1. Ann wrote:

@Marc: why didnt you give us your thoughts on Barack’s speech?
Why have you been quiet on Palin?

2. Marc Lamont Hill wrote:

i’m about to post a piece on Palin. i’m exhausted from discussing Barack. that said, being at the stadium, i found the speech electrifying. nevertheless, i found the speech lacking in several areas.

3. Ann wrote:

I am curious to know what you guys think about Joe Lieberman.

4. DCI74 wrote:

As a Connecticut resident I have seen and heard a lot of Lieberman much more than most and personally I think he is a very confused politician, dude is literally all over the place when it comes to what he advocates for, speaks out against or who he chooses to support.

5. Miss Martin wrote:

he (crazy joe) gives independents a horrible rep…

6. Ann wrote:

Zell Miller- former Ga Governor and senate member did the same thing 4 years ago. He spoke at the Republican convention and endorsed George W. Bush.

7. Iani wrote:

How did Jesse Jackson have the nerve to show his face at the Democratic Convention?

8. wouldn't you love to know? wrote:

slightly off topic:

i would like to know, why are thongs sooo uncomfortable???
any fellas care to make any suggestions??

also, why does it seem like the best singers ever, are all plus size??? can someone please tell me, what’s in the pie, that makes them hit those high notes???

shoot, i fuckin’ up some entenmann’s right now as we speak, and i still sound like shit…

9. Miss Martin wrote:

LMAO @ WYLTK! Thas a good ass question..(plus size singers=saaaaangin’)

Thongs are an unnecessary evil: How about skip the thongs and go pantyless (?????) works for me…

10. Ann wrote:

lmao @ wyltk…girl you crazy….rofl…whats in the pie….lol

Why did Cincinnati Bengal Chad Johnson legally change his name to:

Chad Javon Ocho Cinco…lol….

11. wouldn't you love to know? wrote:

lmao, yes miss martin! and you ever notice how their lips move when they sing??? it’s like watching pac man fuck up a cheesesteak. ‘ “wooo wa wa woo wooo woo”

and girl, i don’t know why i’m in the mood to watch “free willy”

lol Ann, he did that for the same reason why i’m changing my name to Prince. . .

12. DCI74 wrote:

I got a better question, ladies how on earth are thongs even functional? Now don’t get me wrong I damn sure like they way they look but for real they’re so damn small.

13. Blaxx wrote:

He changed his name to Ocho Cinco because that’s the only way the NFL will let him put Ocho Cinco on the back of his jersey without fining him. Was it worth it? Probably, I already bought an Ocho Cinco jersey. Let’s do a geography role call. Where’s everybody from?

14. wouldn't you love to know? wrote:

DC, you know i love you, but you sound like the rest of these inconsiderate men out here with “Now don’t get me wrong I damn sure like the way they look”.

MEN hmf!

i’m pretty sure you guys like how babies look too, but y’all damn sure don’t want to feel what it’s like to have one…

ladies, you ever have your thong ride up so high, that the wedgie was unbearable, and you can’t pull it out, because you’re some where inappropriate like, a funeral viewing the body, on stage about to receive your diploma, stuck in an elevator with five executives, etc??? isn’t that shit the worse???

thongs serve no freakin purpose, i bet some man thought of that conTRAPtion…

15. wouldn't you love to know? wrote:

Philly Stand Up!

16. Iani wrote:

San Francisco Bay (Home of the thong).

17. Miss Martin wrote:

LMAO LMAO @WYLTK…..thongs are only for “turn-the-lights-down-low” type situations….cuz being caught in a situation where you cant relieve yourself from a terrible thong wedgy is neva good look lol (been there done that–that why I’m ‘easy breezy’ and thong free)

Baltimore, Md proudly standing up…

18. DCI74 wrote:

Residing in CT but Brooklyn is in the house without a doubt.

Lol how am I inconsiderate wyltk?? I’m not making her wear them I just can’t see how they’re functional but I’m not mad at all that women wear them.

“ladies, you ever have your thong ride up so high, that the wedgie was unbearable”

See that’s what I don’t get, doesn’t a thong give you an automatic wedgie the second you put it on?? Damn I’m so confused. :-/

19. wouldn't you love to know? wrote:

LOL DC, i’m just pulling your leg, i know you’re the ladies man

but see, the thong doesn’t give you an automatic wedgie initially. how do they make that possible i don’t know, because soon as regular undies ride up, you immediately feel it….but the thong is different(some man put some voodoo on that contraption)….but when that bad boy start to ride up too high, good Lord, it’s like someone hung you on a basketball hoop by your drawers, and left you to dry….the worse feeling in the world…if you’re out and you see some random lady with her face all screwed up for no apparent reason, more than likely she has a wedgie. . .

20. Blaxx wrote:

but see, the thong doesn’t give you an automatic wedgie initially. how do they make that possible i don’t know, because soon as regular undies ride up, you immediately feel it….but the thong is different(some man put some voodoo on that contraption)

It’s science, look it up

21. DCI74 wrote:

Wow thanks for the breakdown wyltk, I still don’t get it but that’s ok because I accept that there are certain mysteries of women I’m just not meant to know or understand lol.

22. Mrs. Rivers wrote:

Mrs. Samara Rivers holding up for the westcoast! Originally from LA but living in the Bay Area.

23. Mrs. Rivers wrote:

Mrs. Samara Rivers is finally back and representing the westcoast! Originally from LA, living in the Bay Area.

24. R.oB. wrote:

Just that the more we learn about Palin and her family the more ridiculous the Republican’s seem. Did anyone here know that her husband wanted to secede from the Union. Absolutely comedy. I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried.

25. james wrote:

as mayor, palin tried to have the town librarian fired for not agreeing to ban books with objectionable content. how’s that for a breath of fresh air!

26. MrsPickron wrote:

they have that baby at such a convention 9:30 at night. this is my point, that baby should be at home in bed. I’m mad right now that no one see anything wrong with that. Could you imagine how loud it is there. what is the number to Mineapolis Department of Child Welfare? I’m calling on her!!!!

27. Tanya wrote:

Oh my gosh!!! You people make is soooo scary to enter public life!

I had no idea that people were so easily fooled and so incredibly misinformed.

R.oB. – Her husband was a member of Alaska’s Independent Party (AIP) when he was 20 years old. Yes the AIP wants Alaska to secede from the Union, but that DOESN”T mean he supported it. There are members of the Republican Party who are Pro-Choice and there are members of the Democratic Party who are Pro-Life. Just b/c you are a member of a Party doesn’t mean you agree 100% will every single one of that Party’s positions.

I think it is premature for you to say he supports a secession from the US just b/c of a Party he signed up for when he was a young lad, and then soon after left. And I think it is malicious to calculate Sarah Palin or the entire Republican Party as “ridiculous” b/c of it.

BTW – Sarah has always been a member of the Republican Party, NEVER a member of any other Party, and everything she has done can be linked to conservative principles. (GO Sarah!)

James – Sarah Palin didn’t want the children in her town being exposed to the objectionable content of certain books. (Would you want your 8 year old reading something Timaree wrote?)

The librarian was one of those loony leftist who pledged to “resist all efforts at censorship”, and she, Ms. Emmons (the librarian) choose to not only leave the library, but the town, b/c she was too weak to stand up to Sarah’s morals.

Can’t blame Sarah Palin for that!

28. Tanya wrote:

MrsPickron,

I know you’re joking! Right?

29. Blaxx wrote:

It is kinda fucked up tho Tanya. That baby is barely 4 months old, the convention isn’t the right place for him, at least not for any extended period of time. It must be almost as loud as a Mets game in there. By the way, METS RULES!!!

30. Tanya wrote:

Blaxx,

I think the baby will be perfectly fine!

The Mets do rule!!!! When I was a little girl my dad would always take my sister and I to Mets games, and we would have so much fun cheering for Daryl Strawberry!

What ever happened to Daryl Strawberry?!?!?!?!

I miss the good ol days…

31. ChgoSista wrote:

1. Am I the only one (besides Tanya–LOL!) who isn’t necessarily feelin’ Timaree’s posts? I’m not sure if it’s her writing style, the subject matter, or what, but something…just…ain’t…quite…grabbing me. They are hard to follow–hard to get into–something–I don’t know!!((shrugging my shoulders & wincing)))

2. Where are the bruhs who just DO SHIT for women–no strings attached–just because–they’re “that kinda guy?” As a single female homeowner, I’m bout fed up with men hinting at some pu**y just for putting in a gotdamn ceiling fan!!!!!! I got a house full of shelves, stands, light fixtures, and shit in boxes, unassembled, cuz I don’t wanna give up the ‘good-good’ like it’s gubment cheese!

I’M DONE!

32. Ann wrote:

I know I am late but I am representing the A-T-L!!!

33. Piscean Princess wrote:

Regarding the recent Timaree bashing….

I happen to enjoy her posts. I find them humorous and informative.

However, like anything else, those of you who don’t agree are well within your rights. I would suggest that you not read them if you find them offensive or in poor taste. That’s how I treat the pop culture/celebrity gossip threads. I’m not interested so I ignore them.

And, Tanya, of course I wouldn’t want my 8 year old child reading Timaree’s posts. But not because there’s something wrong with discussing sexuality with young people….because the questions that are posed to her are adult in nature and she is dealing with details that are far too involved for anyone so young.

In a library setting, her articles would be in an adult section and my 8 year old wouldn’t be in the library unsupervised, so there wouldn’t be a problem. I wouldn’t want her work or anyone else’s to be censored, though. If I don’t want to read it then I’ll read something else. If I feel that there is some religion-based punishment coming to her based on her line of work (which I obviously don’t) I will let “the powers that be” deal with her in his/her/their own way and stay out of it.

I guess I never understood the idea of banning “objectionable” (says who???) content from a library. What could be so bad that you would be irreparably harmed from knowing it existed? Can’t you be a good and faithful [insert religion here] and still be aware and *gasp* even knowledgeable and informed about [insert other religion here]? In order to have a full understanding of the history of this country, shouldn’t you have the opportunity to read writings of blatantly racist authors?

34. ChgoSista wrote:

No Timaree bashing, Piscean Princess, just rappin’, that’s all. You’ll KNOW when/if I’m bashing–trust me! And I do, as you stated, scroll right down from her posts…

35. DCI74 wrote:

“2. Where are the bruhs who just DO SHIT for women–no strings attached–just because–they’re “that kinda guy?” As a single female homeowner, I’m bout fed up with men hinting at some pu**y just for putting in a gotdamn ceiling fan!!!!!! I got a house full of shelves, stands, light fixtures, and shit in boxes, unassembled, cuz I don’t wanna give up the ‘good-good’ like it’s gubment cheese!”

Without question the funniest ish I’ve read this week! Chgo that’s really messed up, on the real if you were closer I’d come through and hook you up, just give me a couple of turkey sandwiches on whole grain bread with mustard, cheese, lettuce, tomato and a little pepper, some grapefruit juice or a Stella to wash it down and I’m good.

Now MrDeeTroit on the hand I’m sure that brotha is gonna want more than just a sandwich lol.

36. DCI74 wrote:

“However, like anything else, those of you who don’t agree are well within your rights. I would suggest that you not read them if you find them offensive or in poor taste. That’s how I treat the pop culture/celebrity gossip threads. I’m not interested so I ignore them.”

Cosign Princess

37. Piscean Princess wrote:

Chgo, you know you my girl from way back. It’s all love, girl. This is the first time I think I’ve even heard you comment on it, so I wasn’t necessarily talkin ’bout you.

In other completely unrelated news, don’t you have a column that you write? If I’m not crazy and remembering correctly, let me know…I’ll give you an email addy to send some links too. I wanna hear what you’re saying outside of the Barbershop.

38. wouldn't you love to know? wrote:

“2. Where are the bruhs who just DO SHIT for women–no strings attached–just because–they’re “that kinda guy?” As a single female homeowner, I’m bout fed up with men hinting at some pu**y just for putting in a gotdamn ceiling fan!!!!!! I got a house full of shelves, stands, light fixtures, and shit in boxes, unassembled, cuz I don’t wanna give up the ‘good-good’ like it’s gubment cheese!”

co-sign DC, this one had me geeking! ChgoSista, tell me about, the one thing i hate about living on my own, is the fact that i have to do EVERYTHING…shit i have some curtain rods and curtains i still haven’t put up yet, because i need a power drill, i bought this little “cute” one, and that shit don’t work…shit, where are the men with the good power tools???

and the fuckin’ trash….i hate having to take it out! ewww.
the good news is, i live in an apt building, so we have maintenance…but it would help if he wasn’t older than dirt….shit, sometimes, i have to help his ass out! LOL

but girl just invest in a tool belt for now … and watch lots of DIY network

39. wouldn't you love to know? wrote:

tell me about it*

40. ChgoSista wrote:

DC, don’t be laughing at me!! HAHAHAA!! But thank you–I sure as hell DO wish you lived closer!

When I get a minute, I HAVE to tell y’all about my encounter with a dead squirrel in my bkyrd. Lord have mercy!!!

41. ChgoSista wrote:

PP, I whipped up a quick blog the other day on my ‘love/hate’ relationship with Tyler Perry… I’ll post!

42. Piscean Princess wrote:

Oooooh, I got one-a them too (love/HATE re: T.P.)!!! I can’t wait to read it.

43. DCI74 wrote:

Ok hold up, I am seeing a wonderful business opportunity emerging for real! In real estate I know lots of women in your situation that also have homes or condos but either don’t have the time for those household modifications or just don’t want to do it themselves.

Umm Wyltk, power drills are not supposed to cute, what on earth are you talking about?? Hmm so you like to do it yourself??

44. DCI74 wrote:

Am I the only black person that has never seen any Tyler Perry plays or movies?

45. Ann wrote:

@dc: YES!!!!!!!!!!!!! lol

46. wouldn't you love to know? wrote:

LMAO @ DC…. i know power drills aren’t suppose to be cute, NOW. shoot that’s all mine was good for, being cute…and for the record, i hate DIM…everyone knows, 4 hands are better than 2

Ps – load up that “fred sanford” truck, and come on to philly. i have plenty of work for you! LOL

47. DCI74 wrote:

Lol word Ann? See his Madea character initially turned me off; he/she just seemed too outrageous, over the top and corny. The only movie I briefly thought about seeing was Daddy’s Little Girl only because I wanted to see Gabby Union but even that wasn’t enough motivation.

48. Ann wrote:

@dc: Madea isnt in that movie but you should see it..But with Daddy’s Lil Girls Tasha Smith is not my favorite actress but her “loud” demeanor worked well with the movie.

49. ChgoSista wrote:

MY ‘LOVE/HATE’ RELATIONSHIP WITH TYLER PERRY
–ChgoSista

This past weekend, I watched Tyler Perry’s latest DVD release, Meet the Browns, starring Angela Bassett and Rick Fox. About a third of the way through the movie, I asked myself, “Why do you keep watching his movies?”

Haaaaated it!

I won’t front; Tyler Perry is a certainly a force to be reckoned with; through his plays, movies, TV shows, etc., the brother is definitely handling his business.

But his movies irk the hell outta me.

I’ve never been a big fan of his plays, despite knowing that his movies are adaptations of them. For some reason though, I go see all of his movies–not out of sincere interest, per se, but out of some weird, obligatory thing. I feel like I simply have to support the brother.

After watching “MTB”, I was again disappointed. When it was over, I wondered, “Do I expect too much from Tyler Perry?”

With his movies, it’s the same thing over and over: “No good” black man, the woman who has been “done wrong” by said black man, the stereotypical loud, overweight people (mostly women), the harpy, the snatching off of a wig, the drug dealer references, and let’s not forget, the sappy ‘messages’ that we are all supposed to take heed to.

The way I see it, Tyler Perry’s presence in Hollywood, as far as black America is concerned, is bittersweet. On the one hand, it should be acknowledged that he employs lesser known black actors and actresses who are more than likely overlooked and are not recognized by mainstream Hollywood. Let’s face it, would anybody really know who ‘David Mann’ was if it weren’t for Perry?

Um, probably not.

Okay, so Perry does put infamous black actors and actresses out there, but at what expense? His movies’ plots and characters are extremely over-the-top; so much so, that I have shook my head in disgust after witnessing them. And yes, “Madea”, the most egregious of all his characters is good for a chuckle, but even ‘she’ has gotten old.

I realize that not every movie is meant to be some deeply profound, Oscar-worthy project; after all, some movies really are for “entertainment purposes only”. With regard to Perry, I just feel like the brother can give us a little bit more.

The Family That Preys, Perry’s latest movie, will hit theaters September 12. The movie stars veteran actresses Kathy Bates and Alfre Woodard, and is a story about “two families from different sides of the tracks that become intimately involved in love and business.” With these two leading the charge, maybe, just maybe, I’ll get that “little bit more” after all.

We’ll see…

50. DCI74 wrote:

If you got the turkey I got the tools wyltk!

Ok Ann I will check it out tonight, please don’t make me regret this lol.

51. ChgoSista wrote:

@ DC’s #39–Baby, I’m telling you–IT WOULD BE THE MOST LUCRATIVE GOTDAMN BUSINESS in the world–let me tell you!!!!! I TRY to do some shit on my own, but I just suck at it! I tried to caulk around my tub–um, can you say DISASTER? I couldn’t keep my hand steady for shit! And you’ve gotta have superhuman strength to get the caulk out the damn caulk gun!

I also tried to re-do the paint on my iron railing thingie that leads up the stairs on my porch! I started it in 2004 and still ain’t finished!!!!

52. DCI74 wrote:

Wow thanks Chgo, I knew I couldn’t be the only one that felt weird about Perry’s work. The characters and storylines seem just to cookie-cutter and stereotypical as you so eloquently pointed out.

53. Ann wrote:

@ChgoSista: Meet the Browns was awful simply based on the script. Tyler Perry is -in one word- a control freak. He has to be the writer, director, producer, co-star etc. If he relinquished some of his control he could produce a better product, in my opinion.

The concept of meet the browns was okay. If he had employed some more seasoned writers he may have done a better job with the movie. Lord knows Angela Bassett was giving all she had to that movie but it just didnt work.

Daddy’s Little Girl was a better movie becuase Tyler didnt feature himself in it. His focus was on other areas.

Why Did I get Married was a good concept- again the script was mediocre. And Tasha Smith- she irks me to the 5th degree! Janet Jackson’s character was unbelieveable but I understand why he cast her- to draw her fans to the box office. ( The same reason why Beyonce was cast in Dreamgirls.)

54. ChgoSista wrote:

Ann…PREACH!! Agree w/u 150%!!!!

And that damned “House of Payne” TV show–AAARRRGGGGGGHHH!!! I’ve never watched ONE IOTA of it–just from the PREVIEWS, I just KNOW I CAN’T SIT THROUGH IT!

55. DCI74 wrote:

I was tempted to watch House of Payne but I didn’t have enough Crown Royal Reserve and there was no way I could watch that mess without a drink so I decided to pass lol.

Umm Chgo, 4 years to finish a paint job??? Wow, ok I’m gonna start up a little something something.

56. ChgoSista wrote:

“but I didn’t have enough Crown Royal Reserve…”–>HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!

57. Ann wrote:

Damn DC dranking the good ish!!!!!!

@ChgoSista: I have never seen House of Payne either. And I blame Oprah for Tyler’s control issues…lol

58. Piscean Princess wrote:

Oprah, unlike Tyler, understands that she can’t be in charge of everything and that there are other more qualified and capable people to do the things that she can’t. He’ll figure that out eventually, but in the meantime, those who watch his stuff will continue to deal with shitty scripts and weak plot & character development.

59. DCI74 wrote:

Word Chgo I don’t play when it comes to my drank

60. Marc Lamont Hill wrote:

a ceiling fan IS a lot of work. i’m just sayin….

back to my “vacation”

61. ChgoSista wrote:

LMAO @ DR. MARC! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!!

62. DCI74 wrote:

Lol Marc got jokes

63. MrDeeTroit wrote:

Ok, here’s my randomness:
Tyler movies are getting better. janky at first, but improving. “Why Did I get Married” was great, and the new flick coming up looks even better. Multi-cultural cast too. Now “House Of Payne” should be buried 1,000 feet below sea (see) level. The absolute WORST!

Now…let’s talk about “y’alls boy!” (in the words of his mom, Rep. Carolyn Cheeks-Kilpatrick), FORMER Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick. It’s a sad day in the city for me. Many are celebrating and kicking up their heels, however I feel saddened because bottom line that was a brother making strides in the world who made some mistakes that cost him dearly. Kwame, Ipray you recover 100%

64. ChgoSista wrote:

Mr. Detroit, I only wish it were OUR mayor, instead. On top of that, we are in strong contention for the next Olympics, too? ((SIGHHHHH))

Most of my peeps don’t understand WHY I’m not all that thrilled about Chgo’s olympics prospects… I tell them to just LOOK AT THEIR PROPERTY TAX & SALES TAX STATEMENTS, PRICES FOR CITY SERVICES, ETC. All of those BOOSTS are to assist with the revenue for something we don’t even HAVE YET.

65. clifton harrison wrote:

!!!ALERT ALERT ALERT!!!

go to youtube immediately and search:

“Hilarious RNC Daily Show 9/3/08″

GREATEST Example of exposing the media’s lies…EVER!

66. Tanya wrote:

ChgoSista,

Please don’t talk about taxes; it’s going to make me cry!!!

I can’t take it! They keep taxing my dividends. That shit is sooooo unfair. It pisses me off. It hurts me.

I can’t handle taxes on my dividends. I’m just a young single woman trying to make it. Why do they want to take all of my hard earned money???

This shit alone may cause me to vote against Obama!

I love Obama, but I have a future to think about, and paying taxes on my dividends is putting a whole in my Prada plans.

Does anyone know of a LEGAL way to reduce dividend tax obligation?????? No one I know seems to care. Am I the only one who thinks it’s unfair? I just can’t suck this cost up.

Ok, I’m done. I’m still hurting, but I’m done with the rant…for now.

67. ChgoSista wrote:

Tanya, the sales tax in Chicago (Cook County) is 10.25%!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAND, a for a case of water? An extra NICKEL PER BOTTLE, on top of the 10.25% sales tax. With a case of water averaging about $3.99, DO THE MATH!!!!!!!!!

AAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

68. DCI74 wrote:

Wow Clif I just saw the video, hypocrisy and lies have never been so hilarious. Bill O’Really and Karl Rove are complete morons and their own words kill them.

69. Ced wrote:

To all my ladies on here….. I work for liquor. I’m good at…
fixing shit
screwing in shit
assembling shit
putting shit together
taking shit apart
wrenching shit
Plus I’m tall brown and handsome….. says my mother…
HOLLA!

70. clifton harrison wrote:

I mean…you can’t get a better youtube clip than that! (other than the Bill O’ Reilly rant!! haha)

ahh, Jon Stewart shut all that shit down…especially Karl Rove! you really see the use of spin and the way facts are communicated and used to whatever point they are trying to make…

71. R.oB. wrote:

Tanya,

You have comedy, and a double standard like the GOP. The hypocrisy is so glaring. That’s what makes them ridiculous:

Todd joined a party whose stated goal is secession from the US. As a party member, it’s fair to associate it’s platform with him. The GOP didn’t seem to have a problem questioning Michelle about here pride in country. Yet they give this guy a pass. They smear Obama by his association with Wright but give themselves a pass with the AIP. Sorry that stuff is straight hypocrisy.

Palin showed a shocking contempt for the first Amendment by asking if a librarian would support censorship. Now if you want to protect kids from “objectionable” material, then put that in an adult section. The librarian said all the books were held to national standards. Real leftie loony stuff those national standards. We don’t know what books were objectionable to Palin (Audacity of Hope maybe? LOL). She did try to fire the librarian and met resistance as the town supported her and relented. Real moral stand there. The librarian survived 2 loyalty test and did leave after Palin was re-elected. Jokes Tanya.

But the real WHOPPER is the BS that Palin is some kind of reformer.

“The bridge [to Nowhere] reversal [where she flip-flopped like Kerry for it, then against it] is not the only matter throwing doubt on Palin’s credentials as a government waste reformer. Watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense has reported that the small town of Wasilla, Alaska, which had not previously received significant federal funds, hauled in almost $27 million in earmarks while Palin was mayor. (McCain has explicitly criticized several of the Wasilla earmarks in recent years.) To help obtain these earmarks, Palin had hired Steven Silver, the former chief of staff for recently indicted Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, as Wasilla’s lobbyist.

And Palin continued to solicit federal funds as governor. A request form on Stevens’ Web site shows that she requested $160.5 million in earmarks for the state in 2008, and almost $198 million for 2009. ” — from FactCheck dot org

Ol’ girl was raking in the dough to the tune of about $300/capita. If memory serves that’s double the national average.

This is why the GOP is ridiculous. I have no patience for lies, deceit, and hypocrisy. If that’s malicious then so be it.

72. R.oB. wrote:

Tanya, McCain would cut your wage income taxes far less than Obama. If you really are in a tough financial position, then they dwarf your dividend taxes. If that hurts you, look at your marginal tax rate! You might want to ask McCain why your tax bill would be higher under his plan vs. Obama.

As for legality, after the Constitution was amended in 1916 (I believe), Congress has the power to tax “income from whatever source.” It’s legal to arrange your affairs to minimize your tax burden, but you have to pay what the IRS says.

BTW, typo in last comment. It should read in the first line “THEIR hypocrisy is so glaring.” I’m not calling YOU a hypocrite, just the GOP machine.

73. Tanya wrote:

R.oB.,

There is no hypocrisy. The difference with Todd and Michelle is that Todd was a member of the AIP over 20 years ago, when he was a kid. Michelle, as an adult, just recently alluded to a deficiency in national pride.

Regarding the book thing – Palin didn’t want the books burnt and the authors jailed. It wasn’t literally a censorship issue, it was a restriction issue. Those books were too easily available to the kids in her town and she wanted to put restrictions on it. Don’t you think children need restrictions???

Regarding the Watchdog Taxpayer/Earmark issue you raised – I don’t understand your point? And I’m confused by the statements you made. But the only capital gains issue I want to discuss right now is mine!

74. Tanya wrote:

R.oB.,

I really want to pick your brain for help with my dividend dilemma.

First things first – My income taxes will be far lower with McCain than with Obama. There is no room for discussion on that, it’s cut and dry, you can’t argue numbers.

My issue is the insane about of money I am bullied into paying on my dividends. Call me crazy, but I don’t thinks it’s fair to charge me taxes on my dividends. That’s a double tax essentially. I’m practically paying taxes on my money twice. And that makes me mad.

I think taxes on dividends are a pure injustice. And the fact that I have to pay the practical worth of the dividend in taxes means I make no money! That ain’t the American way!

The only legal way I know of to avoid the dividend tax is to reinvest the dividends. But I DON’T WANT to reinvest it. I’m young, and I want to spend it! The economy would be doing better if I and others could spend it without “penalty”.

Everyone I know, my dad especially, just says suck it up. But the fighter in me can’t. I don’t understand why no one else seems to be bothered by this.

“If you really are in a tough financial position, then they dwarf your dividend taxes. If that hurts you, look at your marginal tax rate!”

Can you expound upon this please!?!?!

75. MrsPickron wrote:

Tanya, I’m confused by your comments these last couple of days since McCain made his pick compared to the last couple of months. In other threads it seemed as though you were going with Obama against your own party… now it seems like you’re with your party.
What’s going on?!? Did Palin sway your vote all of a sudden?

76. Tanya wrote:

MrsPickron,

This election cycle is a duesy!

I love Barack, but I hate that racist prick Biden.

I’m not a fan of McCain, but I really, really like Palin!

If Barack and Palin were on the same ticket, that would be Utopia!

Fundamentally, I’m a Republican. I just can’t shake my conservative beliefs. But I believe that Obama has a special anointing, and I believe his mission has a divine purpose. I would love to see him as POTUS! (I honestly don’t think there is anything anyone can do to keep him out of the White House.)

I do see good and progression in his policies, but I’m sitting on hope that he doesn’t turn out to be a left-wing nutroot. I’m an ultra conservative and I can more easily align myself with McCain/Palin perspective.

This is the first time in my adult voting life that I did not go to the Republican Convention, and that’s only b/c I was supporting Obama and had plans on going to the Democratic Convention, until Biden made me stay home.

I just may sit this election out.

77. MrsPickron wrote:

Well, you have time to research and make up your mind. By all means go out & vote which ever you choose. You have to exercise your right to vote at every opportunity! Go Obama!

78. R.oB. wrote:

Tanya, it’s all love. Sorry for the long post, but you asked A LOT!

Todd palin registered twice with the AIP in 1996 and 2000, not 20 years ago. He’s been “undeclared” since 2002. But I was incorrect that secession is not in the official platform. I was confused by its website which makes secession an option and the leaders who do advocate secession. So whether he himself advocates it is debatable. Here’s a quote from the AP article (Google Todd Palin AIP)

Gail Fenumiai, director of the Alaska Division of Elections, said Todd Palin twice registered under the Alaskan Independence Party — in 1995 and 2000. Some party leaders have advocated secession from the United States, though that is not a goal listed in the party’s platform.

Voter registration records show Sarah Palin registered in May 1982 as a member of the Republican Party and has not changed her affiliation. Todd Palin has been registered undeclared since 2002, Fenumiai said.

Palin did address the Alaskan Independence Party’s state convention by video earlier this year, welcoming the party to Fairbanks.

“Your party plays an important role in our state’s politics,” she said in the video, which is posted on the party’s Web site. “I’ve always said that competition is so good, and that applies to political parties as well.”

Either way, if he were a Democrat the GOP would be all over him smearing him and questioning his patriotism. They did so to Michelle for far less. Personally, I could care less that he is a member. I’m just pissed at the glaring hypocrisy of the GOP machine. Zero principles. Hypocrisy.

As for who will beat you more with taxes, I found this on FactCheck dot org.

We spoke with Len Berman, director of the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, which has produced one of the most authoritative analyses of the two candidates’ tax plans. When we asked him if Obama’s claim that he would “cut taxes for 95 percent of all working families” was true, Berman told FactCheck.org that it was “consistent with our estimates.” Overall, the TPC found that Obama’s plan would produce a tax cut for 81.3 percent of all households, and a cut for 95.5 percent of all households with children.

Under Obama’s plan, the TPC estimates that people (or couples) making between $37,595 and $66,354 a year would see an average savings of $1,118 on their taxes.

Under McCain’s plan, on the other hand, those same individuals would save $325 on average — $793 less than the average savings under Obama’s plan.

You are correct, Tanya, that you can’t argument with numbers but be forewarned! Here are two great quotes on the subject I try to remember. “There are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.” and “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.” The Tax Policy Center is credible because they are non-partisan and are objective on the subject, IMHO.

As for taxes on dividends, fairness is debatable. The greatest law in the land empowers Congress to tax whatever income you receive. Should you be spending it rather than reinvesting it and getting the magic of compound interest? The financial advisor in me says no, but those are my values not yours. You have to decide what’s right for you. Now your marginal income tax rate is the rate you pay on earned income. Basically for employees, that’s the income that shows up on your W2. The top dividend tax rate tops out at 15% for Americans who make more than $32,550 which is the majority of the middle class (and all of the rich obviously). It’s a marginal rate because you pay 10% on the first $8025 of income, 15% on the next $24,525 which gets you to $32,550 and so on. So your income tax rate on W2 income is usually far higher than on dividend income. So a person making say, $60000 has a tax liability of about 19% which is higher than the dividend liability of 15%. Taxes rates in this country are skewed toward the worker. Rich people who live on cap gains (LTCG = 15%) and dividends pay more in absolute terms, but their proportion of income is lower.

10% $0 – 8,025
15% $8,025 – 32,550
25% $32,550 – 78,850
28% $78,850 – 164,550
33% $164,550 – 357,700
35% $357,700 and Up

Of course, then comes the complicated part. Tax exemptions which exempt certain income from taxation. Deductions from your tax liability once it’s calculated and credits to the liability for expense you have, e.g. child care. Hope this helps.

79. R.oB. wrote:

Don’t sit out the election, that’s just what certain segments want. It let’s them run sh*t.

As for ultra-conservative, I doubt it. Unless you believe that black people benefited from slavery, women should be in the home and not work (much less equal pay), or that Jesus is Republican, you are probably not an ultra-conservative. Just a person with clear beliefs…

As for me, I’m my own person too. I go with the person who best aligns with my values. I’m a democrat (small d) who loves Jesus. Injustice to an a person anywhere is injustice anywhere. Blessed are the poor. Blessed are the peacemakers (not peace lovers). Do unto the least of these. Visit the prisoner. Clothe the naked. Tend the sick. Give all you have to the poor and come follow me. Do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God. Personal responsibility (Parable of the Talents). I am my brothers keeper. To whom much is given much is required. That sort of thing.

The GOP tends to make a mockery of those values so I pretty much stand against them in all things. Besides, I can’t think of one benefit or freedom we enjoy that was supported and gained by conservatives. Hell, this country was started by liberals!

80. R.oB. wrote:

P.S. I forgot Servant Leadership. When Palin made fun of Barack’s service to the poor when he could have been making 6 figures at a top firm or clerking for the Supreme Court, I found that deeply offensive. Jesus was a community organizer who rejected Satan’s offer of riches and power. Servant leadership is exactly what I want in a President. That kind of sneering from Palin left a bad taste in my mouth. When I found out she was an evangelical, I basically was done with her. She should have known better.

81. John wrote:

Just to clarify …

Tanya, you must pay taxes on all dividends, even if they are re-invested.

82. John wrote:

R.oB. — Obama didn’t work as a “community organizer” to help the poor. If that was his intent, he could have gotten involved in any number of non-profit organizations. Especially with his education.

He worked as a community organizer because in Chicago that’s how you get involved in politics. He was engaged in securing government grants and other funding for local businesses while building a name for himself among the voters.

Most people recognize that the term “community organizer” means “shake-down artist.” It is nothing more than a front.

83. DCI74 wrote:

“Most people recognize that the term “community organizer” means “shake-down artist.” It is nothing more than a front.”

Huh? Where do you get that from John? Who are these ‘most people?’

84. Marc Lamont Hill wrote:

John,

I agree that Barack’s “community organizing” was a power play. I don’t think, however, that he was a shakedown artist. Who did he shake down? Where the evidence?

85. Tanya wrote:

John & Marc,

There is no doubt that Barack being a Community Organizer was a power play. However, I believe that there can be an altruistic quality to engaging in these power plays.

There is no doubt that many “Community Organizers” ARE shake-down artists. But I DO NOT believe, and there is NO evidence that Barack Obama was a shake-down artist.

Barack Obama was an altruistic Community Organizer, who happened to also benefit from it himself.

Marc, you know how it goes down in the Chi! I know your boy JJ put you on to the ins-and-outs of Chicago politics!

86. Tanya wrote:

R.oB.,

We talk about politics all day everyday in the Barbershop, and since you told me you are a financial advisor, I don’t want to talk politics with you right now. I want to talk money!

But I have to briefly address the last political comment you made:

“As for ultra-conservative, I doubt it. Unless you believe that black people benefited from slavery, women should be in the home and not work (much less equal pay), or that Jesus is Republican, you are probably not an ultra-conservative.”

My goodness darling, you have been brainwashed by liberal propaganda!!!!! That’s not an ultra-conservative!

I’m an ultra-conservative b/c:

-I want Creationism taught in PUBLIC schools.
-I want Abstinence-Only taught in PUBLIC schools.
-I want a Prayer Period in PUBLIC schools.
-I want to over turn that mother-chucker that is Roe v Wade
-I want a Constitutional Amendment declaring marriage a bond bet. MAN & WOMAN

AND YES! I believe Jesus would be a Republican!

That’s what makes someone an ULTRA-Conservative.

“Personal responsibility (Parable of the Talents). I am my brothers keeper. To whom much is given much is required. That sort of thing.”

“The GOP tends to make a mockery of those values so I pretty much stand against them in all things.”

Lord have mercy, you have been terribly brainwashed!!!!

The GOP makes a mockery of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY????????

You must be joking!

Everything you mentioned in a conservative ideal! It doesn’t get more Republican than the Parable of Talents!!!!

It is those damn dumb liberals that make a mockery of Christ, and all things biblical!

“Besides, I can’t think of one benefit or freedom we enjoy that was supported and gained by conservatives.”

Another joke right?!?!?!?!

Lord knows I could run down a list a mile long!

But just take a moment, sit back, and realize that the ONLY reason why blacks in this country were freed from slavery is b/c of great Republicans like Ab Lincoln and THE REPUBLICAN PARTY that fought against the Democrats to declare the black man equal.

“Hell, this country was started by liberals!”

NO, NO, NO! This country was started by Conservatives that LIBERTATED from the Crown. Please don’t misconstrue the difference!

87. Tanya wrote:

Now I have to take this phone call. I’ll get back to you with my tax questions….

88. R.oB. wrote:

Tanya, touché! You are an ultra-conservative reactionary. Again apologies for the long post, but once again i felt it necessary to be complete.

As far as the brainwash, then I guess Jesus did the brainwashing because I’ve tried to be his disciple (discipline) first, progressive second and really only because he fooled me into believing that he had his own agenda. So Jesus would be a Republican? OK. Let’s get down to the deprogramming.

I didn’t realize Republicans advocated “sell[ing] all that you have and distribute it to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow [Jesus]“? (Lk18:18) Peter must have been a Republican because he and the others of the Twelve had “given up [their] possessions and followed him.” Jesus tells me, “Amen, I say to you, there is no one who has given up house or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God who will not receive back an overabundant return in this present age and eternal life in the age to come.” Where can I find the policies/platform/positions on the website that show this? Also where in the platform does it say, “Blessed are you who are poor for the kingdom of God is yours,” (Lk 6:20) or, “But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation?” (Lk 6:24) Clearly when Jesus saw that poor widow drop a few coins into the synagogue treasury and said, “Amen, I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the other contributors to the treasury. For they have all contributed from their surplus wealth, but she , from her poverty, has contributed all she had, he whole livelihood,” (Mk 12:43) he was showing how Republican spurn personal wealth and give it away, right?

I will say I’m very confused by Luke 6:27-36:

But to you who hear I say, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. to the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do no withhold even your tunic. Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. For if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same. If you lend money to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, and get back the same amount. But, rather, love your enemies and do good to them, and lend expecting nothing back; then your reward will be great and you will be children of the Most High, for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

That really fooled me with the War on Terror, tightening bankruptcy laws, etc. I thought it was hard and took discipline to follow Christ. Apparently I don’t have to do these things. Why would Jesus tell me to act this way as a Republican? Please explain.

It seems strange to me (brainwashed I know) that Jesus said, “When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.” So I guess school prayer will require A LOT of inner rooms. Can you point out to me where that is in the GOP agenda?

Now that I think about, Republican’s must know some sinless people because Jesus said “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone.” (Jn 8:7) Where do you get these people and how can I meet them?!!? That would be cool.

I wonder how McCain can be the Republican candidate? Didn’t he divorce his first wife? I thought Jesus said clearly, “I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:9) Wasn’t that a death penalty offense in his day? Isn’t the GOP supposed to be prosecuting this man?

But Matthew 25:31-46 really takes the cake, I had no idea Jesus was speaking a Republican manifesto:

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit up his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another…He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you…For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you have me drink [food security, welfare, food stamps], a stranger and you welcomed me [immigration], naked and you clothed me [poverty, welfare], ill and you cared for me [healthcare], in prison and you visited me [prison system].” Then the righteous will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we [do all of the these things to you]?’ And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine [the vulnerable, the weak, the outcast] you did for me.’ Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels…’Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’ And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous eternal life.

That whole pull yourself up by your bootstraps thing must be a head fake ploy from those sneaky liberal goats! They are on the left, right? Pun intended!

Anyway, if Jesus is a Republican then sign me up! Why?

Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord’ but not do what I command? I will show you what someone is like who comes to me, listens to my words, and acts on them. That one is like a person building a house, who dug deeply and laid the foundation on rock; when the flood came, the river burst against that house but could not shake it becuase it had been well built. But the one who listens and does not act is like a person who built a house on the ground without a foundation. When the river burst against it, it collapsed at once and was completely destroyed.

Here’s to a strong foundation!

Seriously, all sarcasm aside. Any person who thinks the Son of God is a Democrat or a Republican is deeply confused about relative importance, i.e. who is supposed to be down with who.

89. R.oB. wrote:

Oh and one more thing. The Parable of the Talents was about multiplying the Master’s money not the servants. So if I’m wealthy and I am Jesus servant I’m pretty sure what I’m supposed to do with the wealth…

90. Tanya wrote:

Auh Suga!

You put together a very compelling argument for yourself there Robby boy!

Why couldn’t you just leave it at Touché!?!?!?!

Ok, so I tell you I don’t want to talk politics and you change the subject to religion? Can we get deep on the money tip, please?

I really just want to skip to my tax questions, but I have to address this…

Regarding your “give to the poor, feed the hungry, cloth the naked” akin to welfare bit:

“…he was showing how Republican spurn personal wealth and give it away, right?”

YEP!

Of course caring for and helping your fellow man is what Jesus calls for, but do you think that Jesus supports sloth? Nope!

“A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest and poverty will come upon you like a robber, and want like an armed man.” – Proverbs 6:10-11

“Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth.” – Proverbs 10:4

“As vinegar to the teeth and smoke to the eyes, so is a sluggard to those who send him.” – Proverbs 10:26

Here is my all time favorite:

“By the sweat of thy brow, thy shall be feed.” – Genesis 3:19

This one verse (Genesis 3:19) is the totally and complete argument against communism, and against the current US welfare system.

Understand that Republicans do not wish to take food from the mouths of the hunger, or clothes off the backs of the helpless, but Republicans understand that far tooooo many Americans are slothful and are intentionally sucking the system dry. That behavior is not of GOD. Republicans just want restrictions and limitations placed on welfare so that the people who truly need it will have it readily available to them, and those that don’t really need it are forced to realize the greater (GODly) benefits of self-sufficiency.

By the sweat of thy brow, is pulling yourself up by your own boot straps. If you want to want to eat, you gotta sweat!

You quoted Luke 6:20, “Blessed are you who are poor for the kingdom of God is yours.” But I don’t think you understand what that means.

Poor doesn’t mean, broke, it means devoid of addiction to secular materialism, it means the out-casted, the poor in ego. Poor doesn’t mean someone with no money, it means someone with no flesh/no selfish motives/no desire for man’s praise or prize.

“But many that are first will be last and the last first.” – Matthew 19:30

Those who are last are poor in the way I described. Like black people for instance; we are last in terms of secular position. Rich, as in Luke 6:24, is one who has much flesh, one who is first in terms of a secular position, not someone with a big bank account!

GOD is a rich GOD. He is the King of all Kings, and all he has is ours. GOD wants his children to be prosperous, rich and successful.

Jesus said, “I come that they might have life, and that they might have life more abundantly.” – John 10:10

Seek ye first the Kingdom of GOD, and His righteousness and all these shall be added on to you.” Matthew 6:33

“The Lord thy God shall bless thee in all thy increase and in all the work of thy hands.” – Deuteronomy 16:15

Don’t get it twisted!!!! GOD wants us to be wealthy.

“That really fooled me with the War on Terror, tightening bankruptcy laws, etc. I thought it was hard and took discipline to follow Christ. Apparently I don’t have to do these things. Why would Jesus tell me to act this way as a Republican? Please explain.”

“The LORD is a warrior, a man of war; the LORD is his name.” – Exodus 15:3

Disciple – Discipline, as you astutely pointed out. Tightening bankruptcy laws is instilling discipline!!! How does a man with a degree from MIT, a financial advisor at that, (YOU!), not see that???? HELLO!

“It seems strange to me (brainwashed I know) that Jesus said, “When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.”

The operative word there is HYPOCRITES!!!

Hypocrites who prayer ONLY for people to see them prayering, although they have no prayer in their hearts, are doing it just so people will say, “oh he must be a GODly person, I saw him prayering”, and therefore, they received their reward from man and don’t need the reward from GOD.

But this has NOTHING to do with Prayer in schools. If you think there is something wrong with praying in the presence of others, then I guess you DON’T go to church.

GOD said, “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” – Matthew 18:7

I want a Prayer Period in public schools b/c I think it is incredibly important for children to learn spirituality, and to learn to take time out of their day to prayer, to center themselves and to reconnect. All of those Asian geniuses, that are surpassing American students by far, take time out during their school day to meditate. I think there is a clear connection to their academic success and that fact that they schedule mediation in their day.

(BTW – Do you know what an “inner room” is??? I don’t think you do. Ponder upon that for a moment. If you still have questions ask me again, and I’ll explain it.)

“I wonder how McCain can be the Republican candidate? Didn’t he divorce his first wife? I thought Jesus said clearly, “I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:9)”

What is your point???? Do you think all Jews are perfect people who never sinned??? Wasn’t Jesus a Jew???

I think Jesus would definitely be a Republican.

Jesus would support preserving and protecting a life that GOD blew breath into (a baby). – Pro-Life

Jesus would support teaching your neighbor the goods and goals and works of GOD. – Creationism

Jesus would support protecting the sanctity of holy matrimony. – Constitutional Amendment defining marriage.

Jesus would support respecting your temple and rebuffing sexual immorality. – Abstinence

Let’s not forget how Merriam Webster defines a liberal – “lacking moral restraint”!

(Liberals say – “yeah let the gays marry and let woman kill as many innocent babies as they want”. – Moral???? – I thinks NOT!)

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit up his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another…He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you. Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels…”

Alleluia Amen!

That indeed in the Republican manifesto!!!

You should know that every Word in the Bible has a deeper meaning. You should know that there is no such thing as a coincidence. GOD is deliberate!

“He will place the sheep on his right” THE RIGHT as in Republicans

“the goats on his left” THE LEFT as in Liberals (those whose lack moral restraint)

So, when are you changing your Party affiliation, Monday?

Welcome to the Right dear! It’s beautiful over here!

“Any person who thinks the Son of God is a Democrat or a Republican is deeply confused about relative importance”

NO! Any person who CAN NOT associate the Son of GOD with every aspect of who they are and what they do, it fatally confused about relative importance.

I mean, isn’t that what WWJD is all about!!!!!! What Would Jesus Do!

I’m a Republican b/c I CAN associate Jesus with it.

91. R.oB. wrote:

The reason I say the GOP makes a mockery of personal responsibility is when they are pro-Life. They are willing to use government to perform the equivalent of state rape and take no responsibility for the results. Or cry “Lord, Lord” but take they wealth (much given) and spurn their responsibility (much is required). they only buy responsibility when it suits and makes comfortable.

To be far, the Dems are like that with peoples money. Another reason the Parable of the Talents is so apropos. I spit fire on liberals for that.

plenty of lip service from these parties. Little action.

92. R.oB. wrote:

Tanya,

When you associate God every aspect of who you are, you blaspheme. You sin. God do that too? Jokes, girl.

Let’s get our gospel’s straight here. I quoted Luke’s Sermon on the Plain not Matthew’s the Sermon on the Mount. The poor in Luke means “lacking sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in a society,” (Oxford) not he who spurns worldly things and the rich are their social counterparts. This wasn’t a parable where “he who has ears to hear will hear!” You are twisting words to a breaking point. Luke goes to great lengths to focus on worldly justice in his gospel. Besides, Jesus never said to only serve the non-slothful poor or love only the people who love us or lend only to those who can pay us back. Not even close. He wants us all in. We don’t have the option to pick and choose. He wants us to be as the Most High who is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. That’s straight from the horse’s mouth. So when Christian GOPers try to hide behind that ploy and let themselves of the hook, I call bullsh*t on that. I find it interesting that you skipped over that in your response.

I’m all for being pro-life. I just don’t stop caring for that baby that results from a very Big Government intervention once it’s born. We got involved, so we are responsible for the results. I noticed that the GOP is gonzo on that one. Hypocrisy epitomize. Small government indeed.

Deeper meanings in the Bible always abound and I’m all for allegory until it gets self-serving. I could probably come up with an allegory to explain how God wants the Eagles to win the Super Bowl if I work hard enough. I avoid it for that reason. Too much risk of screwing up the message to get the message you want.

In close, I found something disturbing in your response. You ignore or twist Jesus’ words that don’t fit with your view. I can barely tolerate twisting them, like when you transposed Matthew onto Luke. But when you omit, that’s like lying. That was clear in your so-called definition of a liberal which by the way has the same latin root as liberty:

The Oxford dictionary defines liberal thus:

1 open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values : they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people.
• favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms : liberal citizenship laws.
• (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform : a liberal democratic state.
• ( Liberal) of or characteristic of Liberals or a Liberal Party.
• ( Liberal) (in the UK) of or relating to the Liberal Democrat Party : the Liberal leader.
• (Theology) regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.

The conservatives wish to conserve the status quo. Again the Oxford,

holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.
• (of dress or taste) sober and conventional : a conservative suit.
• (of an estimate) purposely low for the sake of caution : the film was not cheap—$30,000 is a conservative estimate.
• (of surgery or medical treatment) intended to control rather than eliminate a condition, with existing tissue preserved as far as possible.
• ( Conservative) of or relating to the Conservative Party of Great Britain or a similar party in another country.

And as long as we are playing silly pun games: Facing the King at Judgment, what looks like OUR LEFT is actually HIS RIGHT.

93. R.oB. wrote:

Oh yeah, I forgot to add that I never said God wants us to be poor. I’m saying that God wants the rich to serve the poor. That’s why he asked the man to sell his possessions and distribute them and then follow him. Since Jesus is no longer a homeless prophet roaming Galilee and judah, I can at least take a page from the Parable of the Talents and Washing of the Feet. First, it isn’t my money and I had better multiply it in his service and second, I should follow Jesus model. So I multiply my wealth to serve the poor, else I have no other use for it. I don’t serve Mammon.

94. R.oB. wrote:

Just read this in Proverbs and had to give it to y’all: Chapter 29 verse 14

if a king is zealous for the rights of the
poor,
his throne stands firm forever.

Night! Need sleep before Mass tomorrow.

95. R.oB. wrote:

Tanya,

Just finished feeding my son and I was mulling this thread over and I was struck by something, do you consider yourself a fundamentalist? If so, that would explain a lot and I will apologize now and in advance. A lot of my reactions to your claims and such will appear insulting, the sarcastic banter you’d find in a barbershop notwithstanding. I have no wish to do so. Please know that.

While I give Jesus’ words primary importance, I do have some OT favorites. Try Deut 15:1-11 on for size, esp verses 7,8 and 11. “If one of your kinsmen in any community is in need in the land which the LORD, your God, is giving you, you shall not harden your heart nor close your hand to in in his need. Instead, you shall open your hand to him and freely lend him enough to meet his need.” (Deut 15:7-8 ) Sound familiar? See above. “The needy will never be lacking in the land, that is why I command you to open your hand to your poor and needy kinsmen in your country.” (Deut 15:11) And I don’t want to get into Amos’s vision of the fruit basket in chapter 8. He has some choice words for those “who trample upon the needy and destroy the poor of the land.” or Proverbs 31:9 “Open your mouth, decree what is just, defend the needy and the poor!” I obviously take that one literally….

96. R.oB. wrote:

Tanya,

just so you know, I took some time to think through your poor doesn’t mean poor but someone who has cast off worldly things. As a Catholic, I have a special respect for such people. And despite my better judgment and all that I’ve studied and read, I decided to give it a try. You know what? it doesn’t wash. People who have the wherewithal to cast of this world don’t want or need the very things that Jesus and the OT enjoin us to provide them: clothing, food, etc. (Try having a Kris Kringle partner that has taken a vow of poverty and you’ll see what I mean.) It would also mean that the translators over the centuries screwed up big time because everywhere we see poor, it should be “poor in spirit.” And you say I’m brainwashed!

97. Tanya wrote:

Lord have mercy!

R.oB., with all due respect, YOU ARE CRAZY!!!!!

Oh gee, I don’t even know where to begin.

There is a ling of desperation that seems to encompass all of your statements in #86-91. It’s hard to believe you are the same person that put together that very compelling and thorough argument in #83.

Again, I wanted to come and talk finance here, and now I have to respond to all of this mess.

I feel like you’re wasting my time b/c I know you are too smart to submit something so stupid. You are just arguing for argument sake. Talk about twisting words!

Briefly, in response to your #91:

“People who have the wherewithal to cast of this world don’t want or need the very things that Jesus and the OT enjoin us to provide them: clothing, food, etc.”

That is just sooo crazy!!!

People who seek GOD and cling to Jesus, cast off worldly things b/c they know that is the only way Jesus can hold them and GOD to protect them. They ONLY cast off things of the world b/c they WANT and NEED the Lord and his heaven.

Casting off worldly things doesn’t mean you walk around naked and live on the streets. It means you reject all the things that the devil has put here to distract us from GOD.

GOD gave satan dominion over the world. The world is a fatal venom. “It [the world] is like a poison covered with sweets…[and] there is no safety for those who love it…”

How could you say something so stupid like people who cast off worldlt things DON’T WANT food and clothing????

People who are poor, as in ‘blessed are the poor”, cast off the desire to become obsessed and addicted to obtaining food and clothing, and reject those whom worship them for their material things (rich people always have wannabes that “worship” them ie. groupies). If you have money, lots and lots of money, but are poor in ego, and reject those who worship you for your money, YOU ARE POOR!

Matthew 6:25-34:

“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?

And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own. – Matthew 6:25-34

“FOR THE PAGANS RUN AFTER ALL THESE THINGS, AND YOUR FATHER KNOWS THAT YOU NEED THEM” – Matthew 6:32

(Do you get what that means???)

“The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful.” – Matthew 13:22

“It would also mean that the translators over the centuries screwed up big time because everywhere we see poor, it should be “poor in spirit.” And you say I’m brainwashed!”

OMG!

You silly, silly man!

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” – Matthew 5:3

And if you read past Luke 6:20, you will understand that as well. Read Luke 6:22,26. Read the entire chapter 6 in context and you will understand poor as I explained it.

I wouldn’t say you’re brainwashed in your position here. I’d just say you don’t understand scripture!

I have a baby shower to get to. I’ll respond to the rest of your madness when I get home.

98. R.oB. wrote:

We definitely should strike up this convo somewhere else. It’s been very illuminating to see how you worldview operates. Very much like a fundamentalist. Comments are too clumsy.

Tanya, if you choose to answer remember that you never answered my original questions. “YEP!” and other such loud exclamations aren’t proof. As far as I can tell you believe not what the words say, but what you say they mean. To believe you on face value is anathema: it’s indistinguishable from a con job or brainwash! I was born at night, but not last night. Reading the Bible as its written makes far more sense than what looks to me like a specious description. And as written the GOP agenda isn’t remotely Christlike, more like Constantinian. But since I seek truth and fear falling into the ditch, I test ideas different from my own. A forum would allow you to flesh out your ideas for some real interrogation. I hope Marc can create a forum for that. It would be interesting and fun…

99. Tanya wrote:

I don’t understand what you said in #93. I’ll read it again when I get back.

But just as I was walking out the door I remembered this scripture and ran back to my laptop to share it with you.

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the POOR. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” – Luke 4:18-19

Notice how Jesus makes no mention of lacking money here when describing the poor he was sent to preach to. What does poor mean here???

The people Jesus was sent to preach to, the poor, are blessed.

Also, Luke 4:4:

“Man shall not live by bread alone.”

R.oB. just take your time reading through what I’ve submitted on this post. I’m sure after deep contemplation, you will see the truth.

100. Ann wrote:

Hey ya’ll..

okay who saw Rihanna and T.I. on the MTV awards last night…they were by far the hottest performance.

~Ann~

101. R.oB. wrote:

Tanya, it is absolutely true that Jesus was telling people to eschew worldly goods and focus on building treasure in heaven. And I’ve taken a lot of time trying to understand you and how you can miss what’s right in front of you. I’ll repeat this one last time. I have no doubt that the Sermon on the Mount was about the “poor in spirit,” but the rest of it is so ahistorical I don’t even know where to begin and it frankly turns biblical translation on its head. The latter is too long to discuss here, but I’ll give an exposition on the first point.

1st century Jewish society was one of occupation, economic deprivation and political/economic exploitation by Rome, the puppet Herodian government, and the Jewish/Temple elites. Poverty was deep and widespread. No middle class, just very rich and the vast majority very poor. Between Roman and religious taxes to the temple, it was estimated that they paid roughly 40% of their income, and those were the subsistence farmers. Couldn’t pay taxes? There was debt. Couldn’t pay that? Slavery or prison. These people didn’t have the opportunity worry about their egos or eschewing worldly goods, that was taken care of for them! Making sure they and their children didn’t starve was their main task in life. In a society where God’s favor is manifest in your political, social and economic position, it’s not some great exegetical or theological leap to see the poor were under great physical and psychic pressure. So I would imagine it’s Good News to be told (a) God actually does loves you and (b) better days lie in store for you. Just look at how Jesus taught us to pray.

Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread;
and forgive us our debts,
as we forgive our debtors;
and do not subject us to the final test,
but deliver us from the evil one.

– Mt 6:9-13

In the context of the world the people he was teaching to pray: daily bread and debt take on some “deeper meanings,” I’d say. This whole business of poor in spirit is powerful on the Sermon on the Mount too, in that same context. But to say they weren’t poor is a pipe dream. Jesus would only have been talking to 5% of the population.

For my money if you want to understand the Bible, you have to (a) know who penned the books and when, (b) to whom were they writing and (c) why they wrote, then you can make inferences for today’s world. Otherwise, it’s no different from consulting one’s anus as an authority. So, yes after deep contemplation over 10 years and counting, I definitely see the truth.

For an easy exposition without a lot of scholarly jargon etc., read The Politics of Jesus by Obery Hendricks Jr. (Wish I had that back in the day.) He can be a little fiery, but to the point and it doesn’t compromise intellectual honesty.

102. Marc Lamont Hill wrote:

how was kanye? i heard brittney spears was good too! this is the first vmas that i’ve ever missed.

103. DCI74 wrote:

Missed it Ann, I haven’t watched a music awards show in years but I heard that Miss Spears didn’t act insane and Kanye didn’t throw a tantrum.

104. R.oB. wrote:

I’m only half embarrassed to admit I didn’t even know the award were coming on…

105. Ann wrote:

@Marc and DC: I am not the best person to critique Kanye cus I dont like him- it would literally kill me to say something nice about him…

Miss Brit was on her best behavior…

106. MrsPickron wrote:

Don’t feel bad R.oB I didn’t know anything about the award either.

107. DCI74 wrote:

Ann, I in the minority of people that don’t have a problem with Ye. I know people much more arrogant than him which a much smaller spotlight so I just take him with a grain of salt. I just haven’t been excited about an awards show in years so I routinely pass.

108. DCI74 wrote:

*which should be with

109. Ann wrote:

I dont generally watch…I just happened to..

110. Ann wrote:

Did you guy see the video of the kid claiming he is the father of Bristol Palin’s daughter? Interesting I must say…
check it out at sandrarose(dot)com….you can also see T.I. and Rihanna’s performance on her site…

111. ChgoSista wrote:

I USED to be an awards show junkie; now, I just let ‘em go.

WYLTK: Can we talk “Tyra” for a minute???!!!!

112. ChgoSista wrote:

Has anyone seen the YouTube video of Tavis Smiley/Cornel West/Michael Eric Dyson dancing backstage at a Frankie Beverly & Maze concert? If these ain’t three of the most RHYTHMLESS kats on Earth… LOL!!!

113. DCI74 wrote:

Lol @ Chgo. Yeah I saw the video and err…uhh brother Cornel lol wow. I think they were dancing to lyrics not the beat.

114. natural nubian wrote:

OOOooooO, Chgo/DC if yall have the link, PLEASE post it!! I need a good laugh here in my cubile!!!

115. DCI74 wrote:

nn, for your viewing pleasure:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRq_L-_unWY

116. DCI74 wrote:

And nn after further review if you look closely you just might catch Tavis doing something that slightly resembles a Cabbage Patch lol.

117. Don McGowan wrote:

I just want to say I enjoy your dialog with Bill O’Reilly whenever you two discuss an issue, ANY issue. It is always respectful from both sides.

I especially liked your expression when tonight Bill talked about Obama’s plan to raise taxes and reminded you that it would affect you now that YOU are making the big bucks. Your expression was great!!!

118. Blake Robinson wrote:

Dr. Hill,
I see you frequently on the Factor and finally caught your url on the bottom of the screen. Just wanted to let you know that even though I disagree with alot of what you say, I always enjoy your articulation and rapid speak, which seems necessary when being on that show. Your style is appreciated and helps offset the negative view I have of liberals who stand on the side of the road screaming with a NO BLOOD FOR OIL sign. You should run for public office, I think you would do well.

BR
Columbia, Missouri

119. ChgoSista wrote:

I tried to post a link yesterday DC & natural nubian, but for some reason, the post didn’t “take”…

120. econwhat wrote:

“Has anyone seen the YouTube video of Tavis Smiley/Cornel West/Michael Eric Dyson dancing backstage at a Frankie Beverly & Maze concert? If these ain’t three of the most RHYTHMLESS kats on Earth… LOL!!!” Comment by ChgoSista

ChgoSista,

those 33 seconds of entertainment was not enough for me to LOL, I chuckled a little though…good stuff.

121. Clifton Harrison wrote:

Check out the Real Marc Lamont Hill: (especially at the 1:40 mark)

www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=8lRRqkRg54k

It all makes sense now. Marc is the stealth bomber, sneaking behind enemy lines!!

122. Marc Lamont Hill wrote:

LMAO… thanks for that, Clifton. i hadn’t seen that video but i remember us acting the fool out in LV… Me, Davey D, NY Oil, and Sister Goddess had soo much fun out in there at the convention….

123. Tanya wrote:

Marc, you stay with that man-purse!!! LMAO!

124. Tanya wrote:

That video was a waste of time to watch. (Clif, How did you even find that video only watched by 2 people?) But what came up in the related videos while watching it was much more interesting:

“Bill O’Reilly and Dr Marc Lamont Hill: Is Fox News Racist?”

www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=5ZxAChxCllk

125. Tanya wrote:

R.oB.,

I’ll get at you when I have time to sift through your comments.

126. Clifton Harrison wrote:

Marc- all good. Where all of you on a panel or just all there watching the convention? Because that would be a great discussion to hear!

Tanya – SMH. here’s your rapper quote of the day Tanya

“Hi hater, you see me, HI HATER!!” – Maino

127. Tanya wrote:

Right! ‘Cause I’m jealous of the man’s afro!

SMH

128. econwhat wrote:

…aight, this is dedicated to a special person who,IMO, does waaay more social-justice-type endeavors than she needs to, geez give another person a chance to step up,ya know? Anyway, hope you really get back friday this time around…

Secret – Maroon 5 (Rare) (Live) 8:53 min.

me

129. R.oB. wrote:

I know the right loves Palin’s positions. But what strikes me as typical politics is the rhetorical hypocrisy of the GOP machine. I get that they love her positions, but these arguments for her are specious to be generous. Everything they spit fire on Obama for they call a strength in Palin. Experience being the most obvious one. Your state border another country? Foreign relations experience! Illinois borders Canada and Texas borders Mexico. Jokes. Show me the evidence and a real situation where she had to deal with the Russians. McCain says our greatest moral failure is our lack of service to a cause higher than our self interest and then we see a convention mocking Obama for just that. That crossed a line with me: Jesus, MLK, and Susan B Anthony were all community organizers. Criticism or vetting? They act like she’s some waif lost in the street. Jon Stewart played that one brilliantly.

I don’t dig on bald face lies either. She said “Thanks and No Thanks” (after it was already dead and a national scandal) to the Bridge to Nowhere but spends that earmarked money on a Road to Nowhere and other transportation projects anyway. To add insult to injury, she sought earmarks as a Mayor and hired a lobbyist to procure more. That continued as a governor. For a Washington reformer, she sure knows how to dance to it’s tune.

The Dems I spit fire on because they are weak and that party is the GOP in liberal drag. But these guys take “boldface” to a whole new level. They seems to mistake loudness with truth.

130. ChgoSista wrote:

So what’s this ‘beef’ between Bill O’Reilly and Cynthia Tucker of the ATL Jrnl Constitution???? She talked about it on the TJMS this morning. Seems B.O. isn’t feelin’ her–and it’s mutual–and it dates back a bit.

She wrote a column about the hypocrisy of “them” heating Lynne Spears up over Jamie-Lynne being pregnant, but Bristol Palin gets a pass. Ms. Tucker mentioned B.O. in her piece and well, he didn’t care for it, I guess.

131. Tanya wrote:

R.oB.,

You are crazy!

132. Tanya wrote:

Chgo,

You should read the comments under the “Vacation Time” post, regarding why Lynne Spears is a “pinhead”.

The black community, black blogs, as well as the white and mainstream media ALL respected and were compassionate to Beyonce’s parents and Solonge when she got pregnant at 17. The GOP is requesting the same respect and compassion be issued to Sarah Palin and her daughter Bristol.

But Britney is a lunatic, so when her younger sister got pregnant as a teen, people said, “yep, the problem is the mom”. There is a clear difference here!

133. Clifton Harrison wrote:

Quit the spin Tanya.

You bullshit more than Bill O’Reilly….

It’s a double standard….period, end of story. If the shoe was on Obama’s foot, he wouldn’t have made it through the convention

134. ChgoSista wrote:

Clifton–u took the words out my mouth (re: “if this were Obama”).

To that, all I can say is this: THANK GOD SASHA & MALIA OBAMA ARE NOT OF CHILD-BEARING AGE YET!!!!!!!!!!

135. BigVic4 wrote:

1. I’m an Independent

2. Republicans are idiots

3. Anybody with 2 brain cells to rub together can see #2 is true.

4. If you disagree, you’re probably an idiot.

5. Republicans are idiots.

136. Tanya wrote:

You guys must be psychic!!!

If you know exactly how they would treat Obama if one of his daughters were pregnant, then you must also know who’s going to win the election. So tell me, who is going to win and by what margin!!!!! And tell me what they are going to be wearing at the time too!

No one, whites and conservatives included, said anything disparaging about Solonge or her parents when she got pregnant at 17.

Solonge is black.
Malia and Sasha are black.
Solonge comes from a good family.
Malia and Sasha come from a good family.
They were respectful of Solonge.
Therefore, it is most likely that they would be respectful of Mailia and Sasha too.

137. Clifton Harrison wrote:

Yeah, and the thing is ChgoSista, i have no problem with Palin and her daughter being pregnant. My problem is with her idea that abstinence only teaching works when it didnt even work within her own family.

And i have a problem with the bias Fox news media (and anyone for that matter) who don’t wanna admit the double standard.

But it would be interesting if Obama’s children were older and were not pregnant?!? lol

138. Tanya wrote:

BigVic4,

Elaborate!

Please tell me specifically why Republicans are idiots. If you can’t tell me why they are idiots, but you can proclaim that they are idiots, then guess what…. YOU ARE AN EVEN BIGGER IDIOT!

So please, explain.

139. Clifton Harrison wrote:

hahaha, give it up..your argument is foolish Tanya. (and thats putting it nicely).

Stop ignoring the facts.

Palin’s daughter is pregnant = leave the family alone
Britneys sister is pregnant = her parents are pinheads
Tanya = unknown female Bill O’Reilly

I think you should read BigVic4’s comment, especially # 4! lol

140. ChgoSista wrote:

Tanya, where u goin’ with this, girl… You [unnecessarily]deviate and digress so much that it’s hard to keep up! For real for real…

(((CHGOSISTA QUESTIONS HERSELF ABOUT WHY SHE IS EVEN GOIN’ THERE)))

I know that you are the ‘Grand Poobah[ette] of All Things Correct’, but come on, now gurl…

1. Solange’s “star status” rates about a negative 1000 on the celebrity scale; therefore, no one really gives a damn about her. If it were Beyonce who were 17 and pregnant, it would have been a three-alarm fire, BECAUSE OF HER CELEBRITY.

2. Those prejudiced SOBs don’t give a good gotdamn about Sasha, Malia, and Solange coming from “good families” (which is, by the way, subjective). Those girls’ political & celebrity fame mean nothing to ‘them’–come on, now Tanya–you know that.

141. Tanya wrote:

Clif,

“…i have no problem with Palin and her daughter being pregnant. My problem is with her idea that abstinence only teaching works when it didnt even work within her own family.”

Well Clif, I must say, that is a very legitimate stance.

If you want to have a discussion about whether or not Abstinence only works, and why it didn’t work with Bristol, then that is an intelligent and important discussion to have.

But for you to waste time and try to call the Republican Party as a whole, hypocrites for requesting people to respect Sarah and Bristol is just down right ridiculous.

Please note that Bill O’Reilly is an INDEPENDANT, and he had a legitimate reason to call Lynne Spears a pinhead. He did not call all parents of pregnant teens pinheads.

So for you, or anyone else, to try and link the whole Republican Party to his comments, or make it a Republican stance that Lynne is a pinhead, and therefore all Republicans are hypocritical in supporting Sarah, is just the most idiotic thing possible.

Don’t be an idiot. Discuss the issues, don’t spin.

142. Tanya wrote:

Chgo,

I’m not the one deviating here. If you read the comments, I think that would be very clear.

But you said it all right here:

“Solange’s “star status” rates about a negative 1000 on the celebrity scale; therefore, no one really gives a damn about her”

Well Bristol ranks far below Solonge on the “celebrity scale”, so, as the Republicans requested, and as you said, no one should give a damn about it.

That’s the bottom-line my dear!

No one should care about it or discuss it, let it be a private issue between Bristol and her family.

143. ChgoSista wrote:

1. Bristol’s mom being a nominee for the VICE-PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is not ‘celebrity’ enough and/or doesn’t merit the media attention. Oh, OK–thanx 4 clearing that up. (((’the fuck was I thinkin’…)))

2. And u r right–the Palin shit is a PRIVATE FAMILY MATTER [snicker, snicker], although I’m certain the Spears’ felt the same way… Once again, your knowledge/opinions/statements/thoughts reign supreme, so consider the shit dropped.

Peace…

144. Tanya wrote:

Chgo,

It doesn’t get anymore foolish than this:

“Palin’s daughter is pregnant = leave the family alone
Britneys sister is pregnant = her parents are pinheads”

You couldn’t be more clueless, or more fooled.

Bill, an Independent, did NOT call Britney’s parents pinheads ONLY b/c her sister is pregnant.

He called them pinheads b/c of their entire track record of raising kids. Jamie Lynne becoming pregnant was the icing on the cake.

There is a whole long laundry list as to why Britney’s parents are pinheads. (they’re BRITNEY’S parents!!! HELLO!!! lol)

No one could compile a long laundry list as to why Sarah would be a pinhead parent. All of Sarah’s kids are doing well in school and are free of drug and alcohol addition.

All of Lynne Spears kids have issues.

That’s the difference.

145. Tanya wrote:

Chgo,

You raised the level of celebrity as a factor, NOT me!

“If it were Beyonce who were 17 and pregnant, it would have been a three-alarm fire, BECAUSE OF HER CELEBRITY.”

Do you think being the daughter of a VP candidate puts you on the same level of celebrity as BEYONCE????

If it DOES NOT, then holding YOUR own logic as true, Bristol’s situation SHOULD NOT be a “three-alarm fire”.

And that is what the Republicans are saying. So I guess you agree with the Republicans!

Glad I could clear that up for you! I don’t know what “the f*** you were thinking” either!!!!

146. Tanya wrote:

I just realized it was Clif who made this comment:

“Palin’s daughter is pregnant = leave the family alone
Britneys sister is pregnant = her parents are pinheads”

So #137 is addressed to you Clif, not Chgo!

147. Clifton Harrison wrote:

“Bill (O’Reilly), an Independent”-Tanya

uh huh…and i’m the one that’s clueless….

excuse me…HAHAHAHAHAHAHA…ahem, you are seriously crazy

148. Tanya wrote:

Clif,

Bill O’Reilly is a registered INDEPENDENT. He is NOT a member of the Republican Party.

The majority of Bill O’Reilly’s ideals are obviously Conservative.

But there is a difference between being a Republican and being a Conservative.

But I guess you didn’t know that. So yep, you’re the one that’s clueless!

149. Clifton Harrison wrote:

smh….Tanya, you are a sad, sad person.

Bill can be registered Democrat for all i care, i know what he is, what he’s about, and it’s right in line with the republicans.

But him, you and the rest of the repubs just need to accept it, Obama will be prez and all the smears, and out right lies can’t stop him..

150. MrsPickron wrote:

Every since The old white fart picked Palin, Bristol’s star status shot up to positive 1000.

151. Tanya wrote:

Clif,

“Bill can be registered Democrat for all i care, i know what he is, what he’s about, and it’s right in line with the republicans.”

LOL

I know many Republicans who would say O’Reilly is more in line with Conservatism than he is with most Republican Policies and/or the Republican Party.

But if you kick it with Bill and you know him…hey, whatever you say!

152. Tanya wrote:

MrsPickron,

Chgosista thought it relevant to raise celebrity status as a factor, so I addressed her position from that standpoint. But, I DO NOT think celebrity status is anyway relevant here.

As far as I’m concerned, Bristol could be more famous and well known than Michael Jackson, or be an unknown in an unknown town, her pregnancy has NOTHING to do with Sarah Palin’s ability to be a good Vice President.

153. MrsPickron wrote:

Tanya, you and I already know that we don’t agree with this topic.

Bristol made a bad decision when she laid down and had unprotected sex that she shouldn’t have been having (No, I was not there however; there is a greater chance that she got pregnant not using protection than she would using protection).

Questioning the parenting in any case is appropropiate whether it’s the parent fault or not. Everything a child/teen does it is the proper order to question the parent. It may not always be a lack of parenting as the result but it sure as heck worth questioning. I agree with assuming the parent as responsible until proven otherwise.

I hope Palin’s parenting skills are the problem and her votes are lost as a result!

This campagin is starting to stress me out and I’m too Blessed for that! No really I am concerned about the Democrat party.

154. Tanya wrote:

MrsPickron,

We do disagree on the capabilities of a mother and a businesswoman.

But we don’t disagree on this:

“Bristol made a bad decision when she laid down and had unprotected sex that she shouldn’t have been having…”

AND

“Questioning the parenting in any case is appropropiate whether it’s the parent fault or not. Everything a child/teen does it is the proper order to question the parent.”

I completely 100% agree with you on that!

But pay close attention to what I stated:

“her [Bristol's] pregnancy has NOTHING to do with Sarah Palin’s ability to be a good Vice President.

GOOD VP is the issue here!

Sarah MAY (may is the operative word) not be a good mother. I’m sure you and otheres could make a valid argument that Sarah Palin is not a good mother.

But guess what???

I know many, many, many people who could make a valid argument that William Clinton is a HORRIBLE HUSBAND and a HORRIBLE FATHER!

But we still revere him as a GREAT PRESIDENT, don’t we???? (That IS the question!)

Let’s not blur the lines of relativity here.

Whether Bill was a bad husband and/or bad father is between him, Hilary and Chelsea. And so, whether Sarah is a good mother is between her and her family.

Let’s not play with smoke and mirrors here, that’ a Democratic tactic!

155. Tanya wrote:

Hey guys, guess what?

I’m flipping through the channels and stumble upon a piece on ENews about Lynne Spears!!! How funny is that! We were just talking about her.

Anywhoo, she wrote a book called “Through the Storm: A Real Story of Fame and Family in a Tabloid World”.

In the book, as expressed on the ENews show, Lynne admits that she “made mistakes as a mother”. The book basically details her “pinhead-ness” as a parent and the crazy lives of her kids.

So I guess this is a straight from the horse’s mouth validation of Mr. O’Reilly’s pinhead comment! How about that?!?!?!?!

For those of you interested, the book drops Sept. 16th. Go cop that Clif! lol

156. Clifton Harrison wrote:

So i guess all we need to wait for his Palin’s book right? goin by Bill’s analogy, I classify Palin a pinhead too!

157. Tanya wrote:

Really Clif?

Bill sited all of Britney’s major problems in addition to Jamie as the reason why Lynne is a pinhead.

So in order for you to classify Palin as a pinhead in the same regard, you would have to list a slew of problems with at least one of Sarah’s other children.

So in addition to Bristol’s pregnancy, what else going on in Sarah Palin’s other children’s lives classify her as a pinhead parent????

(you simple child you)

158. Tanya wrote:

I bet $100 bucks you can’t even come up with 1 thing wrong with her other children.

(Note: Britney’s drug and alcohol problems sealed the deal, have any of Palin’s kids been to jail or rehab???)

159. Tanya wrote:

I meant *cited*, of course.

Bill cited…

160. R.oB. wrote:

Tanya, loud rejoinders don’t an argument make. How about some facts, evidence to back up your opinions, or just some plain rational reasoning? You and Garrett have one thing in common: the more haughtily you speak, the more ridiculous you look. (The more I see it in you, the more I see it in me and I hate that failing in myself. It’s too easy out, esp. for the weak.) And that sad part is that when you have a different perspective you have an incredible opportunity to get others to learn, even if in the end they aren’t convinced. Having your ideas tested makes you understand what you believe and what you don’t in ways indoctrination can never match. That’s exhibiting love, not pride or self-righteousness. As a Christian and a reader of the Bible, you should know how Paul feels on that!

As for the Dems and the GOP, I had a great talk with a conservative coworker tonight. He is center-right and and I am center-left. He actually got me thinking and I gave him some things to think about as well. And instead of YELLING and making smart ass remarks. We enjoyed the conversation. How about that!

If you want to really get down with me, visit FactCheck dot org or better yet PolitiFact dot com. Let’s have a discussion on the facts. They have an amazing power to change my mind. (BTW, look who’s face keeps popping up on the Pants-on-Fire Truth-o-Meter ratings. That’s why the GOP is el crapo in my book.)

161. MrsPickron wrote:

I understand your anology you used for Bill as a good president vs bad father/husband, it makes sense and supports your arguement.

I think McCain made a good decision choosing Palin, however; I’m sticking with my party and I’m supporting Obama 100%.

Any chance I get to throw stabs at McCain and Palin I’m taking them with pleasure! I just wish Obama would do the same thing.

162. Tanya wrote:

Well, MrsPickron,

I know anyone with half a brain in their head could easily understand my point. I understand that you want to throw stabs, but you have to understand that a great deal of those stabs are just NOT piercing skin, b/c there is no reasonable substance behind it.

So in essence, it’s a waste of energy. That’s why Obama is NOT throwing these stabs! Take queue from him, he’s the sharpest in the game! I love Obama, and I’m glad you’re voting for him.

My ideals are just more inline with Palin, but at the end of the day, I will probably end up voting for Obama too!

163. Tanya wrote:

R.oB., darling,

How in-sam-hill did you make it through MIT and Wharton????? (j/k, kind of!)

First and foremost:

I’m not holding a gun to anyone’s head in the Barbershop forcing them to agree with me. All I’m doing to stating the FACTS, and explaining MY position. But I’m a strong person, with strong convictions, and weak people who aren’t as strong in what they believe can’t handle that.

I don’t take the stands and positions I do b/c I want to for selfish reasons, I take them b/c I wholeheartedly believe that is what GOD calls for ALL of us. And so, I will defend these positions to the death! That may intimidate people!

Don’t misconstrue it for haughtiness. I’m humble, but Faithful and Loyal to the truth, some people confuse the two.

NOW –

I know I shook you at your core. You have completely failed to understand any of the scriptures we discussed here, and you were a little lost on GOP policies, and I made you see that, and that’s why you can’t let this go. (You’re talking to your co-workers about it! I know you initiated that convo! But that’s all good! )

I don’t want you to let this go. I want you to keep engaging me. (Just let me breathe for a sec. though!)

You keep bringing up things I already addressed, just re-read my previous comments. I addressed everything. I really did!

“How about some facts, evidence to back up your opinions, or just some plain rational reasoning?”

Are you serious?!?!?! I’ve issued fact after fact, I’ve given examples to support my opinion, and it’s all rational and logical. That’s evident, b/c it’s got YOU rethinking yourself!

You however, have failed to issue support of your misguided statements with facts. You stated that Republicans haven’t given this country any great freedoms. That’s a factual error. Don’t you consider that fact that you as a black man can walk and live freely, great???

I gave you evidence to my opinion of why a Prayer Period would be a great thing. You were the one who was irrational by misinterpreting the Bible as inferring public prayer is bad. – And that’s just one instance; I’m not going to run down everything I stated that was supported with facts and reason. I’m just going to tell you, my fellow Ivy Leaguer, to RE-READ!

You’ve questioned my love for others vs my pride – darling if I didn’t love my people, all people, I would just say, “ya’ll are fools” and leave it at that. But I take the time (often inconveniencing myself) to fully explain things as I see it, and to share with all of you the facts and understanding that I have. I don’t know everything, and in the grand scheme of things, I really don’t know much, but what I do know, I take the time to share. Sharing is love dear, understand that.

You seem to be overly fascinated with FactCheck and PolitiFact. (lol) Do you think they are infallible???? Do you know who owns those sites???? I don’t think you do.

You stated in a previous comment that my “Yep” wasn’t an answer to your question. Well, did you read pass the “Yep”???? I gave a full answer to the question.

In #85 I stated:

“YEP!

Of course caring for and helping your fellow man is what Jesus calls for, but do you think that Jesus supports sloth? Nope!
“A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest and poverty will come upon you like a robber, and want like an armed man.” – Proverbs 6:10-11

“Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth.” – Proverbs 10:4

“As vinegar to the teeth and smoke to the eyes, so is a sluggard to those who send him.” – Proverbs 10:26

Here is my all time favorite:

“By the sweat of thy brow, thy shall be feed.” – Genesis 3:19

This one verse (Genesis 3:19) is the totally and complete argument against communism, and against the current US welfare system.

Understand that Republicans do not wish to take food from the mouths of the hunger, or clothes off the backs of the helpless, but Republicans understand that far tooooo many Americans are slothful and are intentionally sucking the system dry. That behavior is not of GOD. Republicans just want restrictions and limitations placed on welfare so that the people who truly need it will have it readily available to them, and those that don’t really need it are forced to realize the greater (GODly) benefits of self-sufficiency.

By the sweat of thy brow, is pulling yourself up by your own boot straps. If you want to want to eat, you gotta sweat!”

I used the scripture in the beginning as rational reasoning and evidence to support my opinion. Then I provided the FACT that Republicans want restrictions and limitations on welfare and not an abolition of welfare like the Dems fooled you into believing.

But I guess you missed it!!! Just re-read my dear, RE-READ!

164. Tanya wrote:

BTW – Don’t compare me to Garrett. He’s old and senile!

165. R.oB. wrote:

“How in sam-hill” — haughty, making fun of someone’s intelligence is the first red flag

Genesis and Proverbs isn’t quoting Jesus! By you logic, I could say something ridiculous like Jesus also supported chattel slavery

Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you by them from the neighboring nations. You may also buy them from the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves you may own as chattels, and leave to your sons their hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves. But you shall not lord it harshly over any of the Israelites, your kinsmen. (Lev 25:44-46)

I asked you to show me how Jesus supports the Republican platform. The platform is on the web and we have the Gospels to show us Jesus’ words. Saying something is Republican versus showing it are 2 different things. The best you have come up with is a shaky exegesis (”poor in spirit” versus just “poor”) which can’t pass translation or context tests and a quote rejecting the Devil’s temptation, which is indeed true but contradicts the specific and contextual meaning of the quotes I supplied if I am to believe your exegisis. Which I refuted with an equally plausible exegesis. I’m not here to compare which is better or right or wrong. I want something very specific. Show the platform and relate it directly to Jesus’ words. You have to find quotes that support it and deal with those that don’t. So far I’ve seen none of that. For example, you have yet to confront that Jesus taught those deeply poor Jews to pray for their daily bread which is straight up economics or that he told that rich you man in order to be perfect, he should sell all his good, distribute it to the poor, and come follow him. Isn’t the GOP dead set against redistribution? So you’ll have to deal with that in your explanation. Rereading your posts over and over isn’t going to make that happen.

My God, Tanya. Have some humility and do as I asked, else I’m going to Proverbs 29:9 this conversation. It’s a waste of time.

166. R.oB. wrote:

Screwed up some formatting in that last post. Sorry.

167. R.oB. wrote:

Tanya, had to run to a conference call so I’ll give you part 2:

I tend to trust facts. It’s worked for me at MIT and Wharton so far. I do know who “owns” FactCheck.org, because I went to school right next door. I also lived in St. Pete so i have experience with the “owners” of Politifact. (Typical and tired conservative ploy to try and tar the messenger when the message is irrefutable.) Each article is supported by empirical, i.e. verifiable and documented, evidence and/or the analysis of non-partisan groups, such as Citizens Against Government Waste or the Tax Policy Center. That’s real reporting and me deciding unlike Faux News which is mere propaganda or CNN which is more like infotainment than journalism these days. These sites are by no means infallible and when they do make mistakes they cop to them quickly and correct them, thus increasing my trust in them. That same trust extends to people who don’t agree with my views but have intellectual honesty like my coworker. Here’s how I started that conversation: “What did you think of the O’Reilly’s interview of Obama?” I liked his answer too. Disconfirmed my impression on O’Reilly which made me want to see it for myself. This guy makes me earn my ideas. I have to prove them to him and to myself because “everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.” Which is the reason why we both agreed true believers are dangerous and shouldn’t be running the country. They are impervious to facts. They just bounce right off them.

I noticed that hard core conservatives (and liberals to a somewhat lesser extent) tend not to like facts, always calling them biased in someway if they don’t support their assertions and seem to always follow the same pattern of insulting others’ intelligence when all else fails. You are not the first or the last. Instead, one might ask that if I made it through MIT and Wharton I might have a brain cell or two to rub together and that if I take issue with something you say, it might be for good reason. Instead you assume much and of course that makes you look ridiculous. “Do you know who owns?…I don’t think you do.” etc. Jokes, T. Let’s give a couple of examples.

1) As for shaking me to the core, ROFLMAO. I just saw a splinter in your eye (condescension and prideful ignorance) and because I know I possess those same failings, I’m reminded of the beam in my own. That’s what I was saying. Your preening is sophomoric, and given that you might have a brain cell or two to rub together, that’s a disservice to your potential on this blog…

2) You don’t have a clue on how I think on welfare. I think it should be abolished in favor of a robust unemployment insurance system. Markets create and they destroy quickly. People’s livelihoods and the obligations they support are not so fluid. Insurance is a proven solution to that kind of problem. I don’t think the Dems favor such an approach or have ever suggested anything like it in my experience. So much for what they have “fooled” me into believing.

I think I’ll leave it there for now.

168. Ann wrote:

@Chgosista and DCI74: Are you guys going to see Tyler Perry’s new Film- The Family that Preys this weekend? (haha)

~Ann~

169. ChgoSista wrote:

I LOVE YOU ANN!!!! HAHAHAAAAA!!!

Well, I HAVE to go see the damned movie–so I can have a follow-up for my blog. Dammit!!!

170. ChgoSista wrote:

“Take queue from him…”–>C-U-E. Thank you. That is all.

171. Ann wrote:

@ChgoSista: Girl I am going to go see it. I love Kathy Bates and Alfre Woodard. It should make for an interesing movie.

172. jay wrote:

ChgoSista,

Sorry I’m so late, but girl DITTO on the comments about Tyler Perry. I’m so happy someone else feel where I’m coming from too!! You need to post your comment on his website. We need to see some changes from him. However, this movie coming up on 9/12 hopefully it will be the change.

173. ChgoSista wrote:

Ann, I’mma see if I can talk my ‘friendy-friend’ into going with me… Lord, I can see his face twisted up already!!

(((Think I’mma hafta whip out my lower-octave, sexy voice, huh)))

174. Clifton Harrison wrote:

ChgoSista, Whats the address of your blog?

175. ChgoSista wrote:

Hey Clifton–I haven’t set up a blog page yet. I blog either via email to my peeps or on one of the two “Ning” sites I belong to (high school/college). Thanks for asking, darlin’…

176. Tanya wrote:

Chgo,

I stand corrected! You are right; “cue” is the proper word. I miss spoke, or miss typed, as it were. (typos do happen!) (I was looking at an invitation to a “Que” {Omega Psi Phi} fundraising event on my desk while I was typing. Maybe there was some type of telepathic interference!)

But thanks for pointing that out, b/c someone might have misunderstood me, until you made it clear.

I have issues with Tyler Perry too! I haven’t read your post on him yet, but I will. (there is just so much to read here) I actually want to go see his new movie this weekend. I usually wait for his stuff to hit cable, but I might go see this one! But if you go see it first and do a write-up on it, I’ll save that movie money!

177. Garrett wrote:

Here ‘ya go R.oB:

Luke 14:28
For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it?

178. Tanya wrote:

Garrett,

HI FIVE bro!!!

179. Clifton Harrison wrote:

Tanya- “mis”, not “miss”, get ya grammar game up! hahaha

180. Tanya wrote:

Touché Clif!

181. Tanya wrote:

Oh Robby!

I was eager to read your post, but then I saw this and it made me not want to read any further:

“Genesis and Proverbs isn’t quoting Jesus! By you logic, I could say something ridiculous like Jesus also supported chattel slavery”

First, I just want to make clear that my “how in-same-hill” remark was done in good humor! I was being playful! I did not mean to seriously insult or cast doubt on your intelligence with that one little comment! If you felt harmed by that one little comment, I sincerely apologize! I’m sorry! You have two degrees from an Ivy League. I know you have intelligence. I was just employing you to use it!

Now, back to your comment that stopped me from reading the rest of your post…

Numero uno:

You totally misunderstand what the Bible is saying about slavery!

Dos:

Do you not realize that The Old Testament and The New Testament are ONE AND THE SAME!!!

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with GOD, and the Word was GOD. He was in the beginning with GOD; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” – John 1:1-3

And in case you missed who Word is (Jesus) in the Old Testament, John made it very clear in the Gospel:

“The Word *became flesh* and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” – John 1:14

Jesus was there in the beginning with GOD, and so the word from GOD in the Old Testament IS from Jesus!

Jesus only came with the New Testament, b/c man was having trouble understanding and living the Old Testament. Jesus came to make it easier for us to understand and to have an example to follow.

The New Testament is a simpler version of the Old Testament, with additions!

I guess that’s why you are having so much trouble understanding the New Testament, b/c you don’t read the Old Testament. You can’t skip the beginning of a book and read just the end of a book and think you are going to fully understand the whole message of the book.

You asked me earlier if I was a Fundamentalist. Yes! Of course I am, and proud! B/c mainly I believe that Scripture interprets Scripture.

I don’t feel moved to read the rest of your post, at least right now, and I believe that may be GOD. B/c I know GOD brings people to an understanding at His own time. Maybe he doesn’t want you to understand these scriptures right now! (I don’t know!) But I do know I’m not moved to explain it for you any further right now.

Listen Rob, If GOD put it on your heart to eradicate poverty, then by all means, PLEASE work hard to do it. But please also understand, that you can’t eradicate poverty if you don’t understand what causes poverty, and eradicate that!

Sloth and temptation cause poverty! You may see it fit to just give a crack-head money b/c they are poor and you want to “feed the hungry”. But if that crack-head is only going to use that money to buy more crack, guess what? You ARE keeping him poor!

Sometimes you have to “force” people to work for their bread. I quoted this to you before, but I think this went over your head as well, so I’ll quote it again:

“As vinegar to the teeth and smoke to the eyes, so is a sluggard to those who send him.” – Proverbs 10:26

Do you understand what that means????? It means if you give money to a crake-head who will only buy crack with it, YOU are just as bad as the crack-head, and it will bring you harm!

Republicans understand this, and Democrats do not!

Republicans what to put restrictions and limitations on who receives welfare, as to feed those who will eat. To ensure that they ACTUALLY “feed the hungry”.

Democrats just want to give anyone welfare who asks for it. I know they THINK they are doing something good. But they are not! Its vinegar to the teeth! And they will have to answer to GOD as to why they kept the poor, poor!

“My people shall perish for a lack of knowledge.” Hosea 4:6
“By the sweat of thy brow, thy shall be feed.” – Genesis 3:19

In response to something you said much earlier:

The Nicene Creed states:

“…HE ascended into heaven and is seated at the RIGHT hand of the Father.”

He = Jesus. Indeed the righteous will be seated on the RIGHT side of GOD!

GOD’s right, IS our right, b/c we were made in His image!

Also, in an earlier post, you misinterpreted the Our Father:

A more accurate version of the Our Father states:

“…And forgive us of our TRESPASSES, as we forgive those who TRESPASS against us.”

Debtors as in Trespassers, NOT Debtors as in people who owe us money!

That’s all she wrote Robert. I have to stop here!

182. R.oB. wrote:

Now everything you say makes perfect sense. You don’t have to explain anymore. If I had known, I wouldn’t have pressed you. Here’s why:

ROB: The sky is blue.
TANYA: No, the sky is green.
ROB: It doesn’t look green. Why is it green?
TANYA: Because God told me it does. Just repeat after me: The sky is green.
ROB: I can’t lie, it looks blue.
TANYA: You don’t understand. Why can’t you see? It’s green!
ROB: I do see, that’s the problem. I see blue. Explain to me why the sky is green.
TANYA: I DID EXPLAIN: GOD SAYS IT IS GREEN.
ROB: Where?
TANYA: In the Bible!
ROB: Oh.

That’s fundamentalism…

183. ChgoSista wrote:

Roooobbbbbbbbbbbbbb—I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!1

184. Tanya wrote:

R.oB.,

Is that the best you can do?

Also, I hope you realize what you just stated is blasphemy.

“GOD SAYS IT IS GREEN”

That’s mocking the validity of GOD’s word.

Besides, I didn’t just tell you “the Bible”. I gave you the precise scriptures, multiple scriptures. Then I explained to you what those scriptures meant, AND I used different scriptures to verify my explanation!

Again, you’re lost! You don’t even know what Christian Fundamentalism is!

Christian Fundamentalist hold the Bible, all of GOD’s Word, the scripture, as infallible. That means there is nothing more important or more right than the scripture. And since you kept asking me for scripture to solidify my opinion, obviously you feel the same about scripture as well! Christian Fundamentalist understand that the true meaning of one scripture and be derived from another piece of scripture.

And since you can say this:

“Reading the Bible as its written makes far more sense than what looks to me like a specious description.” – #93

You are a Fundamentalist too. Or at least that’s a fundamentalist thing to say!

You’re soooo just lost.

But I knew that clear as the sky is blue, with this statement:

“People who have the wherewithal to cast of this world don’t want or need the very things that Jesus and the OT enjoin us to provide them: clothing, food, etc.” – #91

Wisdom, Robert, prayer for wisdom!

Someone (a NON-Christian) probably told you one day that Fundamentalists are all crazy or “clumsy”, and without understanding what a Fundamentalist actually is, you accepted that.

(I’m positive by definition YOU ARE a Fundamentalist. So join the club!)

Christian Fundamentalists are defined by 5 beliefs:

1. The Holy Bible, in its original form, is FREE FROM ERROR!
2. Scripture interprets Scripture
3. Mary, Jesus’ mom, WAS INDEED A VIRGIN.
4. Jesus died willfully and on purpose. It was GOD’s original plan, not an accident.
5. Jesus came back from the dead, he resurrected 3 days after his death.

Robert, do you NOT believe all 5??? If you believe all 5, you are a Fundamentalist too!

Of course there are people who say, “Christianity is cool, but you have to be crazy to believe Mary was a Virgin, the only way people get pregnant is to have sex.” (Oh ye of little faith)

Of course there are people who say, “Yeah, I believe a man named Jesus walked the earth, and he might have been a prophet, but he didn’t DIE and come back to LIFE. People don’t come back to life after they die. You’re crazy to believe that.” (Oh ye of little faith)

People of little faith (dummies in my book) think Fundamentalists are crazy, and make fun of them.

I know there are people who will say I am an absolute nut b/c I believe Mary was a Virgin, and Jesus resurrected. BUT I KNOW IT’S TRUE!!! AND YES, B/C THE BIBLE TOLD ME SOOO!!!!

Wise up Robert, WISE UP!

185. Tanya wrote:

Just wanted to add:

People attempt to discredit Fundamentalist by asking, “How do you know Jesus resurrected?” or “How do you know Mary was a Virgin?”

People taunt and make fun of Fundamentalist by saying, “Prove it!”, “Prove that Jesus resurrected, prove that Mary was a Virgin.”

And when a Fundamentalist refers them to scripture, a verse from GOD’s Holy Word, these people call the Fundamentalist crazy. These people say, “That’s NOT Proof!”. These people reject GOD’s Word as Absolute Truth!

If you are one of those people, if you want to call a Fundamentalist clumsy…well, then, there is NO way you can ever do GOD’s work.

And stop calling yourself Catholic!

” It’s been very illuminating to see how you worldview operates. Very much like a fundamentalist. Comments are too clumsy.” – R.oB. #93

186. Tanya wrote:

Chgo,

“Roooobbbbbbbbbbbbbb—I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!1”

Comment by ChgoSista — September 11, 2008 @ 9:37 pm

What do you love??? Being wrong! (That’s obvious!)

I guess you think I’m crazy for believing Mary was a Virgin too, huh?!?!?!?

I guess you don’t think The Holy Bible is proof enough!

(Maybe that’s why you think abortion is cool!)

187. R.oB. wrote:

Tanya, made one mistake:

It should read at the end:

ROB: Where?
TANYA: In the Bible!
ROB: What does it say?
TANYA: “The sky is blue.”
ROB: Oh.

That’s fundamentalism.

Garrett, you might want to put a little context on 14:28, I can’t let you mislead the people now…

Let’s try Luke 14:25-33

Great crowds were traveling with him, and he turned and addressed them. “If anyone comes to me without hating his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. [Now that's hardcore.] Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. Which of you wishing to construct a tower does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if there is enough for its completion? Otherwise, after laying the foundation and finding himself unable to finish the work the onlookers should laugh at him and say, ‘This one began to build but did not have the resources to finish.’ Or what king marching into battle would no first sit down and decide whether with ten thousand troops he can successfully oppose another king advancing upon him with twenty thousand troops? But if not, while he is still far away, he will send a delegation to ask for peace terms. In the same way, everyone of you who does not renounce all his possessions cannot be my disciple.

In that context, it’s not making the point you were making. But nice try.

188. Tanya wrote:

Oh Heavens! Please forgive me! I forgot something very, very, very important on the 5th Fundamental:

5. Jesus came back from the dead, he resurrected 3 days after his death, AND WILL COME AGAIN.

(How could I leave that off?!?!)

Believing that Jesus will come again, and walk the earth for a second time (The Second Coming), is the MAIN reason why people think Fundamentalists are crazy.

YES! YES! YES! I believe Jesus will come again. I believe in the second coming of the Messiah. I believe Jesus will walk the earth a second time (maybe even soon)!

So, yep, call me a crazy Fundamentalist! That’s Fundamentalism!

189. Tanya wrote:

R.oB.,

“Tanya, made one mistake:

It should read at the end:

ROB: Where?
TANYA: In the Bible!
ROB: What does it say?
TANYA: “The sky is blue.”
ROB: Oh.

That’s fundamentalism.”

Oh, right! That makes sense! {Sarcasm} (That’s still wrong! But try again!)

You would have been better off going to a Christian University!

It’s obvious you were hoodwinked by those progressive academics that plague the Ivy League Institutions.

It’s obvious your faith wasn’t strong enough to withstand the liberal banter of those progressive academics/Evolutionists!

Come back to the fundamentals of The Holy Bible!

You’ve made more than one mistake my dear, WAAAAY more than one!

190. Tanya wrote:

R.oB.,

Easy there! You’re starting to corner yourself!

You should not have quoted Luke 14:25-33! It’s obvious you don’t understand it, or the point Garrett was trying to make!

Please tell me, what does this mean?!?!?

“Great crowds were traveling with him, and he turned and addressed them. “If anyone comes to me without hating his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” – Luke 14:25-26

“In the same way, everyone of you who does not renounce all his possessions cannot be my disciple.” – Luke 14:33

Don’t mislead yourself any further!

A correct interpretation and profound understanding of this kills your whole argument and every single thing you said on this thread!

191. R.oB. wrote:

Chi-town-Sista. I got a million of them. If you ever want to see some logical gymnastics, ask a fundamentalist, esp. a literalist, to explain to you why God makes man on the sixth day after the animals in the First Story of Creation (Gen 1:1-2:4) but in Second Story (Gen 2:5-25) the order is explicitly reversed, man comes before. I figured asking them why it takes billions of years for the light from a Gamma Ray Burster (one of the furthest objects from us in the known universe) would be unfair and frankly would just embarrass them. (Then I’d playing that how-dumb/lost-you-are-because-you-can’t-see-the-deeper-meaning game. Not cool) My pastor surprised me with this one. God makes light on the first day. The Sun, Moon, and stars are created on the fourth. I never asked that one, I will when I get a chance. For a literalist, thats got to be a toughie.

Tanya, I spit fire on a lot of fundamentalists because no matter the form, they have one commonality: They all believe they are the only ones with access to absolute truth, and that is what makes them so very dangerous. This is especially true when you twist and torture the Word to support your ideology however evil it might be. Slave theology is the perfect example. It’s all right there in black and white, nice and literal, as the slavemaster would claim. “God said it. I believe it. That does it.” So to speak. Jokes, except it’s tears. (For anyone curious read Karen Armstrong’s The Battle for God. She lays it all out. Fundamentalism is a 19th century reaction to the Enlightenment, specifically rationalism.) But what makes fundamentalism problematic to discuss is the circular reasoning, willful ignorance to basic facts, willful ignorance to history, etc. It’s basically a very sandy foundation to build on. It’s premise is to have the temerity to speak for God when we should STFU and listen. But that’s just me, listen to this wee story.

I went to my pastor last Friday for some counseling because I was a little soul-sick. I’m not ashamed to admit I despaired a little at Christians giving Jesus a bad name. I was particularly upset with the Church with the sex abuse and some other local issues that shocked the hell out of me. How could these men call themselves men of God and do the things they did? This wasn’t arguing over whether women should be priest. There was very wrong shit going on. (This is about the institution and the ecclesia or clergy. I love my parish and thank God for giving me the right pastor for me and my family.) Anyhoo long story short, the conversation turned to fundamentalism and i complained about how it distorts the plain and simple truth, forget about complex systematic theological arguments. Father told me a story about an old Jesuit physics professor (yes Jesuit physics professor) speaking the previous night in Trenton to a bunch of students some of which I gathered were fundamentalist. People where asking how can he could believe in God, the Bible, and science, etc. He paused and said, “I’m getting old [in his 70's] so I don’t really need any more friends: Fundamentalism is for people who don’t want to think.” My jaw dropped at that bombshell. Harsh. But not all that surprising coming from a Jesuit. In my experience, those guys are no joke. Known for their spirituality, integrity, and intellectualism…and a propensity to drop hand grenades like that number…even on the Pope. So I laughed, felt better, and went to Men’s Day choir practice.

Wade in the water…

192. R.oB. wrote:

Tanya, post 183 proves everything I’ve said about fundamentalism…

And i apologize for the “Oh” in my story. The Jon Stewart in me cam out out. For that I will say I’m sorry. But that scenario is exactly the problem I see in fundamentalism. You are asking me to believe you over and against what the words actually say. I can buy alternative exegisis as long as you recognize it as such. But when you disclaim the meaning of words: Poor doesn’t mean poor. Debtor doesn’t mean debtor. And so on. That’s the definition of brainwashing. 1984 style.

193. R.oB. wrote:

BTW, just to show how completely off base you are in #182. I was raised in 12 years of Catholic school. MIT is obviously not a religious institution where I studied Aero/Astronautical Engineering. Not exactly the most religious of majors. But I did have plenty of beefs with the Boston Church of Christ for their fundamentalism, great talks with my man Redg who should be that one could take the Bible seriously without being one of them, one of my best friends Big Man aka Socrates who said Jesus was his buddy whom he talked to everyday as he walked the campus, etc. But those were secondary to me. I went to school during the LA Riots and race was front and center for me. Jesus was there but in the background. I was still too angry with the Church for raising me to believe in the Bible as a fundamentalist might, then in Church history finding out things weren’t quite how I was taught as a youngin’. That day was a toughie…

194. R.oB. wrote:

Typo: Redg who showed me

195. Tanya wrote:

R.oB.,

You have been truly brainwashed.

“Tanya, I spit fire on a lot of fundamentalists because no matter the form, they have one commonality: They all believe they are the only ones with access to absolute truth, and that is what makes them so very dangerous.”

THAT IS A LIE!

Fundamentalist believe that ANYONE who believes The Holy Bible, and accepts The Holy Bible as infallible, has access to Absolute Truth.

Fundamentalists believe that The Holy Bible is here for ANY AND EVERYONE, and if you (ANYONE) believes it and understands it has Ultimate Faith and Ultimate Wisdom.

Every Fundamentalist I know (self included) is open to various understandings of The Holy Bible, BUT will ONLY look to The Holy Bible as the purveyor and authority of truth. – Sola Scriptura = Scripture interprets Scripture

If The Holy Bible says it, it is True.

If it contradicts what The Holy Bible says, it is NOT true.

The only reason I keep telling you your wrong, is b/c your interpretation of one scripture contradicts the DIRECT words of another scripture.

You can resort to scientists who say virgin birth is impossible and resurrection 3 days after death is impossible.

BUT I believe it; b/c The Holy Bible says it!

Do you know of a source on earth higher than or more perfect than The Holy Bible????

196. R.oB. wrote:

If I had to interpret Luke’s passage that Garret used, I’d say Jesus was saying basically don’t write checks your behind can’t cash because discipleship takes a commitment that supersedes everything else in one’s life. Ain’t no half steppin’. You are all in or you are out. Take possessions for example. I must renounce them. That could mean giving it all away and re-distributing it to poor whether they are slothful or not. God doesn’t play favorites. Guaranteed I shouldn’t. It could mean treating them as the Master’s talents rather than my own and growing them for his purposes. That would include serving the least of these: the alien, the sick, the hungry, the naked, the prisoner. That jibes well with the widow who tithed out her poverty which cost her more than rich with the limits on giving from their surplus.

As for what Garret meant, I can’t know for certain. Given his track record, I doubt serious it was what I wrote above.

197. R.oB. wrote:

#188. Okay you want to get deep. Let’s do so. The highest source is, of course, God. The Bible is merely man’s crude attempt to represent his Word. It is no more the Word than the cross on my neck is the Crucifixion and Resurrection. My God is not so weak that his Word can be used for ill purpose, e.g. slave theology. His Word (Sophia) is subject to interpretation nor is it identical to it. Yours or mine.

You say that fundamental #1 is that the original words of the Bible are without error. Too bad we don’t have the original words. The earliest manuscript we have is dated centuries after Christ rose from the dead. All we have are copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies written by hand and sometimes changed or even added to. And we have irrefutable proof. Just a couple of examples. The Gospel of Mark has two endings. The original which ends at the empty tomb 16:8 and a later author who added his appearance to Mary Magdelene, the Commission, and his Ascension. Or take my favorite passage in John, the Woman Caught in Adultery Jn 7:53-8:11. It is missing from all early Greek manuscripts but found in later Latin manuscripts. (Was it St. Jerome? Who knows.) It isn’t even found in the same place. It’s found after Jn 7:36, Lk 22:36, or at the end of Luke. Further, the manuscripts are not always in alignment. Those darn devilish biblical scholars had to take them all and surmise what the original wording was as best they could from the evidence at hand. So who’s been corrupted by these academics? You or me or both?

Like I said before, fundamentalism is willful ignorance. I’m not down with falling into the ditch.

198. Tanya wrote:

R.oB.,

Oh my goodness!

Ok, so if you think “devilish biblical scholars” “surmise[d] what the original wording was as best they could”.

Then you must believe there is some level of error in The Holy Bible, right? (That’s what I gather from your entire #190)

So if this is what you believe (The Holy Bible has errors), WHY do you cling so deathly to “blessed are the POOR” and “sell your possessions and give it to the poor”???

Isn’t that just a “summation” of “devilish biblical scholars”???

Isn’t it most likely just an error???

Isn’t it most likely not what GOD meant, since we, (according to you) don’t have GOD’s original word, just a copy of a copy of a copy???

WHY believe the Bible??? Just chalk it up as old words man “claims” is from GOD and put all your faith in science. Science is solid! Right???

199. Tanya wrote:

Talk about willful ignorance!

200. Tanya wrote:

R.oB.,

So I ask you what you get from this:

1 – “Great crowds were traveling with him, and he turned and addressed them. “If anyone comes to me without hating his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” – Luke 14:25-26

2 – “In the same way, everyone of you who does not renounce all his possessions cannot be my disciple.” – Luke 14:33

And you give me this one jumbled mess:

“Jesus was saying basically don’t write checks your behind can’t cash because discipleship takes a commitment that supersedes everything else in one’s life. Ain’t no half steppin’. You are all in or you are out. Take possessions for example. I must renounce them. That could mean giving it all away and re-distributing it to poor whether they are slothful or not. God doesn’t play favorites. Guaranteed I shouldn’t. It could mean treating them as the Master’s talents rather than my own and growing them for his purposes. That would include serving the least of these: the alien, the sick, the hungry, the naked, the prisoner. That jibes well with the widow who tithed out her poverty which cost her more than rich with the limits on giving from their surplus.”

It could mean this, it could mean that!!! LOL You have NO clue what it means! NONE!

If you can’t clearly explain what it means, then how can you know what it means to apply it to your life??? If you can’t apply it to your life, then you can’t live as Jesus is calling you to live. Which means you’re lost! (Like I’ve been telling you!)

So Try Again!

I’m not going to use my words to tell you what it means. I’m going to use GOD’s Words, The Holy Bible! Scripture interprets Scripture! I’m going to quote another scripture that makes it clear what that means!

BUT FIRST….

I want you to try again!

201. Garrett wrote:

R.o.B.,

What point was I trying to make? All I did was give the quote, nothing else. Time for you to look up the definitions of “imply” and “infer”.

I’m often amazed that so many “smart” people can be so dumb.
Mr. Obama is a fine example.

202. Ced wrote:

I love reading Garrett’s posts… It lets me know that there is someone out there more cerebally challenged than Bush.

203. R.oB. wrote:

Garrett,

It’s even more amazing when someone says something so stupid he’s thinks he’s being smart. I like most well trained adults inferred that you were taking part in the conversation and that you were implying that quote spoke about monetary resources. Excuse me for making the assumption that when you say something it is relevant and represents some reflection on your part. I will assume you are speaking gibberish masquerading a language.

Tanya,

What I was demonstrating is that fundamental #1 is problematic. The autographs are inerrant to use the theological jargon. The problem is all the autographs turned to dust milennia ago. Then I stated the facts about source material, not what I think about them. Any modern translation from the manuscripts is the result of people, hopefully scholars, piecing together the original from the myriad copies. That is fact. The way it is. Errors do exist in the manuscripts because human beings wrote them. (One even have disses in the margins for scribes who made “errors”: “Fool and knave. Don’t change it!” The jokes part is the knave changed it to what scholars think is the original wording if memory serves.) I’m not concerned with typos, I’m concerned with additions, edits, etc. And I showed you two factual, incontrovertible examples.

As for the passage, sorry I was using other Scripture (other passages of Luke) to interpret this Scripture.

Jesus was saying basically don’t write checks your behind can’t cash because discipleship takes a commitment that supersedes everything else in one’s life. Ain’t no half steppin’. You are all in or you are out.

That’s my take on the passage. Then I applied to the renouncing possessions in the passage and applied it to the modern world in light of the passage and other Scripture.

Re-distribute possessions to the poor -> Parable of the Rich Young Official Lk 18:18-22
Growing the Master’s talents -> Parable of the Talents Mt 25:14-30
Serving the least of these -> Judgment of the Nations Mt 25:31-46
Tithing out of more than surplus -> Poor Widow’s Contribution Lk 21:1-4

My words indeed. The sky is still blue.

204. R.oB. wrote:

Tanya, and one other thing. I love my Bible. Warts and all. It’s the Word of God written in the words of very fallible men. So what? I read it and God speaks to me. That is my faith, the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

205. Garrett wrote:

R.oB.

Typical leftist ‘nonspeak’ on your part. All those words to say absolutely nothing. At least anything that makes any sense or represents anything factual. The biblical passage stands on its own.

No, I won’t excuse you for making an erroneous, and asinine, inference. I guess MIT and Wharton must have overlooked your lack of analytical skills.

206. Garrett wrote:

Uh, Ced? It’s ‘cerebrally’. Nice one, slick.

207. Ann wrote:

R.oB and Tanya I declare you both winners….NOW MOVE ON!!!

You guys are killing the ambiance up in here…I can’t even breath. Got my damn asthma actin’ up…

~Ann~

208. Miss Martin wrote:

LMAO @ Ann! (OMG….I was thinking the same thing…like kinda making a drag to come up in these threads!)

209. Garrett wrote:

Part of an interesting piece from Gerard Baker in The Times
(UK, not NY):

“The essential problem coming to light is a profound disconnect between the Barack Obama of the candidate’s speeches, and the Barack Obama who has actually been in politics for the past decade or so.

Speechmaker Obama has built his campaign on the promise of reform, the need to change the culture of American political life, to take on the special interests that undermine government’s effectiveness and erode trust in the system itself,

Politician Obama rose through a Chicago machine that is notoriously the most corrupt in the country. As David Freddoso writes in a brilliantly cogent and measured book, The Case Against Barack Obama, the angel of deliverance from the old politics functioned like an old-time Democratic pol in Illinois. He refused repeatedly to side with those lonely voices that sought to challenge the old corrupt ways of the ruling party.

Speechmaker Obama talks about an era of bipartisanship, He speaks powerfully about the destructive politics of red and blue states.

Politician Obama has toed his party’s line more reliably than almost any other Democrat in US politics. He has a near-perfect record of voting with his side. He has the most solidly left-wing voting history in the Senate. His one act of bipartisanship, a transparency bill co-sponsored with a Republican senator, was backed by everybody on both sides of the aisle. He has never challenged his party’s line on any issue of substance.

Speechmaker Obama talks a lot about finding ways to move beyond the bloody battlegrounds of the “culture wars” in America; the urgent need to establish consensus on the emotive issue of abortion.

Politician Obama’s support for abortion rights is the most extreme of any Democratic senator. In the Illinois legislature he refused to join Democrats and Republicans in supporting a Bill that would require doctors to provide medical care for babies who survived abortions. No one in the Senate – not the arch feminist Hillary Clinton nor the superliberal Edward Kennedy – opposed this same humane measure.

Here’s the real problem with Mr Obama: the jarring gap between his promises of change and his status quo performance. There are just too many contradictions between the eloquent poetry of the man’s stirring rhetoric and the dull, familiar prose of his political record.

It’s been remarked that the biggest difference between Americans and Europeans is religion: ignorant Americans cling to faith; enlightened Europeans long ago embraced the liberating power of reason. Yet here’s an odd thing about this election. Europeans are asking Americans to take a leap of faith, to break the chains of empiricism and embrace the possibility of the imagination.

The fact is that a vote for Mr Obama demands uncritical subservience to the irrational, anti-empirical proposition that the past holds no clues about the future, that promise is wholly detached from experience. The second-greatest story ever told, perhaps.”

In short, Obama is not what he claims to be.

210. ChgoSista wrote:

Miss Tanya, when I said, “I love it” to Rob’s post, I meant his SARCASM–period.

Thank you. That is all.

211. wouldn't you like to know? wrote:

**walking into the shop fiercely, dressed as Ru Paul**

Shanshay muthafuggin’ Chante, Did someone mention Tyra up in this purple shop??? Honey, sweet cheeks, don’t get me started!

**two snaps, a twist, and a wiggle….exiting shop**

Ps- LMBAO @ Ann, that’s why i love you girl! you can borrow my inhaler. . .

Pss – I love Ceddy Too

212. wouldn't you like to know? wrote:

**walking into the shop fiercely, dressed as Ru Paul****

Shanshay muthafuggin’ Chante, Did someone mention Tyra up in this purple shop??? Honey, sweet cheeks, don’t get me started!

**two snaps, a twist, and a wiggle….exiting shop**

Ps- LMBAO @ Ann, that’s why i love you girl! you can borrow my inhaler. . .

Pss – I love Ceddy Too

213. DCI74 wrote:

Damn I have a biblical headache just trying to read all of this ughhhhhhhhh!

On another note R.I.P. Orlando Fals Bora.

214. wouldn't you like to know? wrote:

DC, would you like a temple massage? i do scalps to. . .

215. R.oB. wrote:

Garret,

Stands on it’s own? Really? Context doesn’t matter now. So if Jesus said, “Only an ignoramus would believe what I am about to say next.” That would of course have no bearing on the statement.

And now you’ve been caught in a lie. Either you had a point with the statement or you didn’t. Claiming you had no point is jokes. Claiming that it has no context is even dumber.

Liberal nonspeak. That’s a good one. If you can’t understand, ask. Projecting your ignorance on others is laughable and people can see it.

216. DCI74 wrote:

Lol yeah hook me up wyltk. I’ll put up your drapes if you massage my temples

Oh Ann, I won’t be seeing that new TP flick even though I like Alfre but hey let me know how it was.

217. BigVic4 wrote:

Again…

Republicans are idiots.

If you still need proof:

Go here: http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/cc_insider/2008/09/jon-stewart-ann.html

After watching the video, you still don’t agree

…you’re an idiot.

218. wouldn't you like to know? wrote:

DC, i think you should put the drapes up first, we may need ‘em for that massage. . .tehehehe.

God why did i drink those two glasses of wine soooo freakin’ early???

Tanya and Rob, i think i might need some savin’

219. R.oB. wrote:

Ann,

I am sorry. Tanya and I are passionate for Jesus. That’s a good thing. Sarcasm and acrimony is not. I promise to do better. In that spirit…

Tanya,

Let me make one thing clear to you. I’m am not saying your worldview is wrong or stupid. I am saying your loudness, condescension, sarcasm, etc. are what’s wrong and stupid. If your goal is win hearts and souls, they are counterproductive. Claims of humility are not enough. Your actions count. That’s what my scenario was about. Noticed I didn’t say, “You are wrong. The sky is blue and not green.” I asked for an explanation and never got one. I got “You are stupid. You don’t understand.” That’s what I got beef with. And as a human being and a sinner I returned the favor, i.e. “Oh.” That’s what I meant earlier when I said that I tried to remember the beam in my own eye when I saw the splinter in yours. Please know, I would never have the temerity to tell you what you believe is wrong because I somehow know God better than you. That’s the sin of self-righteousness. One too many fundamentalists commit, IMHO.

Further, I don’t believe you are stupid either. I love Bill Maher, but I find his rational/secular fundamentalist view of evangelicals, etc. deeply offensive. He clearly doesn’t understand faith and denigrates those with it as mental halfwits. That is, of course, ridiculous. Ignorance on one’s part doesn’t equate with stupidity on the part of others.

I also don’t make a golden calf of science either. Explaining how the universe works is not the same as God or his Word. Not even close. If you want to see some logical gymnastics, ask a rational fundamentalist scientist where did the particle that exploded in the Big Bang come from. Or better yet, ask him or her why it exploded. Science can do much to explain the Bang itself but try to answer those ones… Also, note to them that the originator of the theory was a Roman Catholic Priest named Georges Lemaitre. That should put a little wrench in the works!

Take care, T.

220. DCI74 wrote:

Wyltk I like the way you think! Yes drapes first, massage later followed by my turkey sandwich. Hmm so Philly huh, SP or NP?

221. wouldn't you like to know? wrote:

Lol now the wheels are turning i see. the only thing is, that’s probably going to be a “tofurkey” sandwich, i’ll go hard on the extra “furkey” for you. you’ll never notice the difference.

“Hmm so Philly huh, SP or NP?”

i’m from neither parts, i grew up in WP, and is now residing in the oak lane part of the city. i’m considering a move to the big apple though. time for change!

ps – for all you biblical junkies, look to Ethiopia for a King. . .

king of king lord of lords, conquering lion of the tribe of Judah…Christ in his kingly character. . .

glass of wine part 3, coming right up!

two fangas.

222. ChgoSista wrote:

Aww DC–so my turkey sammiches ain’t good enuf 4 u no mo’???

223. Tanya wrote:

R.oB.,

Let a fool speak, and he for sure, will defeat himself.

Your recent comments have fully contradicted your earlier comments!

Darling, you stated you are “soul-sick” (#184), and I have to second that. In fact, I told you that way back in comment #92:

“There is a ling of desperation that seems to encompass all of your statements in #86-91.”

Nothing in your comments make sense, and you seem to know it, but you are still for some reason desperate to believe it.

You are wrong! And b/c I know GOD, I can say that. It has nothing to do with my self-righteousness; it’s ALL ABOUT GOD’s OMNIPOTENCE!

I KNOW THE BIBLE IS FREE OF ERROR, b/c I know GOD is free of ERROR, and The Holy Bible is the only thing currently on earth He has given us to know Him!

If you said Jesus was a woman. I would tell you WRONG!

If you said Jesus didn’t rise from the dead. I will tell you WRONG!

And that has NOTHINHG to do with MY self-righteousness. That is NOT ME telling you I’m smarter/better/more perfect than you.

It’s me telling you The Holy Bible, is smarter/better/more perfect than you.

That’s what Christian Fundamentalists do! They remind people that their science, and their own understanding, is NO MATCH FOR THE HOLY BIBLE!

224. Tanya wrote:

To All,

I know the convo between R.oB. and I must be a drag on you. It’s been a drag on me! I can’t tell you how much R.oB. has stressed me out!

But I have three more comments for him (just 3). I HAVE to respond to his most recent comments.

But after today, after these next 3 comments, I will be done here.

225. ChgoSista wrote:

“But after today, after these next 3 comments, I will be done here.”–>DO YOU PROMISE? PINKY SWEAR???

226. Tanya wrote:

LOL! Yes Chgo! Pinky Swear!

227. Tanya wrote:

WYLTK,

So you’re thinking about moving to NY?!?!? Great decision! Holla @ yo gurl when you get here! lol

“…look to Ethiopia for a King.”

I agree with you on that! The Ethiopians have “The Ark”!

But don’t tell R.oB. I told you that!

228. MrsPickron wrote:

Tanya
“So in essence, it’s a waste of energy. That’s why Obama is NOT throwing these stabs! Take queue from him, hes the sharpest in the game!”

No energy wasted here just the move of a few fingers, therefore; I will continue to throw stabs as often as I can. I enjoy it! No need to take cue from Obama!

Ann, that was very funny after reading over 50 comments I needed that.

Its a bummer taking a day off from the shop but I needed it. I think I was becoming addicted so I had to prove to myself that I’m not!

229. Tanya wrote:

MrsPickron,

You’re addicted! We all are!

230. MrsPickron wrote:

oh so I guess it’s okay!

231. MrsPickron wrote:

oh so I guess it’s okay!!

232. MrsPickron wrote:

duplicate error!

233. Ced loves WYLTK wrote:

DC DAMN BRUH! Leave me something! you’re eating up all the damn sandwiches, doing all the labor, WTF is there left for me to do, to eat(WYLTK notwithstanding….)??

Now,

Garritt aynt nuthin butt ann inna-net THUG. Tahlks ish butt wuldn’t saye itt en persun. So I left out the ARRA in CEREBRALLY… so effin what. Dude you’re not smahrt az Yu ARRA!!

And whoever is drinking the wine, SAVE A BRUH SUM!!!
BTW, click my name and go check out my friend NDB who is an up-and-coming artist from Milwaukee, in Atlanta.

234. wouldn't you like to know? wrote:

“So you’re thinking about moving to NY?!?!? Great decision! Holla @ yo gurl when you get here! lol”

if i make that transition, i certainly will. i’d love to have a few mojitos with you. contrary to popular beliefs, tanya, i like you. i know you have a lot of love to give in that great big ol’ heart of yours. i just wish you were more “fluid” in your thinking. i wish you’d understand that, you don’t know everything, and would humble up yourself just a bit more. boy, how beautiful you’d be (not that you already aren’t). tanya, you’ve made it so that, even if you are right and is telling the truth, people are no longer interested, in what you have to say. if you feel like you have a Godly message to deliver, what good is it, if you’ve already lost your audience??? you must stop and think about the things you do out here, because it’s not what you say, it’s how you say it (((you watch enough fox to know that!))) tanya, i’m not going to front, some of the things you say, i feel, and some, i think is absolute bullshit. being as though some of the things you say i feel, i still try to give you a chance, but everyone isn’t going to be as patient as me. . .

you should try talking “with” the group, not “to” the group, and try to share knowledge & info in a more fluid nature.
maybe that would help you get your message across a little more smoother love.

i’m only telling you this, because i want to help you. this isn’t a debate nor an argument. if you agree, great, if you disagree, well, great. . .

peace sistah.

235. R.oB. wrote:

WLTYK,

I gotta admit that I was thinking that same thing about myself this afternoon. Have patience with a brotha too. When you care and it’s deep, you can get carried away.

One love.

236. Tanya wrote:

WYLTK,

“i’d love to have a few mojitos with you.”

I’d love to! How did you know I love mojitos??? I’m not a big drinker, but when I do drink, it’s wine mostly, or mojitos, that’s it!

If you had cocktails with me, you’d see I’m very, very down to earth! Really!!! I have NO IDEA why you guys think, I think I know everything! I really don’t. I’ve never said, “I know everything”!

I’m just confident in what I do know. Yet still I don’t say that. I just sternly state my point, humbly! (But not everyone has confidence, so that might be the issue. My confidence might intimidate people.)

I know I shouldn’t call people names. I know, I know! But some times I just can’t help it! BTW – This is a Barbershop right! People curse and call each other names here all the time. Why am I singled out for it???

But even so, it’s no excuse for me. But most of the time, I don’t really mean it; it’s all done in jest. Yet still, I’m going to try really, really, really hard not to call anyone names anymore!

I’ll play nice, promise! Maybe then Marc will take me off of punishment and we can all do cocktails!!!

My ex-boyfriend called me the other night and told me that he was watching some documentary on Obama and it reminded him of me. (I thought a nice compliment was coming!) I asked him what about it made him think of me, and he said, someone described Obama as having the special skill of being able to win arguments and keep friends (or win friends, I don’t remember). And I jumped the gun, and said, awww you think I have that special skill too? And he said, “NOOOO! Heeeell NOOOO!” … “You win arguments, but lose friends; you’re too damn harsh!” He said it made him think of me b/c I NEED that special skill. (Whatever! – I said to him, but I thought to myself, yeah maybe! {b/c of you guys and how it goes down in the shop})

So, I guess I do have some things to work on!

But thanks for the talk, and make sure you let me know when you get to NY! Cocktails on me!!!

237. Tanya wrote:

R.oB.,

You indeed “carried me away”!!!

I have soooo much contention with your statements. But I’m going to refute them without calling names, or being sarcastic. I’m going to play nice!

I don’t have the energy right now to get into it. But I did re-read ALL your comments again today, and there is so much I’d like to share with you, without insulting you!

I’ll do it later!

Sorry again for the previous insults!

238. lisa wrote:

wouldn’t you like to know?,

How are you?

239. R.oB. wrote:

Did anyone notice that Marc posted on the Root but the aren’t on this blog? What’s up with THAT Marc??!!?!?!?!? >;-P

240. lisa wrote:

Tanya and R.oB.,

God is the source, sustainer, and goal of all things…He is infinity, simplicity, unity, eternity, immutability, sovereignty, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, truth, love, just and holy – these are GOD’s attributes.

But HE is neither democrat, republican, or indepedent – HE is ALL.

Romans 11:33-36 states,
“Oh, the depth of riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgements, and his paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him? For FROM HIM and THROUGH HIM and TO HIM are all things. TO HIM BE THE GLORY FOREVER! Amen.”

2 Timothy 3:16 says,
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for EVERY GOOD WORK.”

Jesus Christ attests to this in various scriptures as well – Matthew 5:18, John 10:35, etc.

Whether you give all worldly stuff to others or hold on to it God looks at the HEART and motive of a person, let’s not overlook that because it’s about a relationship with God first and formost, that’s why God sent Jesus to us in the first place, to provide a way for sinful man to get back into a love-relationship with holy God. Jesus made this possible by his death, burial and resurrection, redeeming us through grace (unmerited favor) to live, by the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit, a life that brings honor to Jesus Christ, our Savior and also our Lord. We are individually and uniquely HIS and God compels us to walk/act in His LOVE and walk/act in His LIGHT! We gain victorious steps forward as we yield to HIS DIRECTION each day…take heart…His mercies are new every morning.

And I thank Him again and again for his grace and mercy and love cause without it, I’d be a wreck or a wrecking-ball or both.

241. wouldn't you like to know? wrote:

Good Morning Ms. Lisa,

I doing fine, just fine love. I’m in the best place mentally and spiritually, than i’ve ever been, since i lost my Mother back in June. i’m so good Ms. Lady, thank you ever so much for asking.

I hope you are in the same happy loving spirits as i. . .

“So, I guess I do have some things to work on!

But thanks for the talk, and make sure you let me know when you get to NY! Cocktails on me!!!” – Tanya

as we ALL do love, working on a better “you”, is the best thing anyone could ever do for them self. Growing and learning in a positive way, i think, is the most beautiful thing i’ve ever seen in this life. for you to admit that Tanya, proves to me that you do in fact want to learn, and grow, and that is nothing to be ashamed of. Even, the wisest man must grow, so for you to admit that, shows a lot about your character…I love it

you’re welcome.

ps – i’m going to remember that the first tab is on you!

Rob, i’m not losing any patience with you love, as i get carried away at times too. i wouldn’t want any of you to write my crazy ass off to soon either you’re good in my book love.

peace.

242. wouldn't you like to know? wrote:

I’m*

243. lisa wrote:

wouldn’t you like to know?,

I’ve been traveling a bit, glad to be back, trying to put into words what I’ve learned along the way, it is difficult but the thought that seems prominent is that Christ, not culture, should define my life. As I alluded to earlier, God is above politics, He’s above everything, but also very actively concerned in the minutiae of life, if that makes any sense. I’m confounded and awe-struck in the way God makes His presence know to me…very slowly at times and instantaneously at other times. I guess that’s how he is growing my faith and trust in Him. I’ve had an exciting summer! Thanks for asking!

This morning, as I listened to music and moved around the house getting things done, I paused and realized that I really relate to this song:

Just Showed up for My Own Life by Sara Groves

Spending my time sleep walking
Moving my mouth but not saying a thing
Hoping the changes would take by working their way from the outside in
I was in love with an idea
Preoccupied with how a life should appear
Spending my time at the surface repairing the holes in the shiny veneer

There are so many ways to hide
There are so many ways not to feel
There are so many ways to deny what is real

And I just showed up for my own life
And I’m standing here taking it in and it sure looks bright

I’m going to live my life inspired
Look for the holy in the common place
Open the windows and feel all that’s honest and real until I’m truly amazed
I’m going to feel all my emotions
I’m going to look you in the eyes
I’m going to listen and hear until it’s finally clear and it changes our lives

There are so many ways to hide
There are so many ways not to feel
There are so many ways to deny what is real

And I just showed up for my own life
And I’m standing here taking it in and it sure looks bright

Oh the glory of God is man fully alive
Oh the glory of God is man fully alive

There are so many ways to hide
There are so many ways not to feel
There are so many ways to deny what is real

And I just showed up for my own life
And I’m standing here taking it in and it sure looks bright

And I’m sitting here takinging it, taking it in.

I hope you like it too, as Sara Groves has been a favorite of mine for quite some time.

244. DCI74 wrote:

A very special episode of the Barbershop Chronicles: wyltk makes peace with Tanya who proves she really isn’t just a Republican robot. Meanwhile R.ob. agrees with Tanya only that they enjoy arguing and he uncovers Dr. Marc Lamont “allegedly on vacation” Hill is actually dipping out on another blog on the low.

Will wyltk make her dreams happen in the big city and get drunk with Tanya? Does she really want DC to just “put up her drapes?” Are her sandwiches better than Chgo’s? Is there a bootleg Dr. Hill on the Root? And how long before R.oB. and Tanya go at it again?? Find out on the next Barbershop Chronicles.

245. Ced loves WYLTK and ChgoSista wrote:

LMBAO!!!

246. gigi wrote:

WD Muhammad Passes

For those that don’t know him, he was the former leader of the Nation of Islam.

Adiso comments regarding the media’s coverage of his death @ youtube.com/watch?v=ghxSxRyTlwu

247. ChgoSista wrote:

LOL @ DC!!! WHOOOOhoooohahhahaaaa…

BY THE WAY: Dr. Marc is just ALL OVER THE PLACE! He has even weighed in on the big “black men cheating” debate in the current issue of Essence! (The one w/Mo’Nique on the cover)

Interesting, DR. HILL, INTERESTING, INDEED!:-)

248. Ced wrote:

does anyone else have a problem with their posts showing up then disappearing? or is someone just picking on me?

249. Ced wrote:

I can’t express my love for wyltk and ChgoSista if my posts are being deleted

250. lisa wrote:

ChgoSista,
I think Dr. Marc Lamont Hill has a case of “focused restlessness” again.

251. Tanya wrote:

LMAO!!!

DC you have officially been designated the Barbershop Narrator!!!

“Next on the Barbershop Chronicles….” (too funny )

252. lisa wrote:

That’s it…no more posting of lyrics by me everybody.

253. ChgoSista wrote:

DC, this is NOW your official assignment!

Lisa–do your thang girlie–we gotta entertain ourselves & keep this going until the “Diggy Diggy Doc” returns!

Speaking of this “men cheating” thing, it’s wearing me out. Oprah had a whole show dedicated to it this past Wednesday and now Essence has a big ol’ feature in it[FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME] this month. I only skimmed thru the article until I saw MLH’s infamous grin.

254. lisa wrote:

men who cheat, women who cheat – one word – WIMP!!!!!!!!!!

255. R.oB. wrote:

DC has COMEDY! Thanks for killing my stress!

256. R.oB. wrote:

WYLTK, I’m sorry to hear about your Mom…Glad you are better.

257. Ced wrote:

Men cheat, women cheat, numbers don’t.

Don’t ask me what that means…

258. Marc Lamont Hill wrote:

LMAO

thanks for playing (relatively) nice while i was gone. i wish i had taken another week, but I’m glad to be back!!!

259. Ced wrote:

Dude we had to send Tanya and R.o.B on vacation cause they were so crunk!

260. DCI74 wrote:

Glad I could add some lightheartedness to this tense-ass thread. Oh and yeah men cheat and so do women and while I understand Essence’s target audience I don’t think ethnicity has anything to do with whether or not a man/woman will cheat, it’s all about choices; you either chose to be faithful or you don’t.

261. wouldn't you like to know? wrote:

LMBAO @ DC, that was sooooo cute! i love your summary!

Ms. Lisa,

i think the lyrics to that song are beautiful. i especially like:

“Oh the glory of God is man fully alive”

this is exactly how i feel. thanx for the inspiration.

peace.

262. wouldn't you like to know? wrote:

Rob, it’s all good. i’ve always been “better”, i’m just in a happier place right now. a sistah never holds her head down. . .

thank you for the love.

263. MrsPickron wrote:

Just Showed up for My Own Life by Sara Groves
I love the lyrics to that song. Thanks for sharing lisa!

Lol! DC, very funny! I enjoyed reading that updated narrative!

When I read WYLTK post to Tanya, I thought “Tanya is going to jump down her throat”. I’m sure Tanya’s response was a suprised to all of us. Good Job WYLTK and Tanya for encouraging dialog! We all have something that we need to work on and make better. Knowing what we need to make better is the first step on the right path.

Peace

264. lisa wrote:

wouldn’t you like to know?,

“Ms. Lisa, i think the lyrics to that song are beautiful. i especially like: “Oh the glory of God is man fully alive”

this is exactly how i feel. thanx for the inspiration.”
——————————————————-

Many of her songs inspire me, I like that line too!

For me, it brings to mind Colossians 1:9-14 which states:

“For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you and asking God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all spiritual wisdom and understanding. And we pray this in order that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and may please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God, being strengthened with all power according to his glorious might so that you may have great endurance and patience, and joyfully giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light. For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”

Romans Chapter 8 springs to my mind also when I listen to this song and that line in particular.

265. lisa wrote:

MrsPickron,
“Just Showed up for My Own Life by Sara Groves
I love the lyrics to that song. Thanks for sharing lisa!”
——————————————————–
A few of her songs are on youtube if you ever visit that website.

266. Tom wrote:

Love your web site Mark and I enjoy it when you are on the O’Reilly Factor.
I was surprised that “Bold Fresh” was not on your reading list.

267. John, PhD wrote:

Saw you on O’Reilly 7-22. You are incorrect. There are NOT 50 million uninsured Americans. 15 million of the number you quoted are ILLEGALS–not Americans. We should be under no obligation to provide health care to non-citizens.

268. Henry D. Brown wrote:

Dr. Hill

While I pride myself on being a black republican. I most say it inspiring to listen articulate the views of the left. can’t wait to see you again on the factor or maybe even RedEye….that would cool.

269. Steven wrote:

Marc,

You are an idiot. If it weren’t for the topic of race I don’t think you’d ever have anything to talk about. Why must everything be about race with you. It’s getting old. Everytime I see you on the O’Reilly Factor I already know that you’re just going to try to find someway to spin race into the issue. You are so caught up on race that you don’t even realize that you don’t have an argument. When Bill creates a perfect analogy by taking a situation and swapping Obama with Bush, you all of a sudden no longer think it’s racism. Either the situation is racist or it isn’t.

It’s guys like you that give black people a bad reputation. I know your type. You are constantly looking for racism in everything and if it’s not there you just create it. I think many of you would be sad to see an end to racism. Ponder this one. If it weren’t for racism, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton wouldn’t have a job so they constantly stir it up so they can be in the spotlight. People that make a career out of racism make me sick. They bitch about it, yet use it for their personal gain.

I’m not racist. Many people in America aren’t. Until people like you accept and realize this, racism won’t be going away anytime soon. But maybe that’s what you want. Maybe you enjoy being a career racist.