Religion has no place in politics!

[ToadBrother]

I know that you favor extensive use of historical analogies but the reality is that the world has changed substantially since the times you are talking about. A famine is not going to happen in a country like Canada or the USA in the 21st century, and not because of social programs like welfare, but because we produce a vast variety of different foods, each dependent on different factors, and many of the processes are extensively automated and employ technologies that did not exist in the past, and many can function adequately regardless of weather conditions in any given year. Moreover the quantities of food that we produce far far exceed our requirements for survival.

In general, places like the British Isles and France actually had been productive agricultural centers for thousands of years. Certainly not as productive as they are now, but even with that, a place like the UK hasn't had the land or capacity to feed itself for over two hundred years. This isn't a historical analogy, the greatest error anyone can commit is decreeing "this is the end of history". Imagine if we ran out of oil at reasonably cheap prices, and then watch food production levels fall precipitously. Our crop yields over the last 70 or 80 years have largely been due to cheap oil.

Canada certainly could always produce food far in excess of its population, but North America is somewhat unique in the vast amounts of arable land and the relatively low (overall) population densities. But don't imagine there aren't circumstances that couldn't lead to agricultural dislocation. I sure the hell would want my government helping me if my area suffered that, and not relying on the very unreliable nature of markets.

[Timothy17]

If Canada builds a "wall of seperation" between Church and State, then it builds a wall between me and "the" State, because it simply wouldn't be "my" State anymore if I was not permitted to speak my beliefs in it, especially where it matters or counts most, in Parliament ; in Law. The whole "seperation of Church and State" mentality is a bit of a joke, because the Church is a seperate and independent institution by establishment, law and structure, and generally the problems were the State intruding on the Church, not vice-versa. Read any history of the Popes and the endless threats they lived under from not only hostile alien religions threatening their religion with invasion, but puffed-up, supposedly "Christian" monarchs threatening to invade them and depose them for trying to keep the Church seperated from State intervention and abuse.

Christians have tolerated a secularized state, even though we see the family falling to pieces and the children of the last few generations being utterly corrupted by secularization. We have sat by and watched our children, friends and neighbours be debauched and sexualized. We have attended too many weddings and witnessed too few marriages. We have watched our nation happily commit self-suicide and depopulate itself through an inordinate love of money and preference for wordly success and goods. We have watched men and women neuter themselves like dogs. We tolerate the will of Parliament - you don't see Christians organizing French or Red October revolutions - but so many of the secularists loose their heads imagining a Prime Minister or Parliament who might sit and share their thoughts on God. We have watched intellectual after intellectual, and politician after politician, defend mass murder as being fitting sacrifices on the altars of their perverse "freedom."

We are called whackos and reactionaries, yet are we the one's starting threads along the lines of, "ZOMG! If Christians are allowed to speak about God on TV or in front of the nation we are all doomed ! They'll start an inquisition and they'll burn us all alive in the name of God !" Then it is we who are called stupid and charged for having lunatic beliefs.

People still believe the Church arbitrarily executed tens of millions of people in Medieval Europe for simply having opinions or beliefs, then it is we who are charged for clinging on to myths or fabrications. Before 9/11, we were charged with a random act of nonsensical violence for launching a Crusade to reclaim the Holy Lands against the far more intellectually, culturally superior and peace-loving Muslims of the Middle Ages, and all of this pseudo-history manages to be retained in the public psyche even though we are supposedly all blessed with a secular education system that so benevolently hands on the Enlightenment to each and every one of our nation's youth. We send our children to the nations "higher" places of education, which have their roots and founding in and out of Christendom, only to watch these institutions further debauch, jade and sexualize our future.

I am Canadian, and I am a Christian. There is no reason for these things to be opposed to each other, and there is no reason I should gag myself about something that is fundamentally and universally good. I could keep my Christianity all to myself and watch as everyone else floats about mindlessly lost in confusions, tribulations and misery without a clue as to why they find themselves so helplessly bound to that state of things. I could do that, but I won't, and I won't watch my nation and my countrymen be robbed of the immense, rich and beautiful patrimony their culture and forefathers have bequeathed to them, often at serious peril and risk to themselves, always with immense personal sacrifice for something they believed and knew to be good, to be better. There is no reason for a Christian to be ashamed of being a Christian, and no reason to imagine Christianity is unreasonable, and the desire of so many to squash and censor the Christian Spirit and Voice is nothing more than ignorance manifesting itself, and then necessarily clinging to tyranny to protect itself from criticism.

Before modern man stands Church and State, each offering him liberty, freedom, truth, and the brazen and obvious contradictions between each torment the thoughtful mind as God, giving us each the light of reason to varying degrees, ultimately knows and understands that truth cannot be contradictory, and it cannot be opposed to itself. It is because of this, I think, that so many secularists don't want to see an opposing view, prefering to believe those things that give him some sense of stability and assurance in this life ; ultimately, however, the very heart and nature of Christianity is the Gospel, which by definition is something to be announced, something to be championed, and the Faith we carry in our hearts presses upon those hearts to share itself with any and all who will receive it. So you can ban the talk of God or Christianity from the public spaces, you can mock and ridicule it whenever opportunity presents, but even with all this wasted energy you will never be able to hide forever from God's desire to inform you that there is another way, there is a better way, and that you are invited to share in that life, in His newness of life, to the joy of your heart, your mind, your body and very being.

[Michael Hardner]

Christians have tolerated a secularized state, even though we see the family falling to pieces and the children of the last few generations being utterly corrupted by secularization. We have sat by and watched our children, friends and neighbours be debauched and sexualized.

How kind of you to tolerate that. [sarcasm]

It sounds like you're making a case for the state to start legislating your morality to others. That seems like an admission that your way of life is doomed. I don't think I have heard that from religious people before, except when it's put into a narrative where the end is coming, Sodom & Gommorrah etc etc.

If things are indeed that bad, then be glad that your rights to worship and pursue happiness will be protected even as your numbers shrink to a small minority. And true liberals will support your right to practice religion, and fight for your rights as they do for other minorities.

Edited October 23, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[Shakeyhands]

It's called faith, wyly. You believe what you want to believe and I'll believe what I want to believe. I won't subscribe to your form of elitist hate.

Exactly, so keep religion out of politics.

I won't subscribe to your form of elitist hate.

LOL. My oh my, we're dragging out the "elitist" tag a little to ofter now aren't we?

[ToadBrother]

If Canada builds a "wall of seperation" between Church and State, then it builds a wall between me and "the" State, because it simply wouldn't be "my" State anymore if I was not permitted to speak my beliefs in it, especially where it matters or counts most, in Parliament ; in Law. The whole "seperation of Church and State" mentality is a bit of a joke, because the Church is a seperate and independent institution by establishment, law and structure, and generally the problems were the State intruding on the Church, not vice-versa. Read any history of the Popes and the endless threats they lived under from not only hostile alien religions threatening their religion with invasion, but puffed-up, supposedly "Christian" monarchs threatening to invade them and depose them for trying to keep the Church seperated from State intervention and abuse.

The relationship of the Papacy with the Christian princes was a two way street. Since the Papacy was unwilling to take the big leap and seize temporal power, they're the ones that set the stage for all future run-ins by picking the Frankish kings. And they got a helluva lot out of it, half a millennium of power before the Reformation took Northern Europe and England from them.

Christians have tolerated a secularized state, even though we see the family falling to pieces and the children of the last few generations being utterly corrupted by secularization. We have sat by and watched our children, friends and neighbours be debauched and sexualized. We have attended too many weddings and witnessed too few marriages. We have watched our nation happily commit self-suicide and depopulate itself through an inordinate love of money and preference for wordly success and goods. We have watched men and women neuter themselves like dogs. We tolerate the will of Parliament - you don't see Christians organizing French or Red October revolutions - but so many of the secularists loose their heads imagining a Prime Minister or Parliament who might sit and share their thoughts on God. We have watched intellectual after intellectual, and politician after politician, defend mass murder as being fitting sacrifices on the altars of their perverse "freedom."

Ah, we've moved from blaming women to blaming secularization. Let me explain something to you, my ignorant friend, the reason great minds like Locke invented the concept was because of the horrors of the Thirty Years War. A secular society was the only one that could possibly encompass the factions of Christianity that had been so eager to chop each other to bits. Christianity did anything but deliver peace, quite the opposite, it delivered a seemingly unending series of horrors; from the harsh destruction of the Aryans and Hussites, to the terrible sectarian wars to the abusive systems in many countries that forbade people of the wrong church from full protection of the law. Secularism ended that, and gave these groups the chance to live under one roof.

We are called whackos and reactionaries, yet are we the one's starting threads along the lines of, "ZOMG! If Christians are allowed to speak about God on TV or in front of the nation we are all doomed ! They'll start an inquisition and they'll burn us all alive in the name of God !" Then it is we who are called stupid and charged for having lunatic beliefs.

It strikes me as being very unChristian to lie about your opponents. No one has started such a thread so far as I'm aware.

People still believe the Church arbitrarily executed tens of millions of people in Medieval Europe for simply having opinions or beliefs, then it is we who are charged for clinging on to myths or fabrications. Before 9/11, we were charged with a random act of nonsensical violence for launching a Crusade to reclaim the Holy Lands against the far more intellectually, culturally superior and peace-loving Muslims of the Middle Ages, and all of this pseudo-history manages to be retained in the public psyche even though we are supposedly all blessed with a secular education system that so benevolently hands on the Enlightenment to each and every one of our nation's youth.

Medieval Islam was considerably more advanced than most European societies (with the exception of Byzantium, though of course the Western Christians found a way to fix those rotten Orthodox Christians real good). You have a long way to go to learn anything about history.

We send our children to the nations "higher" places of education, which have their roots and founding in and out of Christendom, only to watch these institutions further debauch, jade and sexualize our future.

You have some serious issues, my friend. Women, sex, I think you need help.

I am Canadian, and I am a Christian. There is no reason for these things to be opposed to each other, and there is no reason I should gag myself about something that is fundamentally and universally good. I could keep my Christianity all to myself and watch as everyone else floats about mindlessly lost in confusions, tribulations and misery without a clue as to why they find themselves so helplessly bound to that state of things. I could do that, but I won't, and I won't watch my nation and my countrymen be robbed of the immense, rich and beautiful patrimony their culture and forefathers have bequeathed to them, often at serious peril and risk to themselves, always with immense personal sacrifice for something they believed and knew to be good, to be better. There is no reason for a Christian to be ashamed of being a Christian, and no reason to imagine Christianity is unreasonable, and the desire of so many to squash and censor the Christian Spirit and Voice is nothing more than ignorance manifesting itself, and then necessarily clinging to tyranny to protect itself from criticism.

No one is asking you to hide your Christianity. No one is trying to censor you. This is one of the most perverse aspects of Christianity, that even when it is the dominant faith, it still desires the place of martyr.

Before modern man stands Church and State, each offering him liberty, freedom, truth, and the brazen and obvious contradictions between each torment the thoughtful mind as God, giving us each the light of reason to varying degrees, ultimately knows and understands that truth cannot be contradictory, and it cannot be opposed to itself. It is because of this, I think, that so many secularists don't want to see an opposing view, prefering to believe those things that give him some sense of stability and assurance in this life ; ultimately, however, the very heart and nature of Christianity is the Gospel, which by definition is something to be announced, something to be championed, and the Faith we carry in our hearts presses upon those hearts to share itself with any and all who will receive it. So you can ban the talk of God or Christianity from the public spaces, you can mock and ridicule it whenever opportunity presents, but even with all this wasted energy you will never be able to hide forever from God's desire to inform you that there is another way, there is a better way, and that you are invited to share in that life, in His newness of life, to the joy of your heart, your mind, your body and very being.

Just as long as you don't expect the State to do it for you, Bob's your uncle.

Edited October 23, 2010 by ToadBrother

[wyly]

We tolerate the will of Parliament - you don't see Christians organizing French or Red October revolutions - but so many of the secularists loose their heads imagining a Prime Minister or Parliament who might sit and share their thoughts on God. We have watched intellectual after intellectual, and politician after politician, defend mass murder as being fitting sacrifices on the altars of their perverse "freedom."

the crusades, inquisition and holocaust are a few that come to mind....

We are called whackos and reactionaries, yet are we the one's starting threads along the lines of, "ZOMG! If Christians are allowed to speak about God on TV or in front of the nation we are all doomed ! They'll start an inquisition and they'll burn us all alive in the name of God !" Then it is we who are called stupid and charged for having lunatic beliefs.

history demonstrates what religion is capable of when it has free reign...

People still believe the Church arbitrarily executed tens of millions of people in Medieval Europe for simply having opinions or beliefs, then it is we who are charged for clinging on to myths or fabrications.

a those people would be correct...evidently you went to a school where historical truth was optional...or just inconvenient...

[Oleg Bach]

In general true, but that's largely because of directly funded programs (ie. welfare programs) or indirectly funded programs (via a tax-free status like churches). It's no different than it was in Roman times. Having a large number of people lacking for food is a guarantee of social breakdown. The Republic, and later the Emperors, didn't feed the people of the city of Rome out of the goodness of their heart (well, maybe some did), but because when there were food shortages, there were riots of a very ugly nature. It was essentially the same principle that lead to the Poor Laws and have carried over into the institutions most, or more to the point all industrialized economies have created. Having a hungry underclass is a very bad thing, one that any society that hopes to exist over the long term cannot abide.

The last time the West really saw a sink-or-swim attitude towards a large impoverished underclass was in Ireland during the Potato Famine, when the British government withheld distribution of its vast corn and grain reserves, leading to the starvation of a million Irishmen and a diaspora of a million more. If there was ever a better argument against Libertarian notions that everyone is responsible for themselves and should not look to the state for aid, I can't think of it. I'd love someone like Ron Paul to explain how exactly a Libertarian government would have dealt with a massive famine like this.

They are still slowly and incrimentally genociding the Irish...There is a bad hotel near me and most of those that reside in their are slowly starving to death - welfare provides them with rent - but no food - phama provides them with free mind and personality destroying drugs - and.....the streets provide them with booze and crack...AND I can safely say that in one more generation the worst of the Irish will be gone as the intergenerational British imperial destruction of this group continues.

[RNG]

They are still slowly and incrimentally genociding the Irish...There is a bad hotel near me and most of those that reside in their are slowly starving to death - welfare provides them with rent - but no food - phama provides them with free mind and personality destroying drugs - and.....the streets provide them with booze and crack...AND I can safely say that in one more generation the worst of the Irish will be gone as the intergenerational British imperial destruction of this group continues.

With all due respect, that is one of the biggest loads of bull I have endured in a long time. The British were pretty cruel to the Irish in the 1800's, but that is done and buried. Get a grip. (And I grew up in a Limey dominated town where Ukes like me were discriminated against.)

[DarkAngel_]

wow this is interesting, i've been out a while and hope my intrusion is somewhat warranted...

If Canada builds a "wall of separation" between Church and State, then it builds a wall between me and "the" State, because it simply wouldn't be "my" State anymore if I was not permitted to speak my beliefs in it, especially where it matters or counts most, in Parliament ; in Law. The whole "separation of Church and State" mentality is a bit of a joke, because the Church is a separate and independent institution by establishment,

you do understand you live in a shared country, its made up of so many delusional and rational religious and nonreligous individuals that calling it "my" state and then stating if its, how did you put it... "separated" that you'de be expected to stay quite? no! please don't!

but sorry to put this out but there's not allot of truth, or at least "to the point honesty" in subscribing to a christian/hebrew/chathlic/islomic/atheistic belief system... reason, rationality, theory and not facism, insanity, global dominance, or unfounded faith is needed in politics (not to state there never is)

darwinism... kinda ridiculous, but evolution is proven, so its a rational fact so it's being taught at schools, its your favorite close-minded priest and the concerned family that balls like child when a higher institution has a preferred method of teaching... called truthful, no offense but the church here in Montana still will not accept "heresy" so to speak, im atheist because i believe i9n man, i read Nietzsche and agree with him on allot of things, find it abit hopeful. but religion is kinda needed for contrast, for diffrence, and for your own discoveries... who knows what you may find.

[DarkAngel_]

They are still slowly and incrimentally genociding the Irish...

really???!! i have to ask, how? i mean poor people yes, those predisposed to an initial condition that has some history and backround as being impoverished maybe, as well as some racial susceptibilities to drugs and booze... but strait targeting irish?! damn i want to see this in court, this would be awesome, racial groups are fun when they fight for there right to be what they are... i mean they always seem to win in the end and thats awesome, but mass community racism in a small community setting? oleg i got to hear it, its a fight worth fighting if its 100%. if not please explain, your post may have been a bit exaggerated maybe? or is it a statistical thing??? you were a tad bit vague...

[bloodyminded]

No one is asking you to hide your Christianity. No one is trying to censor you. This is one of the most perverse aspects of Christianity, that even when it is the dominant faith, it still desires the place of martyr.

Good Christ, you said it, and I'm getting tired of these claims to victimhood by demographics that are anything but. It's like Sarah Palin contending that criticism and mockery of her stated, public opinions constituted an "attack on my free speech rights."

There is a sector of Christians--thankfully a definite minority--who believe that they are under attack by the "forces of secularization"....simply because Christian doctrine is not specifically, hard 'n fast, the law of the land.

Or, to be more specific, particular sectarian doctine...sometimes at odds with other Christians.

Because, let's face it, it is only right-wing Christians making such claims.

It would be frightening if it weren't so amusing.

Edited October 30, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

....It would be frightening if it weren't so amusing.

Sure..."The Piss Christ" was very amusing....but no Muhammad cartoons are allowed...cause it might be too insensitive!

[ToadBrother]

Sure..."The Piss Christ" was very amusing....but no Muhammad cartoons are allowed...cause it might be too insensitive!

Stone and Parker were pretty upset about it, too. Frankly, I think we should have Push Over Sacred Cows Day once a year, and each year some religion or tradition is mocked.

Edited October 31, 2010 by ToadBrother

[bloodyminded]

Sure..."The Piss Christ" was very amusing....but no Muhammad cartoons are allowed...cause it might be too insensitive!

Yes, "The Piss Christ" is often brought up as some sort of argument.

23 years ago and counting.

At any rate, this is beside my point: I was only laughing at the preposterous idea, believed only by the stupidest of the stupid sector of right-wing Christianity, that their religion is under a terrible threat.

[bush_cheney2004]

....At any rate, this is beside my point: I was only laughing at the preposterous idea, believed only by the stupidest of the stupid sector of right-wing Christianity, that their religion is under a terrible threat.

You mean the way "right-wing" Muslims think Islam is under a terrible threat? Where can I see "The Piss Muhammad" today, or 23 years ago?

[bloodyminded]

You mean the way "right-wing" Muslims think Islam is under a terrible threat?

Certainly they do. Arch-conservatives everywhere moan about the threat to their religions.

Where can I see "The Piss Muhammad" today, or 23 years ago?

I'll make one, and send it to you via Canada Post. Should take about eight months.

Edited October 31, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

Certainly they do. Arch-conservatives everywhere moan about the threat to their religions.

Goody...then one can logically extend this paranoia to "extreme left-wing" Americans and Canadians, as they feel "threatened" too. So in the end, it is all a wash.

I'll make one, and send it to you via Canada Post. Should take about eight months.

Postage would be excessive...just put in on display at the Royal Ontario Museum with lots of media hype. I can see it on YouTube.

[bloodyminded]

Goody...then one can logically extend this paranoia to "extreme left-wing" Americans and Canadians, as they feel "threatened" too. So in the end, it is all a wash.

That's not a logical extension.

Postage would be excessive...just put in on display at the Royal Ontario Museum with lots of media hype. I can see it on YouTube.

I am not responsible for media hype, but I'll create the installation. I'll even go one better than the vapid "Piss Christ" which so offended the knuckledraggers: I'll use the urine of a sworn apostate, maybe Salman Rushdie.

[bush_cheney2004]

That's not a logical extension.

Surely such paranoia is not exclusive to "right-wing" Christians and Muslims. Who will save the whales?

[bloodyminded]

Surely such paranoia is not exclusive to "right-wing" Christians and Muslims. Who will save the whales?

Oh, I understood, I only disagreed with the comparison. The lefties, whatever heady mixture of motives, egoism, genuine interest, and self-aggrandizement might be present, have no comparable sector to that portion of the religious right that demands we recognize their personal victimization at the hands of a provocative art piece...one that would be entirely forgotten by now if not for those who despise it, as they are the ones who keep dredging the non-issue up.

"Save the whales" and similar pet issues are not about people screeching about their own victimization; and what makes it more hilarious, of course, is that this sector of religious conservatives aren't even faintly correct in their fears.

[bush_cheney2004]

.....have no comparable sector to that portion of the religious right that demands we recognize their personal victimization at the hands of a provocative art piece...one that would be entirely forgotten by now if not for those who despise it, as they are the ones who keep dredging the non-issue up.

No, it was very much an issue at the time in the nation where it happened. Your perspective is at least twice removed...by time and geography.

"Save the whales" and similar pet issues are not about people screeching about their own victimization; and what makes it more hilarious, of course, is that this sector of religious conservatives aren't even faintly correct in their fears.

It is not difficult to find such victims, from the same gender marriage outcry to unrestricted abortion rights (and funding). It's not as tidy or isolated to religious conservatives as you pretend it to be. Hell, just based on some posts here at MLW, it's easy to find scared victims in Canada (i.e. New World Order, Amero, Bush-Harper, softwood lumber, digital copyright protection, etc., etc.). Poor victims!

[bloodyminded]

No, it was very much an issue at the time in the nation where it happened. Your perspective is at least twice removed...by time and geography.

It's a non-issue now...except for those who cherish their myths of victimization.

It is not difficult to find such victims,

Well, let's see:

from the same gender marriage outcry

Not victims; they won. It's those opposed who are playing victim....("Ooooh, my hetero marriage is now gonna crumble!")

to unrestricted abortion rights (and funding).

...and again. The anti-abortionists can't win this one.

It's not as tidy or isolated to religious conservatives as you pretend it to be.

I'm not pretending anything. It was a particular subject I was speaking to. You could level the precise same criticism to every single opinion you've ever uttered.

Hell, just based on some posts here at MLW, it's easy to find scared victims in Canada (i.e. New World Order,

That has nothing to do with "the left." Plenty of right-wingers enjoy shivering at that conspiracy too. We have one here on MLW, a far-right loonietunes, who adds evil Jews into the nefarious plot.

Amero,

the numbers of lefties, or anyone else, who seriously worries about such a thing certainly can't be compared to millions of Creationist knuckledraggers.

Bush-Harper

A formulation made interesting mainly by the strange phenomenon that this is an insult to both men.

, softwood lumber,

Much of that issue was framed in Canadian nationalistic terms, maing it far from simply a province of "the left," as per your original claim. (Which you've now forgotten.)

[bush_cheney2004]

It's a non-issue now...except for those who cherish their myths of victimization.

It will suffice just as much as any other victimhood timeline.

Not victims; they won. It's those opposed who are playing victim....("Ooooh, my hetero marriage is now gonna crumble!")

Works either way for me...just more victims to add to the pile you say doesn't exist.

...and again. The anti-abortionists can't win this one.

Not in Canada...but "progress" has been slowed in other parts of the world....more victims!

I'm not pretending anything. It was a particular subject I was speaking to. You could level the precise same criticism to every single opinion you've ever uttered.

Yep....sure could....no logic in singling out "right wing Christians" after all, eh?

That has nothing to do with "the left." Plenty of right-wingers enjoy shivering at that conspiracy too. We have one here on MLW, a far-right loonietunes, who adds evil Jews into the nefarious plot.

+ victims

the numbers of lefties, or anyone else, who seriously worries about such a thing certainly can't be compared to millions of Creationist knuckledraggers.

++ victims

A formulation made interesting mainly by the strange phenomenon that this is an insult to both men.

+++ victims

Much of that issue was framed in Canadian nationalistic terms, maing it far from simply a province of "the left," as per your original claim. (Which you've now forgotten.)

Purposely so....because it's not a left vs. right joint at all when it comes to victimhood, the point you wriggle to escape from.

Edited October 31, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[bloodyminded]

Works either way for me...just more victims to add to the pile you say doesn't exist.

No...these people comprise exactly the same "I'm a victim" crowd I was talking about.

Not in Canada...but "progress" has been slowed in other parts of the world....more victims!

You're mistaking actual victims for those who think their Christian faith is in danger. Your false equivalence here, in fact, is emblematic of your entire argument.

Yep....sure could....no logic in singling out "right wing Christians" after all, eh?

I didn't single out "right wing Christians." I was talking, specifically, about a sector of right wing Christians. I used that word. Evidently, adjectives aren't your only weak point when it comes to reading.

Purposely so....because it's not a left vs. right joint at all when it comes to victimhood, the point you wriggle to escape from.

You're the wriggler here, little guy. Fortunately, slapping you down is boringly easy. I think your military service made you weak.

Edited October 31, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

....You're the wriggler here, little guy. Fortunately, slapping you down is boringly easy. I think your military service made you weak.

Would such a weakness be a bad thing? You are terribly inconsistent on such matters. Better stick to "pantywaists".