|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 70 responses total. |
klg
|
|
response 25 of 70:
| 
Feb 7 12:01 UTC 2006 |
I read the transcript of Limbaugh & Time. I didn't see where he
declared he was a longtime ACLU fan.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/rushwire/time_magazine_rush_limbau
gh_interview___entire_transcript.guest.html
|
rcurl
|
|
response 26 of 70:
|
Feb 7 18:03 UTC 2006 |
Re #22 and "I guess, much like atheists find themselves becoming religious
when they're in foxholes...."
That idea is an invention of religionists and is completely false. Consult
http://www.atheistfoxholes.org/ and similar sources.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 27 of 70:
|
Feb 7 18:08 UTC 2006 |
Consulting your cited website -- all it debunks is the myth that *all* people
in foxholes are not atheists. It does nothing to the idea that *some* atheists
become religious when put under fire.
|
tod
|
|
response 28 of 70:
|
Feb 7 18:10 UTC 2006 |
How many crusaders were atheists?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 29 of 70:
|
Feb 7 18:13 UTC 2006 |
Re #27: Isn't that the cliche saying, "there are no atheists in foxholes"?
Why should they be refuting some different saying?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 30 of 70:
|
Feb 7 18:15 UTC 2006 |
Re #29: What he was responding to said something like "like some atheists in
foxholes" -- an existential statement, not a universal one.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 31 of 70:
|
Feb 7 18:15 UTC 2006 |
Probably many religionists become atheists in foxholes. They'd have good
reason to do so since they are getting no help from their "god".
But it is just a stupid canard repeated by religionists to salve their own
uncertainties.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 32 of 70:
|
Feb 7 18:22 UTC 2006 |
Re #30: The word "some" was not in the response you were quoting; you
added it.
Certainly some people change their religious beliefs and practices when
facing adversity, and some don't. Not much you can get from that.
|
tod
|
|
response 33 of 70:
|
Feb 7 18:23 UTC 2006 |
Marines use fighting holes and are intent on being the first to fight in Hell.
I guess that negates the idea of atheism but it also negates the idea
controlling the masses with religion. Just like GW, religion is used as a
weapon instead of a restraint.
|
gull
|
|
response 34 of 70:
|
Feb 7 19:04 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:26: I was making an analogy. Deal with it. :) I know
perfectly well that there are, in fact, atheists in fox holes. I also
know that bats do not, in fact, fly out of hell, but I still use that
expression, too.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 35 of 70:
|
Feb 7 19:38 UTC 2006 |
Why?
|
twenex
|
|
response 36 of 70:
|
Feb 7 21:03 UTC 2006 |
Because he's not a damned tedious literalist?
|
slynne
|
|
response 37 of 70:
|
Feb 7 22:04 UTC 2006 |
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
|
nharmon
|
|
response 38 of 70:
|
Feb 7 22:07 UTC 2006 |
Using religion as a restraint instead of a weapon...good advice Todd.
I think a lot of people need to be told that.
|
tod
|
|
response 39 of 70:
|
Feb 7 22:10 UTC 2006 |
Its all about self discipline, not inquisition. Right?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 40 of 70:
|
Feb 7 22:24 UTC 2006 |
Darn tootin
|
happyboy
|
|
response 41 of 70:
|
Feb 7 23:04 UTC 2006 |
re20
never heard him say anything racist, nathan?
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2549
|
gull
|
|
response 42 of 70:
|
Feb 7 23:05 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:35: Because figures of speech add color to language.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 43 of 70:
|
Feb 7 23:21 UTC 2006 |
Re 41: No I have not heard him say anything racist. If I have, I do
not remember it. I'm not saying he hasn't either, just they either
weren't racist enough for me to remember, or I wasn't listening when
he said it.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 44 of 70:
|
Feb 7 23:23 UTC 2006 |
not racist enough to remember.
hokey smokes.
|
tod
|
|
response 45 of 70:
|
Feb 7 23:54 UTC 2006 |
Tell us about the black guy on your wrestling team Nathan! ;)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 46 of 70:
|
Feb 8 01:40 UTC 2006 |
Re #41: what does "There are no autheists in foxholes" mean as a figure of
speech?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 47 of 70:
|
Feb 8 01:42 UTC 2006 |
Re #46: My interpretation would be that traumatic experiences usually
cure people of their atheism.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 48 of 70:
|
Feb 8 02:38 UTC 2006 |
That sounds like a literal interpretation, not a figure of speech.
As used in #22, it presumably means that people who disparage some particular
entity may change their view when they find themselves needing help from
that same entity. But it's not normally used as a simile.
|
naftee
|
|
response 49 of 70:
|
Feb 8 04:18 UTC 2006 |
re 44
darn tootin'
|