BBC Blog Network

User Profile

freeclench

Listed below are comments made by freeclench between Saturday, 28th February 2009 and Sunday, 1st March 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Jindal's missed opportunity 01:08am on 01 Mar 2009 Well, of course the only person who can answer that is the person who is abusing the flagging process. The rest of us can't identify the pattern, because each of us only knows what is in our own flagged post.

But your supposition that it's an attempt to exert control over what is said seems reasonable.

-FreeClench
Jindal's missed opportunity 00:28am on 01 Mar 2009 ps. Maybe it's because I called Jindal "geisha-boy."

If so, it reflects a misunderstanding of what geishas are -- they are not prostitutes, and historically never were. Look it up.

My intention in calling Jindal "geisha-boy" is to point out his unmanly body language. Which doesn't bother me at all, but Republicans only seem to go for manly-man macho types. Schwartzenegger, W., etc.

If that is the reason the post has been flagged, I'd call that evidence of my point.

-FreeClench
Jindal's missed opportunity 00:19am on 01 Mar 2009 #109, bere54 wrote:

...That is rather creepy, but I think it is safe to assume that I am not being censored by the Obama administration.

My response to #102 is also on lock-down, for no reason I can fathom. I said I regard #102 as a demonstration that many Republicans are hoping that Obama fails in the recovery project. Which frankly is a frightening attitude.

-FreeClench
Obama's extravagant claims 2:44pm on 28 Feb 2009 131, british-ish wrote:

I'm thinking of getting up a petition (since this is a British blog "bbc.co.uk"-- see?) to the mods to have them insist on British spelling.

Anybody want to sign up?

Ah, the UK is Britain. Thanks for clearing that up...

-FreeClench
Jindal's missed opportunity 2:31pm on 28 Feb 2009 Now that is interesting.

I've broken no rules; I've kept it within bounds; and yet someone wants to censor my post.

Because, apparently, the truth is subversive.

-FreeClench
Jindal's missed opportunity 06:17am on 28 Feb 2009 Peterbo, you're a nut. And I must be half nuts to keep talking with you.

The logic of your argument is to say: Oh, yeah? Well where did that come from? until, running up against the boundaries of our knowledge, you conclude that God did it. But we know from history that this has always failed before: the crystal spheres aren't actually pushed by angels; the world does not actually rest on the backs of elephants, who stand on a huge turtle, which stands on nothing.

Besides the fact that it's a nonanswer -- where did God (or Whoever) come from? -- besides this, it reflects a deep failure of imagination.

The Big Bang was started by something, you say -- and what leads you to believe this was in any sense a person? That it was a thing that could form intentions, that it could be aware of itself, think things through, or any of the rest of it? Back when all the mass, energy and space in the Universe was crammed into a volume smaller than an electron? When the Universe was so hot that any known form of energy would have dissolved? And you would have this critter intending to create the Universe? Why not have It picking its nose?

Did It feel love for Its creation? Does It mandate that we love our neighbors as ourselves? The kind of God that comes out of the picture you're talking about is inhuman. The story you're telling us does not give confidence that God is interested in human salvation.

Christ undoubtedly loved us: whether he returned is another question. But the Thing you're talking about is just the big push that sets the clockwork in motion. Even if it were true, it's a paltry, poor basis for a religion.

From what I can tell, you're a freakish zealot of some spurious technofetish balderdash theology you cobbled together out of old Scientific Americans and Star Trek Deanna Troi pseudo-mysticism. No offense. But it doesn't do any good to "prove" that God exists on your terms.

-FreeClench
Obama's extravagant claims 04:02am on 28 Feb 2009 Obama said two things that impressed me, that I haven't seen commented on. Quoting from memory here--

The first was that we have to do something about kids dropping out of school: "because kids who give up on their education aren't just giving up on themselves: they're giving up on America."

The second was addressed to Republicans: "We've disagreed already. And I expect we'll disagree again. But however much we disagree, I know you love America."

I can't remember the last time I heard that kind of thing from a politician. It sounded like something out of the fifties; I can't say why.

-FreeClench
Jindal's missed opportunity 03:54am on 28 Feb 2009 #97, peterbo wrote:

Sancta simplicitas. Did I mention God anywhere in my post?

Modern science accepts ... someone / something introduced the "singularity" - also from nowhere, to CREATE the universe.

And because you don't call this "someone" God, you think this fools anyone?

If you weren't talking about God, you wouldn't have your knickers in a twist over atheism.

Witness the disingenuity of the true believer.

-FreeClench
Ambitious healthcare promise 01:57am on 28 Feb 2009 #24, happylaze wrote:

..."rich bankers" ... made loads of money to invest in stocks so they could make more BUT they overcharged and the end result was they lost their money in the stock market or to a madoff.

Lol that does seem a tad inefficient when you think about it.

And then they got the American government to spend... what, $2T so far? ... saving their bacon. Because they hold America hostage.

And they scream bloody murder if there are any strings attached, because when strings are attached it's not capitalism.

-FreeClench
The end of the War on Terror? 01:46am on 28 Feb 2009
PALESTINIANS GO HOME.

-FreeClench

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

freeclench