Anti-Americanism and Support for Communism on the RNL

Yes, you read that correctly.  Though it may be considered bad form, and some may think it a personal attack, I do not consider this either.  Instead, I see this as an opportunity to illustrate how people we may otherwise consider to be decent folk are supporting those who have openly declared that they want to destroy this nation as it was founded.  The example comes in the form of a comment by RNL contributor, Melfamy:


Are you forgetting that Soros has been instrumental in bringing several Communist regimes? He grew tired of the BS on the right, and started funding groups that would speak back to the idiocy and lies.
Soros is a great American, and that video is spot on! If you paid attention, B, you would see how she is saying many of the same things that Jesus said.

To call Soros a “great American” is to call Stalin, or Lenin, or Marx a “great American.”  Let me share a little George Soros with you to make my point:

Soros has said:

“If truth be known, I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me in trouble.”

Soros has also said:

“My goal is to become the conscience of the world.”

Which should leave us wondering how someone who thinks of himself as a messiah and who wants to be the conscience of the world could then say?

“Pure reason and a moral code based on the value of the individual are inventions of Western culture; they have little resonance in other cultures….The Western intellectual tradition ought not to be imposed indiscriminately on the rest of the world in the name of universal values.”

On bringing down other nations and governments:

“When you try to, let’s see, improve society you affect different people and different interests differently and they are not actually commensurate. So you very often have all kinds of unintended adverse consequences. So I had to experiment. And it was a learning process. The first part was this subversive activity, disrupting repressive regimes. That was a lot of fun and that’s actually what got me hooked on this whole enterprise. Seeing what worked in one country, trying it in the other country. It was kind of what developed a matrix in fact that we had, national foundations, and then we had certain specialized activities.”

On his goal of an open society with one-world government

“I became concerned with the problems of globalization. They have global markets, but you have politics based on the sovereignty states. So how do you deal with that issue. And then I came to the realization that open society is in danger by our current leadership in this country. And that is when we focused my attention on the United States.”

On what he sees as the primary obstacle to his goal of an open society and one-world government:

“The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States…”

So, Melfamy says that a man who wants to get the U.S. out of the way so he can help build a stable and just world is a “great American.”  Well, he may be to Melfamy, but then, that tells us a lot about Melfamy’s allegiance to America as it was founded, doesn’t it?  And he is not alone…

There is a message here for all of us to learn.  The question now is, are you willing to face the ugly truth I’ve just shown you so that you can learn the lessons?


[Also, to Melfamy’s assertion that the narrator of “The Story of Stuff” is espousing the Gospel of Christ: this is an utterance that betrays a total lack of understanding of Christ’s message.  Christ taught that we — each of us as individuals — are responsible for caring for each other.  He never — NOT ONCE — taught that it is or even should be left to govt. to do that.  So Melfamy is wrong here, as well.]

105 thoughts on “Anti-Americanism and Support for Communism on the RNL

  1. It’s very frustrating when something is taken out of context because I have no idea what the hello this about! Would you be so kind as to link the article. Perhaps I missed it or didn’t read this particular quote…..I can’t remember……don’t get old,

    • The notion that everything has to be in context is over-used as a cop-out. In this case, I posted his entire comment. That means it is in context. The idea that you must also know what he was replying to does not hold — not in this case. He made a declaratory statement that Soros is a great American. That’s it; you do not need any more “context” — unless you think context could make a statement such as “Benedict Arnold was a great American” make more sense — in which case, I will file you in the same folder with Soros and Greg.

  2. In reference to the video, I was referring to her talk about materialism, and she says the same things about corporations that you do.

    When America was founded, B, we did not go around bombing countries and toppling elected governments. We didn’t invade countries that had never attacked us, but were coincidentally sitting on an ‘Ocean of oil’, as Saddam once put it. We are the only country to have used the atomic bomb, and we used it on civilians! We have killed far more innocent people than radical Islamists have killed. We destabilized Nicaragua, supported the 13 families in El Salvador, toppled Mossadegh in Iran, killed diem in Vietnam, the list goes on. That is what Soros would like to see an end to, not America itself; but you knew that.
    And what do you have against the Open Society? It sounds like it was founded by you, for Pete’s sake. Or do you now hate the idea of the easy removal of ineffective or otherwise bad leaders?
    Karl Popper describes an open society as one “in which individuals are confronted with personal decisions” as opposed to a “magical or tribal or collectivist society.” Soros is you, B!
    Further proof of that follows…

    Soros argues that besides the requirements for the separation of powers, free speech, and free elections, an open society must have a strong dedication to the pursuit of truth. “Politicians will respect, rather than manipulate, reality only if the public cares about the truth and punishes politicians when it catches them in deliberate deception.”

    You know, by shouting out that I am Un-American, you have shown your true colors, you are a bully, who tries to shout down anyone who dares disagree with you. But I don’t bully easily, punk. I’ve been nice up to now, but the gloves are off, freak.

  3. I forget where it started, hon, but it ended up in the deep end. B dives in like clockwork, near the end of the month. That is probably when he runs out of meds.

  4. You teach a Sunday School class which must have learned/taught Colossians 3:17. We’ve talked before about how you are held to a higher standard when you choose to teach the Word.
    I stopped reading this forum because of you mostly. As soon as it’s clear that someone isn’t going to go along with your thought process, the name calling starts. But I do come in sometimes and read the ‘headlines’ and this one caught my attention.
    We are all Americans. We all love America, along with all the freedoms that come with that. That includes the freedom to agree or disagree, say what we want (even when we shouldn’t) and have different political beliefs. Those things don’t make us un-American, black. It means we are about as American as we can be. It also means that you can freely call other people names and accuse them of being un-american if you want to. Thank God for America and freedom. And all of your accusations can’t change any of that.

    • “We all love America, along with all the freedoms that come with that.” – false pretense. America’s history is filled with Americans who do not love America, or it’s freedoms.

      And just who do you think you are? Sit on top of the verse, and castigate black as if he is the only person in this thread tossing names around? What about your own religious “turn the other cheek” virtures?

      Hold your own self to a higher standard next time. 🙂

      • EXCELLENT point about those who hate this nation. I believe we have a President and first lady who have both given us fair reason to believe they are among that number — and by their own words, even. Nicely done, W.R. 🙂

      • “And just who do you think you are? Sit on top of the verse, and castigate black as if he is the only person in this thread tossing names around? What about your own religious “turn the other cheek” virtures?”
        “Hold your own self to a higher standard next time.”

        Ahh, william. You know not from whence you speak. cathy is one of the most polite, and straightforward, posters on any site. If you aspire to hold yourself to her “virtures” [sic] and standards, you will do well.

        • FC,

          She is what you say, but she also has one-way blinders where Greg is concerned. It is still possible to be polite and falsely accuse someone — especially when the guilty party is the one she cannot see wrong in (or, at least hasn’t ever evidenced that she can/does).

          • Perhaps she does, I can’t agree or disagree with you, but it doesn’t have to turn into a personal attack of virtues or her religious standards. I don’t think (again, I could be wrong) william raffield personally knows cathycobb or greg. You do. Do you honestly believe her standards are low, or that greg is a communist?

            • From what I’ve known of Cathy, no, she’s a good person who means well and is just defending her husband. But that does not justify excusing his part in this current flap.

              As for Greg: Communist? No. Socialist? YES! And in practice, there is very little difference.

              • I am not excusing anyone. You are both calling names and I’ve commented to both of you in the past about that. Debating is one thing but calling names brings you down to a different level.
                As for Greg’s beliefs go, I don’t really believe he is a socialist. But, since y’all are on a forum where you put it all out there, I guess you are both setting yourselves up for this. I don’t talk about my political beliefs because I don’t want to hear all about how wrong I am, nor do I want to try to convince anyone how right I am. But y’all seem to enjoy it.

        • I am surely not seeing evidence of that at the moment. I am fortunate to live in Panama City, yet not have ever met a single one of you … but I get the feeling after reading the back and forths that I know more about all of you than I should.

        • Cracker, she just might be a nice person. That’s not the issue here. For the record I will state that I have never met any of you in person, although if Greg keeps calling me names, I should begin to like to meet some of you. 🙂

          That being said, This thread is a fairly easy read, and does not require mass intellect to follow. It’s clear as the print that this Greg person began the name calling, and this Cathy person rushed to his defense for doing so. Takes no bias to see the bias in that. Wouldn’t you agree?

          • wiliam – Don’t know how long you’ve been following us (myself included) though I do seem to recall you posting on the the New Herald forums. I’ve been with black, greg, utah, cathy, augger, wmgates, and many of the others for about 4 years and three different blogs (the NH Forums, The NH Refugees, and now TRNL). This group has a history, some personal as well as posting., mostly a good history. We all know each other (posting), know one another’s beliefs, and for the most part, can tell what the response to a post will be before it’s posted. Like most families, we know which buttons to push to start an arguement. Believe me, the name-calling is not one sided.

            • I do post on the NH forums, and I was invited here by Augger. But I never said the name calling was one sided now did I?

              I merely called out Greg as being wrong on this instance of the name calling, and Greg’s wife (now that I see its confirmed she is), on defending him inappropriately.

              If you have an issue with that, then that is your issue and not mine. The trail of the thread is as printed. Re-writing the history of it will not change that fact.

              As far as Black … I do not know him either. Despite your best, it is an unbiased observation.

              • “But I never said the name calling was one sided now did I?

                hmmm – Neither did I, in fact I specifically stated it came from both sides.

                “As far as Black … I do not know him either. Despite your best, it is an unbiased observation.

                I don’t see where I tried to bias you against black (in particular) or anyone else. In fact, I usually have more in common with black than most others on this site. Don’t know where you got that from. Maybe reading comprehension is not your strong suit?

                • You should re-read what he wrote. I am not sure how you extrapolated that Will was portraying bias against black, in fact, his statement eludes to freeing himself from bias towards Black, and against Greg.

                  Maybe you should re-read what the man wrote.

                • @augger –

                  WTF? I NEVER implied, insuinated, inferred, expoliated, or exfoliated that willaim raffield was biased toward black. I took his post to mean he believed I was trying to bias him toward black, which of course, I am not. black is quite capable of bias(ing) people on his own without my help thank you very much. 😉

                  Sometimes I wonder if we are all reading the same posts, and it’s easy to understand how the written word can be so easily interpreted in a manner it wasn’t meant to be by the writer.

                • @ Cracker

                  “I don’t see where I tried to bias you against black (in particular) or anyone else.”

                  Ok, I will bite. In this sentence, who exactly is referenced by the word “who”?

                  If I am confused, maybe you need to reconsider your sentence structure. “Who” can be ambiguous.

                • @augger

                  Is this a test? If so, I’m failing miserably. Which “who” (quoted by you) are you talking about? I don’t even see where I used “who” in that sentence. Maybe a Who from Whoville sneaked in your computer. You think you’re confused – – – I know I am.

                • “I don’t see where I tried to bias you against black (in particular) or anyone else.” <— your post.

                  "Ok, I will bite. In this sentence, who exactly is referenced by the word “who”?" <— this should read:

                  "Ok, I will bite. In this sentence, who exactly is referenced by the word “you”?"

                  Sorry for the confusion. Now can you clear it up? 🙂

      • After all melfamy, it’s not like you called him a punk or anything. But I am sure cathycobb just happened to have overlooked that back accident. 🙂

              • Greg,

                If anything, I’m guilty of succumbing to frustration over seeing someone I once counted friend work to deny objective reality. If that is a wrong, then I happily accept it.

                • Joe – the biggest issue that you have, is that you sometimes say too much to make your point. I know you have a lot to say, and I get it, but usually by the time one has to read through the lengthy posts (yes, I understand that sometimes it takes that), they are already pensive just from the read. All I am saying is vary your lengths, and be succinct where you can. Your message may resonate better.

                  Greg – I know there is history, but you fired the first name calling shots here. You and Cathy should allow for that.

                  William – thanks for the photo from the No Name today. Wish I was there to toss a few with you buddy. Your lunch money would be better spent hanging out with me than would be spent discoursing with Greg over name calling.

                  Utah – keep hitting home runs today my friend. The laughs are well worth the work. 🙂

                  Cracker – try not to get all hurt over someone calling someone on hypocrisy when it is so clear to see. After all, you’ve been there, done that … just like the rest of us. 🙂

                  • @Augger,

                    Thanks. I am aware of this, I’ve just never figured out how to resolve the double edged sword here: how do I keep it brief while avoiding the stupid objections that will surely come from those who don’t bother to keep up with current events?

                    Then there is the issue of the nay-sayers who will muddy my post with accusations of arrogance and talking down if I grant them the courtesy of assuming they already know what they should and I write accordingly.

                    I cut my throat anyway I go — which is what I believe they really want anyway.

                    (see, can’t say that in 5 words or less 😉 )

                    • I’m just saying shoot the blunt, but straight arrow:

                      “Muslims have been become militant, and Greg defends them.”

                      Will they spin it, yep. Likely so. But no matter how it is spun, the fact remains Muslims are militant, and Greg does defend them.

                      Case closed.

                    • Roger that.

                      “Have become militant?” The faith did not start to grow until Muhammad turned to war and to giving 4/5th of the spoils to those who survived the wars and promising paradise to those who died in the process. Had he not done that, it is likely we would have never heard of Islam.

                      Maybe I should start telling the “secular” history of Islam?

                    • Good point. However, one likely to be lost on the sympathizers. The Arabic culture long predates Islam, but Greg has clearly missed separating the two. He’s not likely to understand, or accept that point as well.

                    • So I doubt he’d understand if I explained how Allah is pretty much a synthesis of the moon god his father worshiped in Mecca before he was even born, would he? Or how the meteorite Muslims worship was there, in that obelisk for several centuries before Muhammad was born. Or that the pilgrimage, running between the mountains and throwing stones at the Devil were also part of the pagan religion of his father, would he? Would Greg accept that Muhammad was an illiterate epileptic who tried to convince his own people he was a prophet and got rejected; then the Jews he and got rejected, then the Christians and was rejected? Would he acknowledge that Muhammad started out buying verses of the Old Testament from the Jews and that THIS is where the “peaceful” parts of the Qur’an come from, but then the Jews stopped selling scripture to Muhammad and that is when Muhammad turned on them and became violent?

                      Would Greg understand and/or accept any of this? And would it even help explain to him why I say the later parts of the Qur’an are violent? Would ANY of this help in the least?

                    • You have to remember, Greg claims to be an atheist. By that standard, he believes in nothing.

                      Muslim history should be irrelevant to him.

                    • I do know how to convert him to our way of thinking…or Islam. We could dump him off in Saudi or Iran somewhere and leave him there for a while…

                      There’s no school like experience. I’m just saying 🙂

                    • No need to dump. If he truly wanted a taste of the culture, he could accept work there for far more money than he gets here.

                      He just has to want too.

                    • Oh, nay-any, not so fast. You and I both know that to “dump” would be a far better lesson because they treat those they need something from (i.e. hire) far differently than those who just show up unannounced. I want him to experience the benevolence of Islam for those who are not Muslim and find themselves in need in an Islamic State.

                      Now, hypothetically (because I would not do this to Greg — not even to James), would you care to take wagers as to how much of said “dumpee” we would get back after 3 months time? 🙂

                    • Oh, you nay-nay, not so fast yourself Mister Man! LOL

                      You get the same effect by taking the misses with you. 🙂

                    • Augger called me a dolt! Augger called me a dolt!

                      LOL, yes, I know, but I couldn’t do that to Joi (Cathy), she’s too nice to subject her to that fate.

                    • Would have to read more of Cathy’s offerings before I could label her anything other than incorrect on this point.

                      You though … yeah, you are a dolt. 😀

                      (just kidding)

                    • No need to qualify, I am what I am and I AM a dolt — among many other things. If it is accurate, you’ll seldom see me object. I know how far below the majority of you I am (and that’s not a joke or false humility)


                    • Incorrect. You would likely make a much better pundit than I would. I would likely resolve a medical emergency better than you would.

                      We all have our place.

                    • Oh, contraire. The Marines taught me how to resolve any medical emergency that might arise. You simply shoot it AGAIN. There: no more problem 😀

                    • lol …. much more fun topic.

                      I just had to answer a question about circumcision (felt like work). (sigh)

                    • I saw that. You even told him pretty much what I figured you would. Now, can you tell me why some people insist on trying to equate an apple to an orange and then sit back and act as though they’ve made some sort of salient point? Serious question: I can’t figure out how or why people think male circumcision is equivalent to female circumcision. If you can educate me, I’m all ears — er, eyes 🙂

                    • Well, if your “post” is that large, then I have 2 questions:

                      1 — Can Kells see it from her front door?

                      2 — How the ‘hello’ did you lose it?

                      LOL 🙂

                • @augger;

                  “Cracker – try not to get all hurt over someone calling someone on hypocrisy when it is so clear to see. After all, you’ve been there, done that … just like the rest of us.”

                  Call someone out on hypocrisy? No problem, as long as we call all realize and admit it comes from both sides (and we’re all guilty) it should be called out. Name calling? Patently ridiculous for educated adults to call each other names or bash their character on a blog, especially when they do not know the individual personally. I choose not to participate in name calling, but “hurt” me? Nah.

                • @Cracker;

                  “ – try not to get all hurt over someone calling someone on hypocrisy when it is so clear to see. After all, you’ve been there, done that … just like the rest of us.”

                  “Call someone out on hypocrisy? No problem, as long as we call all realize and admit it comes from both sides (and we’re all guilty) it should be called out.”

                  – yeah, that’s where the “just like the rest of us” comes in. 🙂

                  “Name calling? Patently ridiculous for educated adults to call each other names or bash their character on a blog”

                  – Ah, so you mean names like “jerk”, “punk”, and “freak”?

                  “especially when they do not know the individual personally.” – irrelevant, all parties participated in it.

                  “I choose not to participate in name calling”

                  – We will just have to watch and see. 🙂

          • Easy does it Greg. Unlike others, I live in this town too. I bet you’d have a pretty big problem calling me a jerk to my face. 🙂

    • Cathy,

      It would be nice were you to direct your criticism about name calling at the one(s) who start it. I am not perfect and never claimed to be, but I do know this much: I seldom start that sort of thing and an HONEST review of any discussion where I have messed up and allowed myself to get drug into the gutter will show this to be true.

      Next, you say we have the freedom to hold different political beliefs. This is true. But it does not extend to the freedom to redefine words. To call yourself “American” when you hold communist/socialist views is inaccurate and disingenuous. At best, such a person is a U.S. Citizen, but the term “American” has a meaning and no one holding a collectivist ideology can rightfully call themselves American. If you disagree with this or think it is me being arrogant, then the problem is not with me: it is with your ability to operate in a world of objective reality. Then, if you think that comment rude or a personal attack, the problem is not with me but again with your inability to accept that objective reality. the truth is not personal nor an attack: it just is. There is no agenda connected to it.

      Finally, you mention my faith and quote scripture to me. I would caution you to be careful throwing that passage at me. Yes, I am well aware of the fact that I am one of His most imperfect messengers, but at least I try to stick to the truth as I understand it and NOT twist it to my purpose — and that applies to Scripture, as well. When we start picking and choosing what we accept based on making ourselves and/or others feel good, we have left the truth behind. I believe we once discussed that AND YOU AGREED! What happened?

  5. Well, obviously you and I differ in our opinions about loving America. I won’t jump to any conclusions about you because I don’t know you. I do know Mel very well and have met and talked with Black and I know a bit of the history between the two of them. So Black knows where I’m coming from.
    I am nobody special and I know it. I don’t pretend to be, either. You should re-read that first paragraph. Especially the part where I told him that we’ve talked about that before.
    This is a public forum and we all have the right to comment on anyone else’s comments in here. And you did. Isn’t freedom of speech wonderful? : )

    • Again, yes, you are free to comment, but NOT to change or deny objective reality and then start calling people names because they refuse to allow you to do so.

      Cathy, Greg started it this time. Now he’s catching the ramifications of HIS actions and you are coming to his defense. Why not start by talking to him about the plank in his eye? I mean, after all, he had to issue several apologies last night, but then excused himself by implying it was understandable because we’re all “crazy nut jobs” who sound alike. If you are going to get into this now, then make sure you go back and read where it started and who started it. It might keep you from falsely accusing someone.

    • You directing this at me Cathy?

      – Allow me to quote melfamy:
      “But I don’t bully easily, punk”
      “I’ve been nice up to now, but the gloves are off, freak.”

      care to elaborate your thoughts on his use of the world “punk” or “freak”

      – You should tread lightly here, as it is your base who lists over 1,000 conservative groups and attaches “They hate America” labels to them. Unless you happen to be a conservative, then this logic does not apply.

      – “very well”. Sounds like you are married to him. 🙂

      – Freedom of speech is wonderful. I know. I also defended it. Happy to defend it again … espcially for the sake of known hypocrites. It’s fun watching them lash out in anger after they have been exposed.

      As the Australians would say; “Go’day mate!”

      • Yes, I will admit that sometimes my opinons, like most people’s, can be a bit hypocritical. I can sure see how it could be interpreted that way. But I’m not going to get into a big argument about it. Greg is my husband and I know that he is just as guilty as anyone when it comes to getting frustrated and calling names. Who did it first is hard to figure out given the long history of comments in the various places. You can’t just pinpoint 1 post because, just like with family, there is a lot below the surface. People learn how to push the right buttons and then it’s on again.
        When I made my comment to Joe I was really only trying to make 1 specific point, which you didn’t understand or know the history on. It was nice of you to come to his defense, but it wasn’t really needed. Nor was my defense of my husband. He can certainly take care of himself.

        • Cathy,

          Way back when, it was G who first attacked me on the NH. He did it when he came to rezz’s defense. Prior to that, I had always treated G with respect because I thought him among the most consistent of the Left on the NH.

          If their archives were still up, I’d get the history for you. I still know the approximate dates and thread to find it. It was over Rezz denying the U.S. is a republic and not a democracy.

          • Rez is a dolt. It is difficult to imagine why any person with more than a couple of braincells would even consider defending any opine by him.

              • Having not seen such (or remembering seeing such), it remains hard for me to ever imagine him defending Rez on that subject (if not others as well).

                Maybe I over estimate him?

                • No, he told Rezz we are a republic, but when Rezz ran into the buzz saw that is B3A’s quiver of founders’ quotes and got ugly with me, Greg quickly jumped to his defense and I was soon the subject of a nice ad hominem hurricane.

                  BTW: that was MY intro to the NH forum. So, while I am oft accused of being the source of the problem, I can testify that the “problem” was there ready and waiting to great me before I ever stepped foot on the scene. It’s just that, with me, the “problem” was taken back by the realization that I use naval artillery to resolve an issue that others would use a handgun on. In other words, the “problem” was none too pleased to have “push back” on the scene. 😉

        • Interesting post Cathy. It’s good to see that you can admit to being hypocritical … as we all can. So by that logic you should not mind me defending my buddy Will and his statement of the obvious.

          What’s amazing is, without the benefit of the “history” you rely on to support your brand of the demonizing of ole Joe over there, he figured it out almost instantly. I’ll leave it to you to ponder the meaning of that.

          I do find it odd though, that you found it necessary to rush to the defense of someone by your own accord does not need your defense on a site you admitted decided not to participate in.

          Even a broken clock is correct twice a day. Avoiding a big argument in this case is wise.

      • William, may I remind you that you are commenting on a post wherein B called me both Un-American and communist? What part of that is not name-calling? That is what I responded to, and I regret not a word.

        • <>

          That would be the part where your words meet the operational definition. To wit you said:

          You think George Soros is a great American: a man who has openly stated that he thinks America is the greatest obstacle to world peace. If you agree with a man like that, you can be called un-American.

          Furthermore, Soros has championed a borderless, one-world society. This is exactly what Marx and the majority of true-believer Communists have advocated, as well. Once again, to call the man who advocates operative communism great is to align yourself with his beliefs and open yourself to the accusation — and justly so, I would add — of being communist.

          What’s more, NONE of this is “name calling,” it’s just an accurate application of descriptive terms.

        • If the shoe fits?

          In all honesty … I have seen your posts promoting socialism … lest we redefine the word, is he really all that incorrect?

          • In all honesty, you don;t have the moxie to be making cogent comments; you obviously share B’s word-disease, and I call the cops after I take care of business.

                • “You’re right, I should not let the opinions of right-wing troglodytes with a poor command of their native tongue get to me. My bad.”

                  That’s just grand. Never to take ownership for your own fault, but rather “Blame Bush”.

            • “In all honesty, you don;t have the moxie to be making cogent comments; you obviously share B’s word-disease, and I call the cops after I take care of business.”

              This is actually kind of interesting from Greg. Stating that Will doesn’t have the courage to forcibly appeal to Greg’s mind? First of all; who the hell would want to? You flatter yourself too much, Greg.

              Secondly, in “discourse” or life, why should we force anyone to change their mind? I mean to say, I see how you roll …

              The whole ” I call the cops after I take care of business” is just plain out retarded. Liberal mental disorders at it finest.

  6. “but then excused himself by implying it was understandable because we’re all “crazy nut jobs” who sound alike.”

    Hilarious. Reminds me of Mark’s post earlier gouging Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Same type of behavoir.

  7. I have had company most of the morning, so I’ve tried to comment here and there and am now hopelessly lost on who I said what to. I have to leave soon and just don’t have time to go back over all the comments.
    Joe, I like you and think you are a good Christian man. Greg is not a Christian and doesn’t profess to be. So (I’m going to get flak for this) I am not as surprised when he calls names as I am when you do it.
    You tend to take it personally when people disagree with you and you can’t convince them they are wrong. But some people are just never going to think like you do. I don’t believe that makes them wrong or un-american. I did understand your comment about the difference between american and citizen. I just think my definition is a little broader than yours. It doesn’t mean either of us is wrong, we just think differently.
    I’m sorry this all got so out of hand. I’m out of here! Have a great day everyone!!

    • Cathy,

      Thanks. I appreciate your comments in the manner I know you meant them. Just one thing, please. I do not take personal offense to people denying objective reality. I get upset because it is just that: reality. For anyone to deny what is true bothers me, but not on a personal level. It is more of a revolt against the reality that anyone could believe such an absurdity.

      You may not believe this (I know few do), but it is actually out of concern. If I didn’t care, I wouldn’t bother — and you know this to be true. And if I ever learn to just accept that Greg or anyone can deny what is, then I will have learned not to care. I pray that never happens, but I know it has already begun for me.

      Peace, and God bless.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.