cwsox

Eastern Time here, Tex, I went and done church already did you? where I should be is in Chicago but financial situations keeping me home - and I had my pulpit supply all lined up too...

merged for your pleasure

pinned for your pleasure

comments like this, I prefer not be made kill?

Thank you Jim Anger at injustice is a hallmark of the Scriptures and the Church. "I hate, I despise your solemn feasts... where there is no justice and the poor are exploited..." That would be God speaking via the 8th century prophets and elsehwere. The clergy of God have had a Biblical and since the since the canon of Scripture closed a historical role in calling the powers that be to account. When people start complaining of so called potshots at the dead they have no argument (do they, for examle, then keep total silence on Kennedy, on Johnson, on FDR?) and anything that says "and your/he is a pastor too" is always a sign of a lack of argument. To make it personal is yet another sign. When one cannot rebut the fatcs, attack the one who proclaims them. The concept of the enemy of my enemy is my friend so I must give him arms and support is morally and politically bankrupt (let alone short sited) and affects us is drastic ways to this day. Most of the masacres that Hussein committed that were complained of late were during the Reagan supporting Hussein years. And training and arming bin Laden was so short cited of a policy. Look at the predictable results of both decisions. Thousands upon thousands of deaths, including thousands upon thousands of our own. The death toll in supporting D'Aubbison in Salvador who murdered archbishop Romero, the raping and murdering of the three nuns and layworker, and the massacre of the priests and laity is but a small token of the thousands that his Reagan supported death squads killed. Is it really so that we can discuss the policies and their effects of any president but Reagan? Bulls***. And the bulls*** flung at me is just that. My favorite was the attack on me for having said nice things about the man so I must be a hypocrite because I ripped into his policies. That speaks for itself. It is quite possible for Reagan to have a personally kind man and yet an abomidable president. And indeed he was. FDR and Churchill made allegiance with Stalin to defeat Hitler and Mussolini and Japan in a world war. That is not compreabale (in my opinion) to Reagan's for arming of bin Laden and supporting Hussein with technology and other supplies that enabled Hussein to massacre his own and Iranians. The ad absurdum argument that "everyone" in eastern Eurpe gives Reagan credit for the fall ofthe USSR is precisely that. The avowed aim at the time of the Reagan administration was to bankrupt the USSR into collapsing. The method of doing that was to bankrupt the US in massive deficits. But we didn't have to do that. The USSR was there anyway, bankrupt. They faced four things: a failing economy, the rise of dissidence especially in Solidarnosc (which was enabled by the coincidence of a Polish pontiff who used Vatican channels to convey Solidarnosc communications), demographics (the Lucey study in Wisconsin in 83 and 84 showed that that the Russians were a rapidly dwindling percentage of the populaton and the republics and what that portended), and the failure of Soviet ideology in the up and coming generation within Russia itself (the number of baptisms in the late 70s and into the 80s that were taking place 60 miles away from Moscow revealed there was whole generation coming of age that rejected Soviet ideology - and Moscow being Moscow, that meant that the young generations of party members/up and coming bureaucrats were rejecting Leninism) all portended the fall of the Soviet Union without the firing of a single shot - which happended, as the peace movement in the Church had predicted. Where we were wrong was the year - I was surprised it happened in 89 and 91 - I would have given it another 5-10 years at most to survive). If one goes back to the 80s one will find many church bodies in the US who assailed Reagan's nuclear and economic and foreign policies. That would also include a certain bishop of Rome, who just recently blasted our Iraq policy as he has repeatedly. That the churches and their "can you imagine their clergy who should be shock jocks and not clergy" have spoken so much and so often indicates that I am but a part of a demographic - clergy who deplored the Reagan administration's policies and actions. I cant even claim originality. I am just one of many clergy. The voice of the Church when it speaks to injustice and militray madness in the world has been consistent and certainly was all through the Reagan administration.

we weren't on the jury and not knowing their state law and what is required and presented, it is hard to second guess from our lack of knowledge, other than knee jerk reactions

you are a great guy - HB!

pinned for your pleasure

no, but because he is thinking and learning - CK, you are free to commend those who you wish to too. Commending people is not forbidden when someone doesn't think like you. I love you CK, you know that. You are one of the best of people. We seldom agree but I see you as my baseball bro, a real fan and true friend and one of the best people out there.

time and place I observed all week until he was buried. A lot of folks, myself included, have resented the hailography and deification that has been taking place all week, plus the classless attacks on those of us who would not adhere to the canonization theme. You want a respite from the truth forever? The deifiers have had their week. The burial has happened. Since so much was thrust at us with accusations that we were stupid leftistsw ho know nothing, now, at the right time and place, following the burial, comes the response - held for the right time and place. Don't try and guilt trip me. Won't accept it. It's not valid. And I am fueled by a righteous anger of the policies of the 80s that I fough vehemently which empowered bin laden and Hussein and how many people on all sides have died in the 80s, 90,s and 00s because of those short sided Reagan policies? What you call vindictive, I call righteous anger at the very preidctable end results of those horrendous short sited polices which we opposed and were belittled for. And I won't get in to Reagan's support for apartheid. reagan gets no passes because he was avuncular. He was a bad president. He gave give image, I admit, and he loved his wife dearly, true. He was a wonderful friend to people although every one says there was something they couldn't get close to, and he had the ability to on occasion work bi partisanly, which is a trait sorely missing in the current administration. Or do you expect the "lets not disrupt the canonization of Reagan" period to last forever by forbidding discussions of the actual record as opposed to the image?

it is in the Bible: 1 Corinthians 13.11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. You are on your way to an intelligent and thoughtful adulthood and a thoughtful citizen and thinking American!

Care to say why the Scottish Lords of the Congregation hated the de Guise family so much that they wrecked the regency of Marie de Guise and deposed Mary Stuart? I mean, if we are going to throw questions, how about some with some historical import!

We didn't expect better of Reagan and it was yet even with low level of expectations it wasvery disappointing. Or do you mean you are disappointed that taking truthfully about Reagan foreign policy is disappointing because the marketing image of the cowboy is so gratifying? I love the way it gets said "disapointing" as if there is a moral or personal flaw in the one who points out the truth which you cannot rebut, rather than admitting that the flaw is in the actions that have been pointed out. I am disappointed that you don't try to justify Reagan's foreign policy beginning with its source, Jeanne Kilkpatrick's article in Foreign Affairs. I have a copy if you want to borrow it. It s the one that caught his eye when she expalined the difference between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes (ones we liked, authoritarian, good, ones we disliked, totalitarian, bad). I think using Reagan's own source would have been your best bet, as weak as that is. I remember Reagan discussing waging a limited nuclear war in Europe. I remember Reagan saying that if fired ballistic missiles could be recalled. He had some unusual views, to say the least. But as Michael Deaver pointed out - deputy chief of staff - it never mattered what Reagan said, they cared about the backdrop, the scenerym did it look prsidential and as long as the scenery was good it was irrelevant what Reagan actually said, tv America wouyld buy the image. That is from michael Dever, Reagan's deputy chief of staff. He said it again on CNN today. Fight your battle with him, not me, on this.

He was in the ground by the news out here What is telling the truth you call trashing. It is not trashing. It is truth telling. What I posed is true. It is true. The Reagan Legacy was Saddam and Osama. Most of Saddam's best heinous acts were done with the aid and support of the Reagan administration. And that was to kill Iranians (and his own people) while on the other side Reagan was trading with Iran arms for hostages, Iran Contra, in violation of US law. (But there was a Bible and birthday cake tossed in there, so ok) And the Reagan financial support for the murderous Roberto d'Aubission of El Salvador. The puppet light and shadow show is over. Time to be real. As real as Nancy running the White House scheduling for Ron based on astrological readings.

true and what was true was that was an unheard of, recordsetting national debt and Reagan promised Reagonomics would eliminate the much small debt he started with. but it gets beter! Reagan's vice president becomes president and increases the national debt even more! Then damn it that horny little Clinton boy got in there and turned those deficits to surpluses in record time when no one even thought it could be done but by cracky the Reagan Bushies got in again and now the national debt is approaching 500 trillion you see, we are where the USSR was in the mid 1980s - massively overspending and running astronomical deficits while engaged in war in Afghanistan and we being Americans add the bonus of war in Iraq - the bankruptcy that took down the USSR is soon to hit the US... un'ess we make a change and get those financially irresponsible and wastral reagan bushes out, and now. once upon a time there were fiscally responsible republicans. But they are all dead now. Ev Dirksen, come back! come back Ev Dirksen!

ahhh... but which one? 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

???????

I have a question I need help on. What would you call a person who gave aid and support to both Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein? That includes weapons to Osama and aid to Hussein so Hussein could divert money for weapons to commit massacres? What would you call that person? What if that same person gave aid, support, and weapons to someone who was responsible for the killing of a bishop at mass, the massacre of clergy and students, and the raping and murder of nuns and lay workers and used the newly gotten weapons to commit more massacres? what would you call that person?

and he had spoken to white racist groups a number of times prior to Wellstone's death. And some of us are old enough to remember Lott as the apologist dork smart ass punk supreme for criminality on the 1974 House Judiciary Committee and found his role in 1999 to be the height of hypocrasy. And I suspect some in Minnesota remembered too. And if that is your big issue of the day, wow. But if you agree that Lott has such beliefs, what is the point of this thread going on and on over this? PS No one from Mississippi makes a harmless comment about the 1948 election, ever. And that is one reason I question the integrity of anyone whose presidential campaign's opening act was in Philadelphia, Mississippi.

I also taught my grandson the "never taunt" rule... the never taunt rule works well since step dad is an MSU fan and a Bosox fan and when he first came on the scene, I explained the kid might be his girlfriend's son but he was my grandson and he was not to mess with our loyalties and in exchange I would teach "never taunt." It has worked well. Which means stepdad has never seen the MSU sucks shirts - we keep those at my place

I will never forget the magic moment that my grandson asked me to buy him his first "Cubs Suck" t shirt! Of course his step father wanted it to wear himself so I had to get the kid another the next season!

congrats on first show!

True. He was booed for actual racist philosophy.

I am going to go work out - if I come home and the sig is still here because J4L hasn't gotten the PM yet because he is not on line yet, I will figure a way to take care of it... if the much faster than me ss2k4 or another admin hasn't done so already. I want to give J4L a chance to do it himself because he is a good poster.