betsy

It must be my eyes....but where exactly is that wild-eyed Bush part? Is this the one???? "Georgie Anne Geyer re President Bush From her column, which we are publishing on tomorrow's Viewpoints page ... But by all reports, President Bush is more utterly convinced than ever of his righteousness [regarding the Iraq war]. Friends of his from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated “I am the president!” He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of “our country’s destiny.” This sounds way too "end times" for my taste, although I've always thought that apocalpytic thinking was a big piece of why we are in Iraq ... Geyer has some great sources inside the administration; I'm curious to know where she got this anecdote." I'm curious too.

It must be my eyes....but where exactly is that wild-eyed Bush part?

Like I said....how do you know it's hallucinations? How do you know it's supernatural? How do you know it's what these people say it is? We don't really understand the whole human brain....what it can be capable of. Btw, I was never taught to "go into the white light." Perhaps once they embrace that light....there's no turning back. Ever. Perhaps ghosts are real. I know someone who said she's seen a ghost when I took her to my cousin's house. This girl never met anyone in the family (my cousin was out of town). She described the ghost she'd seen....and when I talked to my aunt on the phone (whom this girl had never met), my aunt said the description is the same as the one my aunt had seen too. I never knew the house was haunted...otherwise they wouldn't get me to go in there no matter what. In the same house. Two different people who'd never met one another. Ever. Of course countless ghost stories are available. Fiction or not? Who knows. But I would not dismiss the possibility that ghost are real. Especially basing a conclusion on something like the human brain. The human brain still hold some mystery. Maybe some people's brains are wired differently than the rest of us that they can detect or see what we cannot see. Maybe some have managed to tap into the deeper recesses of the brain....who knows.

I would like to read a response to Jbg's post. If this was presented as an argument, then obviously it should receive a rebutt. Otherwise silence and ignoring Jbg's post only means no one can really come up with something good to rebutt it. They're stumped?

Jerry Springer! That's the one I meant. Yes....her guests will be literally bashing one another....ha-ha!

Holistic. I've heard a Liberal Senator use that very word yesterday on MDuffy. They were arguing about the law on crime....and that some Liberal MPs supported the Conservatives. She started the psychobabble about her party using the practical "holistic" approach of prevention. While it's all and good to come up with ways to prevent....what about those that are beyond prevention? Those that are already nutty, violent and with nowhere else to go? Maybe they're suggesting they're as good as dead.....so, I guess shooting them is an act of euthanasia. LOL.

What we should be asking is why racism seems to be gaining ground? That with all the law, information and promotion and endorsement of eliminating it....it still lies "just beneath the surface".....and by the looks of it, feeling it couldn't be contained to lie just beneath that surface. It wants to be expressed. It may just be a simple racist joke.....but there's no doubt there is a reason behind its expression. What is that reason? All the more if youth are fostering this feeling. Boycotts will not solve the problem. It's just a band-aid solution....covering one's ears saying "if I can't hear you, then it cannot be". Covering the other's mouth and coercing them to shut up is not a solution. It will find ways to be expressed...and it will only foster more resentment. This method will only keep it brewing just beaneath the surface. We need to hear why. That is what we ought to find out and understand. We can only solve the problem if we know and understand the root cause of it.

I had never seen that segment between Rosie and Elizabeth....so for those of you who hadn't too, here is the video of that show: http://inrepair.net/2007/05/23/video-of-ro...wn-on-the-view/ This video actually had me admiring Elizabeth. Rosie launched into a personal attack on Elizabeth instead of trying harder to prove her ground. The heated discussion deteriorated fast with Rosie's blab about the media depicting this as, "Big ,fat, Loud, Lesbian Rosie attacks Pure Christian Elizabeth." That indicated she knew she was losing in that debate. Too bad, if it hadn't gone down on a personal level....that heated debate between them was really interesting. Well, what do you know....even the guy responsible for the article on this link, which is a gay site btw, had express admiration for Elizabeth. Rosie is being offered to host her own talk show by some networks. Since Rosie thrives on this kind of low-blow "debates" and "discussion".....how many interesting, intelligent personalities would actually go on that show, I wonder? She's got that kind of reputation now. It will be a boring talk show having guests who only agrees with what she says.

All it will take is once, to prove your position wrong. then we should ban all guns too. A lot more people have been hurt by them. As far as I know, guns are not allowed in school. And that's what this is all about.....weapons in schools. A lot of people had been stabbed. A lot of people had even hurt themselves in their kitchen. Are you suggesting we should ban ALL KNIVES too?

Not sure, depends on the judge I suppose and the how good the woman's lawyer is. Last thing we need is precedence for an open policy of discrimination. I bet the same bar-owners would scream foul if bars in Montreal started springing up everywhere which banned gays. Total double-standard. BTW, who'd have ever thought you and I would agree on something eh? We've agreed on two issues now, BC Chick. We've agreed on the issue Kirpan dagger being allowed in school. I'm glad about that....

I guess the gay patrons didn't want any female competition. It would be interesting to see how this lawsuit will turn out. It is descrimination. I'd bet the gay bar will win.

I've read somewhere that Rosie is hard to get along with. Her magazine apparently shut down largely due to her attitude. I don't know if any of these is true. However, I saw in the news the way she mimicked and made fun of Trump when he gave Miss USA another chance (that triggered their "war") right on The View. She said it was because of what she think is Trump's hypocrisy. But the way she did it was in poor taste. I wouldn't be surprised to know that that episode was the catalyst that eventually had her out of the show.

You have your kirpan, I have my skein dhu..... I get a kick out of people who get their panties soiled over the turban issue.....they generally don't have much knowledge of history or tradition...... The Stetson wasn't even an official part of the uniform till 1904. Before that they wore Pith Helmets or pillbox caps or went for mufti headress. Now of course the stetson is as canadian as pineapple pie.........where as the Turban has been worn by several winners of the Victoria Cross, British Officers and quite a few loyal Canadians serving in the RCMP. Well at least I've learned from you. All I could remember were those postcards and old movies that showed RCMP marching. And I've asked my husband about your post. And he said that it's true. That the British Empire used to have men in turbans. So I guess, they're part of tradition. Anyway going back to Sindhu's comment about turbans and the RCMP. I must say there is safety concerns about kirpans in schools....and obviously, safety is not an issue on turbans in the RCMP.

Just saw a short interview with Rosie on that Hollywood gossip show (can't remember the name of the show...Insider?) Well she's saying that "they (the other three) made her feel like the "adopted" one." So, yup....I guess the other three were indeed trying to endure her. Rosie belongs in the same class as Geraldo...me think. Except Geraldo seem to have a nicer personality.

There are those who had after-death experiences (is that the right term?) My mom had it (being drawn to this very bright light) only to be resuscitated, and it spurred her fervor even more. I had a talk with a woman over a pint who confided about an after-death experience as a child. It made her a true-believer. I have to admit that I wondered if my mom was only hallucinating. But it's not what she said she saw that got to me. It was the way she became after that experience. I've never seen her with such religious vigor and enthusiasm, that at her age (mid-eighties), she actively helped in the restoration of our church. She was so motivated. So "gung-ho." Something in that after-death experience had only made her faith stronger. ****** Edited.

We've got what you call testimonies that are sometimes being shared in curches or meetings. Some testimonies are about personal experiences of God "talking" to the individual...or of divine interventions....or inspirations...little miracles, etc.,

Which is too bad. Maybe it's my age, but I do long for tradition now....the same tradition I made fun of in my youth. I want to see a parade of RCMP in full traditional regalia. The way I saw them in postcards and movies. Why can we keep our culture and identities....and have the "whites" lose theirs? If we want to have ours....then we should go back where we can have it in full. That's why multiculturalism is poison. It's slowly destroying this country from within. You should go to other asian countries and learn their language. You'd be blown away how much racism there is in this world. In my mother country, we've got colorful jokes about turbans and Indians, we've got some for Chinese and Japs, for blacks and native tribes....and we've got tons about whites. Racism is everywhere. I'm sure it also abounds in your mother country. Are we talking of present day or the past? If you hadn't noticed....things had drastically change now! Let's not try to use the "guilt-card" here.....and get all the apologists wringing their hands and beating their chests again and have us drowning in their tears. If you're talking of atrocities....I've got tons of horror stories perpetrated by the Japs when they invaded my mother country. I acknowledge that the Canadian-Japanese were treated poorly for having lost their lands....but my mother-in-law, being German that she is was also "jailed" in England (which she understands is also for their own safety). War is war!

I definitely agree with you, myself being from an ethnic community too. Besides, obviously there is a reason why we've decided to leave our mother country to come and live in Canada. For me, it's the western way of life. For others, it's corruptions, war, poverty, oppression, etc., We should protect to maintain Canada the way it is, what attracted us to it in the first place. We should not try to "import" and impose the old ways from the old country if it goes against Canadian law. We only end up bringing here the disease that we ran away from. Anyway, Sindu....what about the Inidan women who were on tv just a few months ago? They spoke of a horrific treatment of women (included burning and stabbing) with the silent approval of your own community, a cultural practice they say, that had been brought here to Canada! Why should we put up with that?

Wow! 4 in a row! Although I do sometimes post more than two in row.... I'm pretty sure, this is the first time..... for .....Mr.....Newbieeeeee! Thar he goes hissin' and spittin'....and not making any sense again. Hep-Hep, Hooray! Hep-Hep Hooray! I must have shaken your very foundation! LOL! Anyway...... whatever. LOL

I would just like to make it clear that although Newbie and I had been butting each other in this heated argument (jabs are being dished out from both sides)...it is not my intention to attack his or anyone's personal character. A topic had been created for discussion. A topic which I've challenged and had deemed a non-issue (in my view at least). It is for him to defend his topic, the same as it is for me to prove my claim. For the "insanity" part of my argument....I use the terms "insane with anger" along the same lines as "insane with jealousy." And that position I consider an important stance in my argument, based on comments which I've considered irrational rants (quotes of said statements given). Of course, the levelling of bigotry cannot be avoided in this issue. **************** Edited: highlighted key points.

Actually, the point that's being ignored is that after years of being qualified enough to preach about morality, perhaps this person should have learned a thing or two. The point is that those who follow religion are no more moral than those who don't. The real point that is being deliberately set aside is that preachers are not infallible. They're only human. At least this human had the good sense to try to rectify the damage his behaviour had done....and had voluntarily removed himself from the pulpit. When this topic was created, Dewert had already admitted to his sins. He had humbled himself before the community and apologised. When this topic was created, he no longer preaches about morality. So I asked: what more do they want? A lynching? Stake-burning? There is no big deal in this issue other than the fact that the scenario proved only one thing: this preacher had succumbed to temptation. I know what this topic is all about. To continue the contemptible bigotted bash on Christianity. While irrationaly defending the disgusting behaviour of political leaders. In fact, Dewert has more moral right in the eyes of Christian morality to continue doing his work than have Clinton, Stronach, Chretien et al. As I've said, and won't say again: this only shows bigotry against Christianity. ************ Edited: highlighted and added key points.

Nonsense. Secularism is not a 'system of belief', atheism is only arguably a 'system of belief', and neither of them have anything to do with "worship". I really don't understand why religious people keep trying to tar atheism and secularism with the dirty brush of faith. What do you hope to gain? Take it up with Websters.....refer to Riverwind's post above. He said it well.

Here's a definition from Webster's New World Dictionary: 2a) any specific system of belief and worship often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy...(Christian religion, Buddhist etc.,) 2b) any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of or likened to such a system. So as you can see from this definition, post-modern liberal secularism, followed by most Atheists, fits comfortably into this definition. But let's not put too much weight on dictionary definitions. They're a good guide, but they clearly can't cover all the intricacies and depth of a subject such as religion or secularism or atheism.

No, I'm questioning your sanity because of all the irrational statements you've made. Like I've said before, you are fueled by anger. And this topic that you've created is nothing more than just an attempt on your part to attack Christianity. This topic is a farce. Like I said, this topic actually is an example of hypocrisy. Newbie, you were a Catholic. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....opic=6564&st=30 Being a Christian then, you knew forgiveness is for us to give, and judgement is for God. You knew that, "He's only human" would be the surest answer any Christian would say....and that's why from the start, you've deviously tried to take that argument away by saying , "Let the 'he's only human' spin begin. But aren't you the biggest hypocrite here? At least Dewert had acknowledged his mistake, had apologised and resigned from preaching about morality. But what about you? You keep on beating this poor man on the pretense of outrage...when in fact, all you wanted to do is bash Christianity. Check the quotes I've given. You said so in one of your irrational ranting...."you'd attack CHRISTIANITY...." You are insane with anger. That's all. Hasta la vista. You need help. Btw, I don't care about your gender. Masculine, feminine or neuter.

Let us not be too hasty to scoff at another culture's beliefs. I would like to hear more about these "dwarfs" before I come to a conclusion. They might be referring to midgets (or whatever the politically correct term is) in which case I'd agree, that sounds like the crappiest "eternal paradise" I've ever heard of. (Although, it should be pointed out that the concept of a virtuous maiden being exiled to the company of a band of dwarfs is not unprecidented in the west.) However, what if by "dwarfs" they are actually referring to magical gnomes? Fairies? Leprechauns? Toy-making elves? Munchkins? Or Oompa-Loompas? Now, what girl wouldn't want to spend her afterlife with a loveable band of fairies or magic gnomes? This is the kind of enchanting whimsy that made Walt Disney a wealthy man. It's almost enough to make me think about blowing myself up, in fact, if I could only find a suitable cause. At any rate, does 72 fairies really sound so bad compared to western notions of the afterlife, which I gather revolves largely around cream-cheese? And while we're at it, do you really think the whole "72 virgins" thing is really as good as the hype? I'm skeptical. First off, virgins are not actually very good in bed. Secondly, what happens to the virgins when they're not virgins anymore? Does our martyr have to marry them? Or do the virgins get executed for being adulterous whores? Either way, it's not terribly good for our martyr. He's going to be henpecked times 72, or else he's going to be lonely. 72 virgins would keep our guy occupied for roughly 36 minutes, I am guessing, and then what? He's looking for another bomb so he can blow his ass out of paradise to get away from his 72 wives. Or else the virgins are all gone and the place is a sausage-fest. An eternity of hanging out with other suicide bombers, wondering where all the babes went? Is that really the kind of afterlife these guys want to have? -k Actually, no. I have it from high authority that at the schools of potential bombers, the original request was for 72 sheep. The imam-in-charge however refused to allow the sheep into paradise because he knew that not one of those sheep was a virgin.