get certain privileges from said marriage, with those privileges, and marriage itself, being denied is an "equal protection" issue. Justice Scalia was wrong, and, in debate, shows no greater or lesser grasp of the law than Justice Breyer. You and Bolton et al. are just Homers. Period.

As for floundering, check your logical lunch box: something stinks in there.

LOL, I just cannot get the tune from the song "Feelings," as sung by Julio Iglesias and Barbra Streisand, out of my head when I read your posts.

[The Urban Sombrero]

LOL, I just cannot get the tune from the song "Feelings," as sung by Julio Iglesias and Barbra Streisand, out of my head when I read your posts.

I usually hear "Send in the Clowns" upon reading yours, but visually I see a clown running behind an elephant shoveling dung. You star in your own one man routine: "The Propogandist."

[TheRealThing]

����

Here's the spin: the insinuation, TRT, is that since 1941, President Obama has allowed the US Navy to be at its most vulnerable, and our country. That is what was directly contradicted by a plane captain of the George H W Bush.

And in this you have confirmed that you cannot distinguish spin from the real thing, not that there was any doubt. There was no spin attached to my posts I said straight up, that this weekend was the first that a carrier group was not on patrol since days prior to 1941. I'm sure if Roosevelt had listened to the anti war liberals of the day, our carriers would have been at Pearl on the morning of December 7th, rather than at sea out of harm's way. And world history would be significantly different.

I doubt that anybody in the US Navy thinks the fleet, or any part of the fleet is vulnerable. I never said that. What I said, and you have a lot of trouble with things like this, was that US interests went unsupported by a carrier group during that span. Like say a move by Putin on the Baltics? We'd rather not lose any naval vessel, they're all precious protectors of freedom. But the national defense is the charge of our armed services. US Destroyers and Missile frigates are an intimidating force, and as such must face off against our enemies at a moments notice. Though they are anything but expendable, their workplace is the definition of harm's way. But you back those up Destroyers and Frigates with a carrier loaded with US fighters and other attack aircraft, and nobody in their right mind would dare try their luck. You might bounce the term 'overwhelming force' off of the good plane captain and see if he has any familiarity thereof.

General Jack Keane, Lt Gen Thomas McInerney and Naval Captain Chuck Nash certainly do, just to name a few, and have gone into great detail on the decimation of the US Armed Services over the past 8 years. So I'll just go with what they have to say about all this, if it's all the same to you.

[TheRealThing]

I usually hear "Send in the Clowns" upon reading yours, but visually I see a clown running behind an elephant shoveling dung. You star in your own one man routine: "The Propogandist."

And as such, the substance I might be shoveling in your imaginations would still be superior to your normal offering, as the most casual comparison of our posts would readily reveal.

[The Urban Sombrero]

And as such, the substance I might be shoveling in your imaginations would still be superior to your normal offering, as the most casual comparison of our posts would readily reveal.

That would be negatory. You are a partisan. Plain and simple. And, you cannot disagree with a politician without being derogatory and nasty, which compromises your witness. You seldom (if ever) cite any thing or any body that would not fall under the partisan mantle.

[TheRealThing]

That would be negatory. You are a partisan. Plain and simple. And, you cannot disagree with a politician without being derogatory and nasty, which compromises your witness. You seldom (if ever) cite any thing or any body that would not fall under the partisan mantle.

Like I said, if just saying stuff made it so, you'd be unstoppable. I like to reference my posts, and I like the truth. You might start with those two parameters before demanding respect, which last I checked was a two way street.

In any case your criticisms and spiritual assessments seem somewhat hollow in view of the hundreds of posts you've put up in the defense of liberalism--- "A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority." Now if that isn't you nothing is. Essential liberty and freedom of conscience anyone? At any rate from the Biblical standpoint on human goodness, the Apostle Paul said the following; Romans 7:18 (KJV)
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

In other words liberalism is a lie, and one that opposes God's clear condemnation of the human state. You mitigate, I indoctrinate. You can't expect me to help you look good while making excuses for the left. Which in my view gives the lost more reason to soldier on in darkness. The Church played it the way you'd like to see it (nicey nicey) for the past 6 or 7 decades, and all she has gotten for her compromise is today's enhanced contempt of the lost. Christ, with no apology, called the orthodoxy of His day a generation of snakes, and many in this day are no better. Mine is to define liberals, not to judge them. But in so doing I don't have to be a thing if not honest.

Liberalism has shortly after WW2, undertaken to oppose the Church and Christian ethics in America with great zeal. Check the record.

[Bob Seger]

����

Here's the spin: the insinuation, TRT, is that since 1941, President Obama has allowed the US Navy to be at its most vulnerable, and our country. That is what was directly contradicted by a plane captain of the George H W Bush.

Guys like you should not be allowed to roam around out in public unattended.

You are a pure idiot!!

After reading the stupid stuff that you daily put on here, I am thoroughly convinced that you don't know shit from Shinola about anything.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Guys like you should not be allowed to roam around out in public unattended.

You are a pure idiot!!

After reading the stupid stuff that you daily put on here, I am thoroughly convinced that you don't know shit from Shinola about anything.

Your praise or dispraise
are to me alike.
One doesn't stroke me,
nor the other strike.

I think Ben Johnson said that in a little ditty called "To Fool or Knave." Shall we dedicate it to each other?

[The Urban Sombrero]

Like I said, if just saying stuff made it so, you'd be unstoppable. I like to reference my posts, and I like the truth. You might start with those two parameters before demanding respect, which last I checked was a two way street.

In any case your criticisms and spiritual assessments seem somewhat hollow in view of the hundreds of posts you've put up in the defense of liberalism--- "A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority." Now if that isn't you nothing is. Essential liberty and freedom of conscience anyone? At any rate from the Biblical standpoint on human goodness, the Apostle Paul said the following; Romans 7:18 (KJV)
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

In other words liberalism is a lie, and one that opposes God's clear condemnation of the human state. You mitigate, I indoctrinate. You can't expect me to help you look good while making excuses for the left. Which in my view gives the lost more reason to soldier on in darkness. The Church played it the way you'd like to see it (nicey nicey) for the past 6 or 7 decades, and all she has gotten for her compromise is today's enhanced contempt of the lost. Christ, with no apology, called the orthodoxy of His day a generation of snakes, and many in this day are no better. Mine is to define liberals, not to judge them. But in so doing I don't have to be a thing if not honest.

Liberalism has shortly after WW2, undertaken to oppose the Church and Christian ethics in America with great zeal. Check the record.

Anybody allergic to straw? Grab the Allegra D folks, TRT is posting again.

Essential liberty and freedom of conscience are neither liberal nor conservative. I would say they are more libertarian than anything if folks like you demand a label.

And, dearest Culture Warrior, in defending Christ (which he said "Follow me" and not "Defend me") by stepping outside the Spirit of Christ you place yourself firmly in the finest tradition of the Dark Ages, the Crusades, and all those who had zeal but not intimate relationship with the Savior.

I respect your sincerity. I don't agree with where it leads you in the church/civil government discussion in many areas. It seems to me that this nation has afforded Christians every freedom possible to freely and fully worship God as they see fit. Apparently, you don't want to live in a nation which allows first trimester abortions or gays to marry. I respect that, especially the former. I believe this nation affords freedom of conscience and essential liberty. People make choices, use and misuse freedom, worship what they please when they please and in the manner they please. Or not at all. The civil government in this republic allows that under the banner of our Constitution. The ultimate disposition of the human soul is not a matter of adjudication for civil authority. How a person exercises essential liberty and freedom of conscience is, ultimately, a matter beyond government.

[Bob Seger]

Your praise or dispraise
are to me alike.
One doesn't stroke me,
nor the other strike.

I think Ben Johnson said that in a little ditty called "To Fool or Knave." Shall we dedicate it to each other?

Ben Johnson, was a heavy doper that used to like to run around Canada a lot..Evidently he liked to run around in the nude, because I hear he was stripped.....I think that the last time that he got a little too fast for his own britches, he even he lost all the gold bling that he used to like to wear around his neck. He was too high to even remember the words. Maybe that's why you can identify with him?

Now, there used to be this old English dude named Ben Jonson, who used to try to write a poem or 2...But legend had it that he drank hemlock martinis all the time, stayed buzzed up and liked to chase dragons around the merry old England country side....Some called him a "fool", and I think that he was commonly referred to by the Sheriff of Nottingham, as that dang "knave" that we are always arresting for growing his own hemlock down in his basement. I've heard some of his stuff on Sirius/XM, and I'll be real honest with you Geraldo, I wasn't really impressed.

Either way, what influences you had growing up!!.....It aint no wonder that you stay screwed up all the time and write this stupid stuff.


:popcorn: