response 51 of 78:

Jul 11 18:59 UTC 2003

RE:#47
<sabre claps> whew that's mouthful. It challenages my adult ADD.
I will respond as best as possible however.
I never said Plato was an advocate of democracy. He was a critic of it.
As for Platos argument for the inherent weakness of democracy in The Republic,
I have to clarify what is meant by democracy in this context. By democracy
Plato is not referring to modern democracy, which he would have perceived as
alien. Nor is he referring to the democracy of Athens in this argument. In
this argument, Plato characterises democracy as being the extreme of popular
liberty, where slaves - male and female - have the same liberty as their
owners and where there is complete equality and liberty in the relations
between the sexes. The one point I was referring to is the liberal's desire
to legislate funds for it's electorate. He said one the electorate figures
this can be done democracy is FINISHED. That's what you commie..er poeple(
the ones that know thier fathers anyway) are trying to do.  By appropiating
funds to the electorate to please them your are creating a social state.
That is what I was referring to.

My quote about liberals "living a godly life" was misunderstood..perhaps due
to my grammer and syntax. the statement should have read "The liberals
persecute those with religious beliefs and who try to live a godly life"

That is all my ADD will let me deal with now. Cool post though you spent a
lot of time...er do you like football? <grin>

response 53 of 78:

Jul 11 19:35 UTC 2003

Please stop feeding the troll.

response 55 of 78:

Jul 11 20:54 UTC 2003

An example, please, of liberals "persecuting" those with religious
beliefs? Liberals *created* freedom of religions for the religious, and
defend it for them too.

response 57 of 78:

Jul 11 21:13 UTC 2003

resp:47 paragraph 4:  silly Christian.  The Bible's much older than 2000
years.  [http://www.beingjewish.com/mesorah/ageoftorah.html] has a proof
that the Torah is at least 3,313 years old.  (While the New Testament is not as
old, as the above site says, "The Christians have been using their confused
mistranslations of the Tanach at least since the second century C. E., and even
trying to prove their mistaken beliefs from the Torah.")

response 59 of 78:

Jul 11 23:37 UTC 2003

Oh yeah, i almost forgot. My arse *is* ignorant! Fortunately, unlike some
people round here ("who shall remain nameless"), I think with my *brain*.

response 61 of 78:

Jul 12 05:21 UTC 2003

Man, one post by a *known* troll full of complete, unbelievable malarky, and
there are a good 40 solid bites before anyone mentions that someone's chain
is being yanked.  I'm disappointed.

On several levels, not the least of which is how suppressed even powerful
intellects become when they allow themselves to fall into the trap of
stereotyping "the enemy."

response 63 of 78:

Jul 12 06:27 UTC 2003

Re #42:  Feeding the troll is wasting your time.  Once you're done
venting and otherwise having fun, remember to twit-filter him.

response 65 of 78:

Jul 12 13:46 UTC 2003

No, if you're deliberately posting to get a rise out of people -- which you
are -- you're a troll.

In your case, an effective one.

response 67 of 78:

Jul 12 17:07 UTC 2003

I've backed everything that I have said with fact.
Give me an example of where this didn't happen and it will be corrected.
and for the record that's all your posts are "decorum"

response 69 of 78:

Jul 13 04:13 UTC 2003

I don't even buy into the concept of "troll".  Is sabre posting things "just
to get a response?"  Partly, but that's about 75% of why I post to Grex too.
I'm always rather disappointed when something I post doesn't get a response.
Are the opinions he puts forward different than what he actually believes?
I have no way of telling that about anyone, but I'd bet good money that he
really is pro-life, and basically believes nearly every opinion he has stated
here, though sometimes in a slightly less extreme form.  We all are sometimes
deliberately provocative.  We'd be danged dull conversationalists if we
didn't.

I don't believe there is a class of people who should not be responded to.

I do believe in trying to keep my responses fresh, even if responding to
something that is far from fresh.  Sabre's statements are mostly pretty
darn stale, but that doesn't mean all responses to them have to be.

response 71 of 78:

Jul 13 06:38 UTC 2003

Sometimes things need to be riled up a little bit. 

response 73 of 78:

Jul 14 18:27 UTC 2003

re:  "#30 (rcurl):  The freedom *from* public prayer is the ACLU's 
business, not what people do in private."

Which explains why legislative proceedings, for example, are never 
initiated by prayer.


re:  "#40 (rcurl): Re #31: there is zero evidence for gods  ."

Quite to the contrary, Mr. rcurl.  There are mountains of evidence.  
However, you have chosen not to recognize nor believe it.

re:  "#47 (twenex):    Conservatives, on the other hand, refuse to take 
into
account the moral dilemma of a woman who has been raped, or is in danger 
of
dying if a baby is born, preferring to take their "moral" standards from 
a
book and teachings written/deriving from 2000 years ago ."

Mr. twenex-  You need to obtain some accurate information regarding 
conservatives --- or cease your use of overly broad generalizations.
Regards,
klg


re:  "#55 (rcurl):  An example, please, of liberals "persecuting" those 
with religious beliefs? Liberals *created* freedom of religions for the 
religious, and defend it for them too."

Mr. rcurl probably wouldn't recognize a true "liberal" if he tripped 
over one on the street.