if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck most of the time it is a duck

In this case no one has seen the duck walk or quack thwy are listening to pundits who are telling them what it walks and sounds like as opposed to observing it for themselves.

I don't care if he is Muslim or Zoroastrian. I just want the change he promised me!

I wish he was a Muslim -- and had as little regard for the separation of church and state as the last occupant of the White House! Maybe then people would begin to know all about the wisdom of the separation of church and state...!

For a Muslim, the president sure does enjoy beer and bacon. As a Muslim enjoying those two things, he would be subject to extermination, so the spurious claim he is a Muslim is just that and anyone claiming he is one, is a blithering idiot.

Beer and bacon!

My how time flies, I didn't realize it was time for breakfast.

Thank God you are back, Augustine, it is exhausting trying to keep up some state of sanity and normality here without your saintly influence!

Hey...anybody seen Clay lately? This posting should be like red (halal) meat for him....

Maybe he's on vacation. I hope he's O.K.. This blog could get very boring without entertainment. I kinda miss the little guy. It's like the Hippo without Jack, or Sunday morning without vodka.

Clay has taken a vow of silence, mostly to cover up the fact that everything he says is considered stupid, even by other bone-headed believers.

I think his vow of silence is likely to be like The Contest on that famous episode of Seinfeld. That is to say, it won't last very long, because he is not "master of his domain. "

Littel - Maybe you could joing him. Most of what you say pretty high on the stupid meter as well.

Maybe Clay got his self bit by one o them thar serpents he handles during his church's snake handling ceremonies, or maybe he got raptured away, which means I get his car, even though scraping off the bumper stickers will be a tedious job.

rino - "joing him" ? Is that a Christian euphemism and what does it stand for. I won't touch no Christer's tallywacker if what you meant was something like "joying him".

Who cares what the american public think some of them elected the same guy twice and we all see how that turned out see 2000 to 2008 .

Hey Wolfman, that's the problem. The American people twice chose the man who would destroy our reputation abroad and dismantle our economy. They didn't consider any of that a threat to America. Though I get your point I disagree.

We should not only care what the American public think. We should be afraid, very afraid.

Littel - I doubt you are that dumb that you didn't pick up on the typo. However, I'll indulge you. Join Clay in disappearing since you more tha match him on the stupid meter.

kwolf443 - Maybe you should tell that to Obama's team since they went out of their way to point out he wasn't and make sure they state he was a Christian who prays everyday. Maybe if the Democrats had nominated a decent candidate we'd of only had to deal with Bush 4 years,

rino - I got it, and I get you. Moral absolutists do not wish to be understood, they just wish to be believed. You are not going to get that unearned respect from rational beings, now or ever.

Littel - I wasn't talking to rational human beings I was talking to you. I guy who rants about his deluded left wing conspirasy theories as if fact and then has the nerve to call other people deluded. Sorry to say that the only difference between you and Clay is your delusions.

Gee (Fake ) Anonymous, I wasn't aware that we were having a conversation at all Come to think of it, why would I waste my time conversing with you . I don't know why Clay went away, but your moniker challenged disappearance would be equally as welcome. You just hate people who don't share your beliefs and strive to silence them........You lose.

I miss Clay, personally.

Dana - If you really miss Clay, there is always another one floating around. There is one going by the name of Robare at the Albany Times Union Blog in the Rev. Rudnick blog. Considering the number of people already on his case, I didn't feel like jumping on him though, it would be like a wasted pile-on after the tackle was already made.

It wouldn't be the same Robert. I pretty much stick to Charm City. Elsewhere is uncivilized. Clay wasn't mean spirited. I hope he's O.K. Maybe on vacation. Maybe he gave up the fundamentalist stuff and joined a Dominican monastery.

Hey. You might try that too!

Dana - If I had to choose between your suggestion and getting circumcised using a Cuisinart, I would have to think it over before making that choice.

Littel - That Anonymous post was mine. I must have forgot to put my id on it. Kind of thought you would have bright enough to figure out it was me.

The problem with thinking about that decsion is it implies the ability to think something you haven't demonstrated yet . Take the monastery all the Cuisinart would do is make you a more angry and bitter extremist then you already are.

You'll be just fine Robert, as long as you don't choose an Order with a vow of silence. In fact, your stubbornness suggests a position in my little organization.

rino - The last two sentences of that post easily applies equally to you.

Littel - I'm not the one hurling ridiculing attacks at every person or group who see things differently. Just back at one anger filled narrow minded extremist who can't make a post with out making nasty attacks.

Littel - That Anonymous was mine. Just in case you couldn't figure it out.

rino - You are every bit as easy to figure out as the mindless one (Clay). You both represent the same problem, trying to reason with someone who dwells in the certitude that their delusional, superstitious, unsubstantiatable, beliefs represent unassailable absolute truth.

Robert, I thought you might like this.

http://baltimore21201.wordpress.com/2010/08/26/gay-scientists-isolate-christian-gene/

Dana - Thanks for the link. I also enjoyed the Eve and gay Adam bit found there too, very entertaining.

Littel – You commenting on anyone else’s ability to reason is hilarious. As usual you misrepresentation the facts.. It’s tragic that you probably actually believe it. The only person making "superstitious, unsubstantiatable, beliefs represent unassailable absolute truth" is you with your nonsense of right wing conspiracies. No one spouts off any more rubbish as if it were fact requiring no support than you. No one uses ridicule and bullying tactics as opposed to rational intelligent logic than you.

Before you embarrass yourself let me remind you I’ve never once had any exchange with you about my views on religion or god. Like you usually do you stereotype anyone who isn’t out in your part of deep left field. I wouldn’t waste my time discussing those topics with someone as lacking the ability to use reason and logic and be civil as you.

rino - Your obsession with me, has clearly defined where you come down on both the political and religious side of the spectrum. In coming here, I have had to accept that my presence would not be welcome, and that any and everything I say would be judged through the filter of people who are not inclined to looking at reality in any way that contradicts their deeply held and unfounded misperceptions of reality., and that they would easily take offense at even the most reasonable of presentations.

Littel - what you can't seem to get is it isn't what you say, but the manner you say it that causes people to act the way the do towards you. What most take offense at is your bullying and ridiculing tirades. Maybe if you made reasonable of presentations you would be more welcome. Instead you are simply the opposite of religious extremist who makes insensitive, ridiculing tirades. You have no clue where I come down on any spectrum. Your own bias and arrogance drives to you assume you do on anyone who doesn’t share your own extremist views. You’re the opposite of the right wing extremist. We need wing nuts like you on the left to keep things balanced.

rino - Then you are the arbiter of what is and what is not allowable dialogue? I don't think having the most easily offended, self appointed, cob up the butt defender of the worst flaws in our society, is the best idea on the plate. Your attempts to marginalize the discussion by toning down the needed expression of anger over what the Right, and narrow inflexible delusionalism (Fundie Religion) are doing to the country, IS DENIED.

Littel – Thanks for once again giving a great example of your extreme either you with me or the other side delusion. I’m sorry you don't like hearing the truth about yourself. You are no more flexible than the extreme right you attack. Your steadfast belief in concepts you have never proven to be fact make you every bit as delusional as any Fundie Religion as you put it. I thought in your world all religion would be considered a problem. You’re just too blinded by your own fairy tale beliefs to see it. I've appointed myself as nothing except able to see things considerably more clearly than you. We have many problems we need to solve and they won't be solved by wing nuts on either extreme. Extremists don't solve problems they usually replace one with a different one. Expressions of anger are a clear cut sign that one is narrow of thought and inflexible them self. If both you and the nut jobs on the right weren’t a minority you might actually be dangerous.

rino - The ultra-Right has already taken control of the dialogue and artificially dragged the center to the Right. That you would argue for keeping the discussion on ground that the Right has already conquered, is as stupid idea as Lee had when he conceded the high ground the first day at Gettysburg. To play the game the way he did, on very bad ground and by the rules of direct frontal assault, is not recommended. The sane forces in this struggle are not going to engage you on the open middle ground while you sit behind the only stone wall on the field. We are going to flank you, probe for weakness, and in the end stop you dead in your tracks. The politics of greed and stupidity must fall, the dictatorship of the Tea Klux Klan fundy religionists must not gain control and people like you trying to make us all play nice, while you slip a shiv in our ribs, will not be allowed to rule the day.

Littel you grossly over estimate the influence of the right. Of course you also under estimate the knowledge of people in the middle as well. I might take you seriously if you could actually provide any credible evidence for your argument. I’m quite sure form where you are on the left it looks like the center is on the right. I argue on keeping the discussion civil and based on logic and not raving paranoia which both you and the extreme right extol so much. You problem is your so far out in left field you’ve forgotten where the middle is and assume anyone not out where you are is either in league with or being duped by the ultra-right. While I don’t share the views of the tea party activist I am never amazed at the number of people like yourself who instead countering their paranoia with logical sensible arguments simply resort to using the same tactics.

Littel having had some time to think about that last post one other thing strikes me. Your emphasis in using battlefield metaphors as if you are engaging the enemy. At the end of the day we are all Americans regardless of our political, social, philosophical and theological views. Only extremist use such language as you did in that last post. Maybe you could elaborate on what ground the right has already conquered. Save the biased stereotyping rhetoric about groups you dislike for those close minded enough believe it. Unlike you I don’t claim to speak for any group. I doubt seriously you do either. Why don’t you try doing what you demand of those delusional religionist and provide proof for your claims.

rino - Given enough time , I'm sure you could find something in any metaphor I used, because that is what you do. If you cannot make a case any other way, you pick apart anything you can find until you come up with some rational to attack someone personally. Rather than addressing what they say, you address the way they said it. I could do the same thing to you, if I was as desperate as you seem to be.

Enter Augustine from the Hippo with a hippo, beer and bacon--Augustine, Augustine, where art thou--thou art needed sorely to lighten this left field versus right field never ending debate. By the way how was breakfast--I hope you did not get inebriated that early in the morning. I am positive Clay is roving in these blogs by another name--perhaps even as an atheist or may be he was rewarded with a pastorship at his church for being such a passionate witness, and he is too busy to blog for the lord.
Ravensfan Anon

Littel you didn't say anything just a bunch of inflammatory rhetoric followed by your customary ridiculing attacks. When you get around to saying something rational. logical with some credible evidence I'll address it. Until then how does one address raving paranoia? As for personal attacks no one makes more than you so spare me the lecture on that topic.

rino - We the people of the United States , in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and sec ure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Littel - Quoting the preamble to the Constitution proves what exactly? Certainly not your ultra-right take over claims. I’m looking for something that provides credible support that “the ultra-right has already taken control of the dialogue and artificially dragged the center to the Right”. That was your claim. Maybe you could support any of the nonsense from that post. You seem to equate compromise with defeat. That is the same traits I see in extremist like Beck & Limbaugh. No elaboration of why my views are right that is a given. Those who don’t see it are a foe to be engaged and defeated. Once again all I’m asking is what you demand of others. Proof of your claims.

Littel - Quoting the preamble to the Constitution proves what exactly? Certainly not your ultra-right take over claims. I’m looking for something that provides credible support that “the ultra-right has already taken control of the dialogue and artificially dragged the center to the Right”. That was your claim. Maybe you could support any of the nonsense from that post. You seem to equate compromise with defeat. That is the same traits I see in extremist like Beck & Limbaugh. No elaboration of why my views are right that is a given. Those who don’t see it are a foe to be engaged and defeated. Once again all I’m asking is what you demand of others. Proof of your claims.

rino - I was just curious as to how far you would go to turn ANYTHING I post into a personal attack. I guess there are no depths you won't go to to feed your ego. The Right-wing is on full attack mode and the stakes are the very survival of what this country was supposed to have been created to fulfill. Trying to disassociate yourself from the very people who are tooting the corporate created propaganda horn being used to con the dolts (Tea Klux Klan types) into giving it all up to corporate control , is not fooling anyone. You want proof of what I allege, then just listen to what Beck, Palin, Bachmann and any number of ignorant, or plain out stupid idiots willfully, or cluelessly shilling for the creation of the religiously controlled corporate state are saying. They admit their culpability and we can't ask much more than that, except the awakening of people stupid enough to believe it.

Littel - How is asking you to actually support your claims a personal attack? Your attempt to paint yourself as the one being attacked is ludicrous. For someone who has made as many personal attacks as you do against others crying about personal attacks is a bit hypocritical. How do the ravings of right wing nut jobs prove your claims. I never denied that there are clueless right wingers making a lot of noise. What I asked you for is proof of your corporate control nonsense. Instead of pointing at the extreme right and drawing irrelevant conclusions as if it proves your own claims are correct, or acting as thought it's so obvious it doesn't require proof, how about you try something new and actually make a credible argument with supportable facts as its basis.

Prove that the Republican party is a wholly owned subsidiary of big business? You might as well ask me to prove the sky is blue on a sunny day. If you don't think that ultra wealth has structured our society to their advantage, then you don't have a stinking clue. Of course that is why you are here at all, to discredit the notion that our entire system has been set up to use the banking system to funnel wealth to the top. Every bit of interest they can squeeze out of your pocket, be it for extortive credit card charges, to the mortgage that makes us all slaves to a system that makes a third to a half of everything you pay for your house, flow into the pockets of people who produce nothing, The profit skimmed off the top for health care, goes into the pockets of people who produce nothing , except maybe the misery suffered by people who don't fit within their profit expectations, who then frequently as a result, end up dead. I don't need any crap from you, and the proof you demand would fill volumes, which is why you so freely demand it and at the same time paint yourself as a neutral arbiter of the limitations of anger that we should be allowed to express over our corrupted system. You can't hide the truth, so you just make yourself a pain in the butt to anyone who exposes the sham you are protecting. It is the most unreasonable among us who are trying to paint the voices of reason as being the wild-eyed radicals, and you are just one of the shills doing their dirty work. You have the moral turpitude of a two dollar hooker.

Littel as I recall in reading your past exchanges with the religious you claimed the burden of proof was on them to prove fheir claims. No you make claims and when asked to prove it you attempt to shift the burden of proof to me to prove you wrong. You keep doing everything except what you demand of everyone else. One would think if it is as obvious as you claim you’d have no trouble proving your claims. What makes you a wild-eyed radical is your continued making claims for which you fail to actually even attempt to offer proof. The closest you get is drawing irrelevant conclusions from statistics. You rely on that and personal attacks to bully anyone who stands up and questions the nonsense you spout off like chicken little crying the sky is falling. It’s real simple. Make a credible argument with actual facts to make an attempt to prove what you say. Otherwise all anyone can do is dismiss you and your claims as a paranoid deluded fantasy. What brings me here is radical wing nuts like you who make many claims, never support them then act as though anyone questioning their rants is somehow evil or duped. You are so far to the left I don’t even know if it’s possible to be any more left wing. You aren’t part of the solution rather part of the problem. You are a left wing Glenn Beck.

Littel that Anonymous post was mine. Oh one more thing making claims without any support isn't exposing anything. I'd have no problem agreeing with you if you actually did more than shout at the rain.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081007140133AAyCGHT

One does not have to prove that a manure pile stinks, anymore than it is necessary to prove that wealth has its privileges, most of which they gave themselves. The deck is so badly stacked that even the victims can read the backs of the cards. I stand by my last post and if the existence of god/gods was so obvious, I would subscribe to such notions without question. You are talking apples and plastic apples when you compare political reality and religion, with one (the first) being real and the other a man-made fictional construction without any substantiation.

Pointing out your dishonesty, your manipulative constructs, and your service to the corporate whores who rule us is not a personal attack, it is truth that must see the light of day. I understand your need to maintain your fictions, but in the end when the light comes on, creatures like you scurry into the darkness.

Littel it's not surprising you attempt to change from your original claim "the Republican party is a wholly owned subsidiary of big business" to that ridiculous manure example to invoke one of Aristotle’s 13 fallacies. Its also not surprising that you hold a double standard on the need for proving arguments.

You speak as if you are the only person who sees the truth. In reality you are as blind as any Glenn Beck tea party disciple. Making baseless accusations against someone solely because they don’t agree with your version of reality is a personal attack. The reason it doesn’t seem that way to you is your own delusional belief that you know the truth. That’s also why you foolishly don’t believe you need to prove any of your shouting at the rain. Listening to you talk about the light is hilarious considering how far in the dark you are. All you see is a fringe of the light. If you weren’t so abusive I’d probably feel some pity for you. Instead all I can do is expose you for the deluded paranoid hypocrite you are.

Littel – I have to hand it to you. I didn’t think it was possible to insert so many different logical fallacies in one post.

Bare assertion fallacy – Your beliefs are true because you say so and the are so obvious as to require no proof (your manure pile example).

Fallacy of necessity – The fact that there are wealthy and privileged people in this country means that that your claim about Republicans must be true

Negative proof fallacy - Others can not prove God's existence and you can't use your bare assertion fallacy so God does not exist.

False analogy – For trying your apples and plastic apples analogy regarding comparing religious beliefs and political beliefs and attempting argue that the rules of logic apply to one and not the other. Sorry but your beliefs aren’t reality unless you prove them.

Ad hominem – For your continued personal attacks of calling me dishonest for questioning your diatribes and accusing me of manipulative constructs for simply asking you support your claims with facts.

Appeal to emotion– For your ridiculing and emotional appeals as opposed to actually providing credible examples of these corporate whore and how I am servicing them by challenging you to back your empty rhetoric with reasonable facts and evidence. In addition to that scurry into the darkness when the light is turned on nonsense.

I’m sure if I took more time I could point out other flaws but it’s kind of like trying to explain Calculus to someone who can’t count. Again with the “us”? Who is this “us” you keep referring. The only one doing any talking is you. Stop pretending you represent anyone besides yourself.

rino - It is evident that you are here for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to directly attack anyone who makes the case against religion. You are using tactics right out of the Karen Hughes handbook to overwhelm your opponent and your fixation on stopping me is illustrative of how much you fear the truth from being heard, either that, or you truly are just plain nuts. I will not jump through any hoops you hold up, because there is nothing but a manure pile on the other side.

Littel if your case against religion is as weak as your political claims its meaningless dribble. My only tactic was to ask you to prove your claims nothing more. So far you’ve done everything but that. It’s rather ironic because all I’ve done to you is ask you to do what you demand religion do, provide proof for what is claimed. Somehow you seem to operate on a double standard that requires one thing for religion to be valid, proof, while your own political views do not require proof rather it requires the other side to prove you wrong. To say your thought pattern is unusual is an understatement.

I’d love for the truth to be heard not simply your version of it.. If what you say is true it should be rather easy to prove. I never asked you to jump through anything simply prove what you call truth. Since you haven’t and have used more logical fallacies than one can count I can only assume that what you call truth a reasonable and logical person or any intellect would call an opinion.