River Valley Blogs

Michael Welch Its SUCH A Joke At That... wrote on Oct 17, 2008 1:46 PM:

" I hate you!... "

To Welch wrote on Oct 16, 2008 4:09 PM:

" Yes, I am bored too. This has been going on for 8 days(since Harschs 10/8 452 comment). Indded, REAL boring and REAL asinine. If that comment was directed AT Harsch instead of BY Harsch, surely you would have accused the commenter of being "full of hate" "

Michael Welch SURE -- YOUVE CONVINCED YOURSELF AGAIN... wrote on Oct 16, 2008 12:17 PM:

" As Lincoln said 'Some fleas a dog can't scratch.' You've just REALLY REALLY boring me now. Bye -- don't call 'us,' we'll call you.. "

To Michael wrote on Oct 15, 2008 3:51 PM:

" But, I still go back to the fact that, whether the comment shoudve, wouldve, couldve been ignored, the fact of the matter is that he still made the silly nonsensical comment. Should it have ruined the dialogue? Maybe, maybe not. The point is, the comment was asinine and inappropriate. "

Michael Welch OH COME ON -- WISE UP TO YOURSELF FOR ONCE... wrote on Oct 15, 2008 12:08 PM:

" You're boring me now -- you're trying to tell me that Harsch can WITH ONE SINGLE COMMENT DEVASTATE your lovely little 'dialogue'?! BULL! You LONG for Harsch's disparagement so you can JUMP, LEAP, IN ECSTASY, to 'parse' it! You DO it constantly so you MUST ENJOY IT -- you just plain LIE to yourself which is the worst and most destructive kind of lying there is. 'None so blind as those who WILL NOT, CANNOT see' themselves for who they REALLY are eh... "

To Michael wrote on Oct 15, 2008 8:47 AM:

" I guess it is a matter of perception, or perhaps your friendship with Harsch. I find it "boring" when Harsch throws out his inane accusations out of nowhere, I suppose "trying" to be provocative, such as accusing Krause of not respecting Krauses own religion, simply because he writes about it here. That is the point at which whatever dialogue there was degenerated. "

Michael Welch Oh No THEY Are The BORINGEST Easily... wrote on Oct 13, 2008 12:31 PM:

" 'Izzy' and 'Cf' are FAR MORE boring than Harsch and I can't imagine perceiving otherwise without ignoring the obvious: those two are endlessly repetitive parser mongers of the most dedicated degree and focused on such inane and frivolous things like 'cagefighting,' the modern equivalent of gladiators chopping each other up for the blood lust of 'the mob.' Whatever 'interests' YOU, nameless commenter, tells more about your perceptions than it does me about Rick Harsch; if 'Izzy' and 'Cf' are your 'cuppa' I'd say your tastes are rancid... "

To Michael wrote on Oct 10, 2008 3:33 PM:

" Come on, Michael, you know that Harsch began the BORING stuff in his 452pm post. Krause probably bowed out because he doesnt want to deal with the stupidity. Dont fault CF and Izzy for responding to the stupidity unless you also fault Harsch for getting the whole stupid, boring thing underway. It seems to me the dialogue was going along fine until that comment by Harsch. "

Michael Welch BOR-RING... wrote on Oct 10, 2008 2:09 PM:

" NOW these right wingies comment IN ORDER to PROVE what I've said is correct!!! Next thing you know John McCain becomes a socialist!!!! There: if repetition is ALL 'Iz' and 'Cf' can manage anymore I guess I can repeat my 'observations.' (By the way 'Iz,' 'Cf' -- you are BOTH BOR-RING!...) "

Izzy re Harsch logic wrote on Oct 10, 2008 1:31 PM:

" Well, it was Harsch who wrote Krause implicitly equated his religion with other crap because they both happen to be debated and discussed on these blogs....or was that another of the posts that "wasnt his"? "

Michael Welch TRY THINKING SOMETHING NEW... wrote on Oct 10, 2008 11:31 AM:

" Harsch seems to be saying that the repetitive arguments about Christianity are becoming ONE HUGE BORE -- NO 'Christian' believer here is interested in anything except to 'protect the turf.' ONCE I wrote a 'series' of pieces on the two nativity stories in Matt and Luke; I 'compared and contrasted' as they used to ask you to do in school; Krause, AT LEAST, said they were 'interesting' though he would NOT expand as to WHY he thought they were. The 'discussion' died as it ALWAYS does because the religious righties 'know' only to say 'McDowell!' 'Strobel!' They NEVER develop an idea beyond the few presented and then they jump all over a 'term' or 'tone' in another comment so they can AVOID any 'new' ideas or freshness to this. Harsch says that essentially DEGRADES the religion you are supposedly 'defending' -- I agree... "

harsch to caged wrote on Oct 10, 2008 8:19 AM:

" Okay, so logic ain't your strong suit. "

Cagefighter to Harsch wrote on Oct 9, 2008 4:36 PM:

" Harsch, you hamburger. Just because people write about a subject here doesnt mean they are equating that subject with every other subject written about, or that they have a lack of respect for said subject. Is that Harschs new rule? If we respect something, we don't write about it? I guess I can no longer write about fighting in cages and you can no longer write about mice in boxes. "

Cagefarter the perrenial dip...from Harsch wrote on Oct 9, 2008 3:41 PM:

" parsing, written flatulence, belaboring, what a bunch of mooks. Krause implicitly equates religious belief with the crap we discuss every day on this blog, hence my comment. I don't think he really meant that, but that's what we blog for in part--to straighten each other out. Krause is evangelical and in that way does not respect other religions. Cagefighter, you are simply simple, so you deserve less credit. No one who reads these blogs has any idea what you belive except that you are anti-'liberal' and narcissistic. written flatulence? again? okay. "

Michael Welch Dead Time... wrote on Oct 9, 2008 1:13 PM:

" 'Cagefighter' you're ONLY parsing again; it MUST be that it's Yom Kippur because you have no energy, no verve, no interest in developing an idea. You're mired in everyone else's sins or alleged sins. Krause is an okay guy -- how much he actually 'RESPECTS' OTHER religions he has yet to display but the constant ring 'round the rose o'sharon we play RELIGIOUSLY here IS repetitious and DOES lead nowhere. The SAME 'arguments' ensue -- I do my little scholarly turn; someone says McDowell! Strobel! and then we're back to 'faith.' It's ALL so yes BELABORED; it even approaches WRITTEN FLATULENCE!!!!! (Today there's just 'farting' on this blog yet I DO admit I like MY comments even though!...) "

Cagefighter to Harsch wrote on Oct 9, 2008 11:01 AM:

" Harsch, Kenneth probably has more respect for not only his religion, but also the religion of others, and he probably shows more respect towards those who disagree with him than anyone else on this board. He certainly has more patience than I do. For you to accuse him of not respecting his religion is asinine, and underlies the point I have been making lately--your posts are written flatulence. "

harsch to Kenneth wrote on Oct 8, 2008 4:52 PM:

" Kenneth, please have a little more respect for your religion. "

Kenneth W Krause wrote on Oct 8, 2008 3:19 PM:

" I hate answering a question with a question, but I will do so anyway: Why post on these message boards at all? Why not just believe what you believe, and keep it to yourself? "

harsch to kenneth wrote on Oct 8, 2008 12:52 PM:

" I hope it does not come as a surprise to you that you are not most people. As for debate, why welcome it? Why not just go believe what you believe? "

Michael Welch The Ruling Class... wrote on Oct 8, 2008 11:58 AM:

" Even Richard Dawkins advocates studying the Bible (KING JAMES I presume!) in schools even as the 'new atheism' is to sweep the world in due time. I on the other hand, 'Richard C,' talk to God ALL the time but He NEVER answers -- except as per an odd little film, 'The Ruling Class,' with Peter O'Toole as a rich generous looney who believes he is Jesus and when asked at what moment he initially realized that he replies -- 'When I was praying; I found I was talking to myself.' Later he is 'transformed' by another looney who believes himself Yahweh the OT God and O'Toole then assumes his 'proper' role as a repressed cruel Jack the Ripperish rich landed gentry -- in other words he becomes, by societal lights, 'successful'... "

Kenneth W Krause wrote on Oct 8, 2008 11:28 AM:

" I think I do show respect for other religions, and welcome any debate. The evidence I cited is not inherited-it has nothing to do with what my parents believed.(they were agnostic). "

harsch wrote on Oct 8, 2008 11:08 AM:

" The history of religions suggests that 'compelling evidence' is mere inheritance. Most people believe what their parents believed--everywhere in the world. A proper respect for religious diversity displayed by Christians on this blog would eliminate any reason for debate. "

Kenneth W Krause wrote on Oct 8, 2008 8:46 AM:

" RC, thank you very much. I agree with Lee-a very eloquent posting. As I tell people, just keep investigating. Put Christianity on trial. One thing about Christianity and Christians-we dont shy away from scrutiny. "

Lee Bowers to Richard wrote on Oct 8, 2008 7:33 AM:

" An eloquent posting; thank you. "

Richard Cranium wrote on Oct 7, 2008 10:04 PM:

" To Kenneth: I've never heard it presented to me that way before. (God is supernatural). I do consider myself to be a fairly reasonable person and thats why I enter into these conversations. I always try to keep an open mind and learn even when it's not an easy thing to do. I appreciated your comment about the space between compelling evidence and outright proof. Perhaps that really is where a persons faith comes in. When Mother Theresa said she hadn't spoken with God in fifty years it reminded me of myself. I've been alive around that many years and haven't spoken to God either. (and I've tried). I'm not sure I believe all the stories in the Bible but I do like the imagery. I wish there were people with wings living in the clouds. But I just haven't been able to see the hand of God anywhere. "

Southeast Atheist to Big Spender wrote on Oct 7, 2008 4:41 PM:

" Big Spender, stay away from any evidence put forth by Strobel, McDowell, etc. Just stick to our story that its all about the quarks and leptons. "

Kenneth W Krause wrote on Oct 7, 2008 4:36 PM:

" BS, you keep mixing up proof and evidence. Myself, Welch, and others have been discussing the evidence on this and other blogs. Join in if you wish. "

Big Spender wrote on Oct 7, 2008 2:42 PM:

" To Krause, "Harsch, the craziness is people like BS who deny the existence of the evidence that is clearly there."
-------------------------------------

I'm not the one claiming the existence of gods or the supernatural. Therefore, it's not my job to do all the legwork on this. So, point me to the evidence you are so loath to cite.

Remember, students, that wishful thinking isn't evidence. Include in your proof some implication that Hinduism and Buddhism are false; in other words, once you've proved mathematically or logically that 183.7291 gods exist, show that these are not Hindu gods. "

Kenneth W Krause wrote on Oct 7, 2008 1:12 PM:

" Harsch, the craziness is people like BS who deny the existence of the evidence that is clearly there. They engage people in debates, then simply refuse to discuss, instead tossing out ridiculous comparisons to spaghetti monsters. If you automatically reject anything supernatural-if you have that bias-why even enter into a discussion? The difference is in proof vs evidence. Ones faith can be based on reason-a reasonable analysis of the available evidence. Perhaps the space between compelling evidence and outright proof is where faith comes in? "

harsch...what is so good about faith wrote on Oct 7, 2008 12:09 PM:

" These religious debates can be hilarious. If you use reason you are wrong for using reason. If you base you argument on faith you are lacking reason. However, the difference remains that the Christians argue using quasi-scientific 'evidence' (as if anyone really knows who wrote the scriptures, who edited them, etc.), while dismissing anything that runs against them as a misapplication of science to the supernatural. Crazy. "

Michael Welch Feingold -- And George W FDR Bush... wrote on Oct 7, 2008 11:41 AM:

" I like Feingold and still wear at times a 'Russ Feingold for President' tee a friend sent me. I'd have voted for the bailout but that doesn't mean there were no reasonable arguments against it. Feingold 'stood alone' against the misnamed 'Patriot' act and was re-elected; he certainly has proven he possesses those much vaunted political 'guts,' no doubt. I think he indeed has more integrity than 95+% of the congress and I see no rationale to malign HIM when the Bushites who hate him for being 'leftist' have lately accomplished more 'socialism' in America than anyone since Franklin Roosevelt. In some sense THAT may, ironically, be the greatest Bush 'legacy,' just as President Hoover's 'Reconstruction Finance Corporation' was a prototype for FDR's 'New Deal'... "

Kenneth W Krause wrote on Oct 7, 2008 10:29 AM:

" BS, you are talking in circles. If I could do that we wouldn't be having this discussion. Not only that, but if I did what you request, I would be refuting my own statement that God is supernatural. What you are suggesting would only be possible with something natural. I discussed some of the evidence for Christianity below. God gives us enough evidence to make faith reasonable, but not so much evidence as to make faith unnecessary. "

Lee Bowers wrote on Oct 7, 2008 7:23 AM:

" Well, JB, we couldn't disagree more. Feingold is a man of principle, an extreme rarity in Congress. He voted against the bailout because it was bad legislation. Period! "

To JB wrote on Oct 7, 2008 7:13 AM:

" And just how does Feingold know a bill is going to pass.? All you have to do is look at his voting record to know that isn't true. He might just be one of the few honest politicians left in this country. "

To Kenneth Krause wrote on Oct 6, 2008 10:03 PM:

" God is supernatural? Could you please explain that comment? "

Big Spender wrote on Oct 6, 2008 8:47 PM:

" To Krause, Terrible Twos, re: "to your statements, something can be both real AND supernatural."

So, ante up! Produce Zeus!

Fill an old tuna can with some of that supernatural ectoplasm and send it to a lab for analysis, like in the movie Ghostbusters. Show me that giant Marshmallow Man! "

J.B. wrote on Oct 6, 2008 8:46 PM:

" Lee Bowers, I usually agree, but Russ Feingold usually votes no when he knows the bill will pass. Real "Hero". "

Harsch...Zeus Change We Can Believe In wrote on Oct 6, 2008 5:23 PM:

" I support Big Spender's implicit suggestion entirely. "

Kenneth W Krause wrote on Oct 6, 2008 5:10 PM:

" BS, science will never disprove God because God is supernatural, whereas science is concerned with only the natural, which is how it should be. Contrary to your statements, something can be both real AND supernatural. You have already shown that, despite any evidence put forth, you will automatically, without question, reject anything supernatural. That is fine. But, that attitude will not aid you in an honest search for the truth. "

To Big Spender wrote on Oct 6, 2008 5:01 PM:

" I will make a deal with you. I will start using a name as soon as you attempt to engage in some serious dialogue. There is evidence in support of Christianity(the existence of the Christian God). The evidence has been discussed and debated not only on these blogs, but all over the world. The evidence is there, but there is no such evidence for the flying spaghetti monster. You are afraid to even discuss the evidence. Your hero, Dr Anthony Flew, at least attempted to engage Gary Habermas in debates regarding the evidence. First step-acknowledge the evidence exists. You don't necessarily have to accept the evidence-heck, you can even draw your own conclusions from it. But, is is there. Whether you like it or not. No such evidence even exists for the flying spaghetti monster. So, comparing the two simply doesnt work. "

Big Spender wrote on Oct 6, 2008 3:58 PM:

" To "To M. Welch," re: "Obviously, the evidence for Christianity surpasses the evidence for the flying spaghetti monster"

Nope, I've seen spaghetti, I've not seen your Big Christian Sky Daddy crossing the belt of Orion. But, if you've got a videotape showing me wrong, do share it with us.

What makes your Xtian mythology more valid than Zeusian one? What was so bad about Zeus that you Xtians had to overthrow him for some upstart punk god? How do you know that I'm not really god and am just testing you?

BTW, to all the Terrible "Tos," please use a name: the "To" thing is considered goofy here in the blogosphere--no 'point of reference,' etc. "

Obama for change wrote on Oct 6, 2008 3:37 PM:

" Now if we elect Obama, things will get fixed. Obama is gonna fix this country that George Bush broke. Why? Because, he says "change you can believe in". And because he says so, it must be true. It doesn't matter that he doesn't have a record of accomplishing anything in terms of real change, he says he's going to change things, so consider it done! He's just saving up all his big changes for when he becomes President, so he doesn't need a track record. "

Blame wrote on Oct 6, 2008 3:33 PM:

" It's all Bush's fault anyway. Everything is his fault. Somehow he manages to run this country and fool the Congress everytime. I don't know how he does it, if they had their way our problems would be fixed but Bush is a dictator and somehow bypases the legistative branch to implement his master plan to rule the world! Yep, that's it. We have 3 branches of government but there might as well only be one because Bush gets his way every time! "

To Michael Welch wrote on Oct 6, 2008 1:54 PM:

" As I stated on another board, you impressed this youngster with your comments directed to Big Spender on the faith blog. You aptly pointed out that his comments regarding religion are silly. It is nice that you acknowldge the other side has their fair share of dimwits. Obviously, the evidence for Christianity surpasses the evidence for the flying spaghetti monster. He insists on comparing the two when, in fact, there is no comparison. He is afraid to argue the actual merits-that is-the actual evidence for Christianity. So, he resorts to this silly name calling and flame wars. "

Lee Bowers wrote on Oct 6, 2008 11:53 AM:

" Last time I checked we were still theoretically a democracy where our leaders are supposed to listen to the people and then represent them. Not so with the bailout. The American people were against it, but our leaders apparently know better than we do. Yeah, right. Personally, I have no use for people like Nancy Pelosi and Ron Kind, but all the respect in the world for Russ Feingold and Rep Tim Walz. "

Lee Bowers wrote on Oct 6, 2008 11:45 AM:

" I'm a big, big fan of Marilyn. Without a doubt..and I mean without a doubt, her sex appeal in "Niagra" was like 100 on a scale of one to one hundred. I have beads of sweat on my brow just thinking about it. "

Michael Welch Marilyn Was A Great Personality AND A Great Actress... wrote on Oct 6, 2008 11:38 AM:

" As for Marilyn she was an extraordinary personality, a genuine 'free spirit' at her best, and a wonderful musical comedy star. In more serious pics such as 'Bus Stop' and 'The Misfits' she also showed she could (of course!) perform dramatic parts skillfully and winningly. I have no doubt she would have, if she'd lived, become a fine 'character actress' with a very wide range. She was playful, kittenish, sexy, silly, wily, wistful, disturbing, tragic, pathetic -- I MEAN what else does a GREAT actress require?! Marilyn Monroe as 'Blanche DuBois' in a 1970ish Broadway revival of 'A Streetcar Named Desire' -- NOW THAT would have been SOMETHING!... "

Michael Welch Obama -- George Will AND Karl Roves CandyDandy... wrote on Oct 6, 2008 11:29 AM:

" The McCain campaign now IS sinking; Palin is unleashed as an attack dog -- the uh pit bull lipsticked? -- but it has all the hmmm 'earmarks' of flop sweat. Another reason I believe the establishment now NEEDS Obama is that none other than Karl Rove himself has announced that 'as of today' the Big O will win 273 electoral votes, three over, and the Bushite Repubs are already writing obits of the Shrinking Mac 'strategy' -- George Will, erstwhile Teedie Roosevelt enthusiast, opining re: TR's unfortunate 'fascistic' tendencies and implying about Jawn --?! The system requires a DEMOCRAT -- just as in 1932 -- to administer the horrendously expensive 'medicine,' 'with a spoonful of sugar' (more government programs for the middle and getting poorer). Roveians for Obama! Who'd a-thunk?... "

Michael Welch George W Herbert Hoover Bush... wrote on Oct 6, 2008 11:18 AM:

" I believe the bailout was necessary; it is an (expensive) attempt to avoid something the modern equivalent of 1929-1939, i. e. ten years of unimaginable (by present generations) suffering and desperation. A friend of mine sent me an always pertinent Oliphant cartoon of a distressed fat bald man in a dark business suit tearily holding up a cardboard sign -- 'Get me out of debt before I have to destroy us all.' He sent me another with a great pile of rubble and an earthmover with only an American flag sticking out. Below are the midget president W with his Svengali, Dick 'Duck!' Cheney, winking and shaking hands. Another tiny figure says to the trademark Oliphant 'penguin' -- 'Give us just $700 billion and we'll finish the job!' 'Most destructive presidency ever'?... "

harsch wrote on Oct 6, 2008 11:08 AM:

" As for 'palling around' with terrorists, McCain has quite frequently been seen with Bush and Cheney. To the Hague! "

y1derh20 wrote on Oct 6, 2008 10:08 AM:

" Sarah Palin accused Obama of palling around with terorist, now this is a very serious charge, the kind of stuff that may get a person put in Guantanomo Bay maybe we should have a serious investigation by the FBI, if my neighbor was palling around with terrorist I'm sure the FBI and CIA would want to know. "

Starfish wrote on Oct 6, 2008 9:47 AM:

" And not to get old quoting Garrett Hardin, but when a society trusts its people or institutions to "do the right thing" and behave morally, it only advantages those with no such compunction (think Dick Cheney). "

Starfish wrote on Oct 6, 2008 9:45 AM:

" Dispicable or hilarious: these HIGHLY paid execs not only can't admit that they don't have the slightest clue how their products operate, but their whole rating system issues Triple A ratings with no basis of understanding whatsoever. When the product failure is a coating or a toaster, we just waste time or fill our landfills. When the financial sector is 22% of our GDP and there is no meaningful method of evaluating their competence, we have a very, very fundamental problem. "

Big Spender wrote on Oct 6, 2008 9:31 AM:

" Regarding: "INTEREST IN MARILYN MONROE NEVER SEEMS TO FADE"

That's not surprising: we need someone half as competent as her in the White House now--stocks are down another 300 points this morning!

Who didn't know for years that these complex and exotic financial instruments were a deliberate scam? Even the buyers and sellers of these "products" knew that. My blog collapse prediction was off by twenty months: I expected the GWB Supercollapse in 2006 (under a different nym, in the newsgroups).

So, what can we all learn from all of this? Grow a garden, move to Canada, learn to can, make soap, sew your own clothes, raise chickens, chop firewood, do a Bear Grylls thing in the backwoods...... "

To Lee from Jimmy wrote on Oct 6, 2008 9:21 AM:

" Great suggestion, Lee; watch for it sometime soon. And take care of yourself, my friend. "

Lee Bowers wrote on Oct 6, 2008 8:55 AM:

" Let the blame be placed where it began-with Ronald Reagan's "deregulation" policies. Jimmy, why don't you review Oliver Stone's "Wall Street"? Remember that classic line, "Greed is good"? You betcha. "

Comments »

Post a comment (150 word limit) »