Political Suicide for May 31, 2006
by matt at 10:00 am on May 31st, 2006 in Political SuicideHow many times will the President raise taxes after saying he wouldn’t? Hard to say with Retroactive Certainty.
As an aside, I don’t think that I made this clear before, my posts on Suicide Girls are available to non-members and I’m pretty sure appear free of any boobies. If JimC can take a walk on the wild side, you can too.
Nick in Beantown wrote:
True, however for those of us who must contend with a corporate filter, that entire site is blocked–boobies or no boobies. I would read it from home, but that would really cut into my sittin’ around time.
Posted 01 Jun 2006 at 8:19 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Yeah I did the same, for the same reason. It would be hard to argue that I was looking just at the political material only…
Posted 01 Jun 2006 at 9:16 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
THE MYSTERY OF JIMC FINALLY REVEALED
By himself. In his own words.
Many people have wondered on this site, at many different times, in many different ways, why JimC talks utter tripe every time he opens his mouth here.
JimC’s response (expressed in his own rambling, incoherent, why-am-I-always-persecuted way) has usually been that he never talks tripe, he always makes perfect sense, but the fact that he has a totally different set of beliefs gets in the way of everyone here realizing and appreciating that fact. He is just sinned against, not sinning.
Well, right there we have a perfect context to examine and verify these issues. A perfect laboratory experiment, in fact, very intelligently designed. A very short and simple statement by Nick. And a short and simple response by JimC. None of it has anything to do with differences in political beliefs, or differences in value systems.
JimC’s response proves, simply and elegantly, that he just doesn’t understand anything he reads.
To Nick’s very short, very simple, very uncomplicated statement, JimC responds:
Amazingly, both parts of that are wrong.
JimC doesn’t do the same. Nick doesn’t read the Sucide Girls posts at all, not at work, not at home. JimC reads them at home. That is not called doing the same thing. Not by anyone other than JimC.
Jimc doesn’t have the same reason for not reading them at work. Nick doesn’t read them at work because he can’t. They’re blocked by the corporate filter. He can’t open them up. JimC doesn’t read them at work, because it’ll be so embarrassing to explain what he was doing if gets caught. That is not called the same reason. Not by anyone other than JimC.
I hereby propose that we all start going easy on JimC from now on, humor him a bit, cut him a little slack. Seeing as how he has such basic reading comprehension issues.
Posted 01 Jun 2006 at 12:04 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Oh Sarabeth…ye of little faith…
In my response, though quick and perhaps not clear enough to withstand the “clever Genie” effect, in that I have to word everything perfectly or risk losing it all, I simply meant this….
“Yeah, I am under the watchful eye of a corporate environment and so to access SG from work for it would be against policy and the filter and therefore I did wait until I could venture over to matt’s articles from home”
More of, I did the same thought process (perhaps, not wanting to assume anything on Nick), not necessarily the same exact action…My God, My God why hast thou forsaken me?
Posted 01 Jun 2006 at 12:20 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Furthermore, you imply a perverted motive of which there is none other than not wanting to risk opening up the site for the first time from work only to realize it is plastered with porn. As I found out this is not the case but still would not want to access it at work because it is a site that uses porn however, matt’s articles seem isolated and therefore if my motive of going there is to read his latest article then there is no problem however doing so at work does raise the spectre of inappropriate work behavior.
Soryy SB, no prize today…
Posted 01 Jun 2006 at 12:24 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I stand corrected. JimC does not have a problem reading and comprehending simple statements. Instead, he has a problem expressing very simple ideas.
“I don’t access it from work either, but for a very different reason” comes out as “Yeah I did the same, for the same reason.” We’re talking about a nine word statement JimC made, which runs to a total of ten syllables. How clever do you have to be, or how much time does it take, to get that worded right so that what you end up saying is what you meant?
If you’re fooling yourself that you won this “argument”, I am more than willing to submit it to binding arbitration.
Posted 01 Jun 2006 at 1:32 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I didn’t imply a perverted anything. I just paraphrased what you said. I don’t see how “it’ll be so embarrassing to explain what he was doing if gets caught” is meaningfully different from “It would be hard to argue that I was looking just at the political material only…”
The binding arbitration offer applies to this too.
Posted 01 Jun 2006 at 1:35 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Well, we all know that if it is written down you’d better have meant it exactly as you typed, no excuses or retractions allowed….
There is no winner, there is no argument, therefore no prize to be had. You are making this into something it is not which is typical of most of your posts. You are correct what I said and what Nick said a re not the same thing however the intent I believe is the same, that in regards to accessing the article from work = bad, that’s it, nothing more, nothing less. Sorry, had I known this was going to spark a debate, I would have consulted a lwyer and a wordsmith to make sure that my intent matched my comments…..
No arbitration needed….
Posted 01 Jun 2006 at 1:46 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
And what would that be?
Posted 01 Jun 2006 at 1:52 pm ¶
matt wrote:
please adopt this procedure from now on. words are all we have here, misuse them and what are we supposed to think?
Posted 01 Jun 2006 at 1:52 pm ¶
jamie beth wrote:
sarabeth, i just don’t know what to say….
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 6:14 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I am looking out on ebay for a hair shirt. Are there are any other mortifications of the flesh you would care to prescribe in the meantime?
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 7:33 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Might I suggest living by this code instead…
Matthew 5:43-48
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 8:22 am ¶
matt wrote:
you first.
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 8:27 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Have I ever hated you?
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 8:32 am ¶
matt wrote:
i didn’t realize that we were enemies.
i think matthew meant the islamofascists in this case. but if you really think i’m your enemy, i’ll still be able to sleep at night.
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 8:37 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Then you might not know the Bible very well. Often those who haven’t actually studied the Bible take these verses out of context and apply them to mean anti-war. However, if you look at the context, “enemy” is someone who is accusing you either in a legal sense or in a public sense, slandering you, or insulting you. It is easy to twist this into an anti-war viewpoint, and those who don’t know any better would assume that this is the meaning. But if you study the entire Bible, you would know the difference…
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 8:46 am ¶
matt wrote:
well, then stop posting damn bible verses here.
did the word persecute really mean something that different back then?
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 8:51 am ¶
JimC wrote:
The word persecute can be applied in many different contexts, in this context, it is talking about those who would accuse, insult, slander, hate, you personally, someone who brings false charges against you, etc. Not someone who would attack or wish to cause you physical harm. The “Turn the other cheek” verses just prior to these often are taken as a physical attack but at the time, someon who would slap you in this manner was considered a terrible insult. The effect was not for physical harm, but to insult…
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 8:58 am ¶
matt wrote:
well, that convenient for you.
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 9:00 am ¶
sac wrote:
Hey Jim, your’s is a completely vaild interpretation of that Bible passage.
Hey Matt, your’s is a completely valid interpretation of that Bible passage.
The Bible: clearing things up since before it was cool.
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 9:35 am ¶
JimC wrote:
How so?
The Bible isn’t confusing, its the people trying to read things out of context and make up their own meanings which confuses themselves…
sac if we were to consider these verses alone without regard to anything else in the Bible, then perhaps your assumption about a valid interpretaion for both cases would be true, however, thankfully, we are not to take verses like this out of context to develop incorrect doctrine. Thankfully, we have the OT which shows the cases and sometimes need for war
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 10:25 am ¶
sac wrote:
Then cherry-pickng Bible verses and presenting them without context to make a point is even more useless than I thought. I’m not going to get into the infinite interpretability of the Bible. Those who think they are not making assumptions most certainly are. You can’t escape Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 10:46 am ¶
sac wrote:
Sorry, I meant the Observer Effect.
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 10:56 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Well perhaps, becaues those who I targeted would not/did not know the meaning of the verse out of its context. That however does not negate its application here since I used it appropriately.
I don’t know about the Observer Effect but I do know that the Bible contains but one meaning but has been misused by many….
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 11:46 am ¶
jamie beth wrote:
it fascinates me that anyone can think that they can know what the men (and maybe that one lady) who wrote the bible intended. it’s just a book, people, written by humans who were fallible. and given that there were probably many of them, it seems to me there were many conflicting intentions. anyone who tells you differently is trying to save you…SB — order me one of those hairshirts!
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 12:18 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
You don’t think I should just order maybe a dozen, to keep them in stock for future use?
Till they come in, we can fall back on whipping each other. (Nullus!)
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 12:24 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Sorry, but I’ve been dying to use that word.
You don’t come in here often enough, and I never had a good opening before.
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 12:25 pm ¶
sac wrote:
I think YOU are misusing it by taking it as divine inspiration and not as the sometimes wise thoughts of humans. It an endless merry go round! Yippee!
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 12:26 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Well, then that is your opinion as a non-believer, however, does it really mean anything when a non-believer attempts to pull meaning from it? So for you, you are correct, from your viewpoint this is not a special book, and I can’t make you believe that it is, but for those who do believe it to be the Word of God then, I can debate the doctrines found therein….
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 12:43 pm ¶
jamie beth wrote:
how many beleivers do you expect to find on these pages? i second matt’s repeated plea: START YAR OWN DAMN BLOG, AY! (pirates are cool.)
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 12:51 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
The books of the Bible were penned by many differeing authors and I’m not sure who this “one lady” is that you are referring to but for example, Moses is given credit for writing the first 5 books of the Old Testament, know as the Pentateuch, or five fifths of the law. To thoe who do not believe the OT and the NT are God’s Word, then yes, you might think that these are just fairy tales. Like I said before, I can’t make you believe in the Bible, if you reject it, that’s your choice…
Here is a comment about the books of the Bible
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 12:56 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
I don’t know, and I’m just responding to comments at this point, seems there are those who wish to discuss this topic, so I will gladly submit…
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 1:00 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Looking forward to Pirates 2 as well, eh?
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 1:02 pm ¶
jamie beth wrote:
i think this long-ass comment (which not surprisingly contradicts your earlier comment about the bible being the “Word of God” and spare me the divine inspiration response, john smith clamied to be divinely inspired and so did david koresh) might actually get you banned once and for all….praise the unnamed spirit.
then again, responding to you might get me banned. oh well. at least i can’t be un-sistered.
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 1:02 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
What JimC say, that not what JimC mean.
No, never.
None can hold JimC to what he say.
JimC slippery as all hell.
More, actually.
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 1:09 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Or expelled from the Beth Society…
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 1:10 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Matt, I don’t know about anyone else, but I want to state that I find this explosion of gratuitous bible claptrap extremely fucking offensive. Would you consider setting some rules about people not coming here and gratuitously pouring their religious beliefs (no matter what they may be) down everybody else’s throat? Absolute rules, violating which will result in an immediate and permanent ban, instead of a warning?
JimC, go hold Bible classes somewhere else, you sorry excuse for an intelligence.
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 1:18 pm ¶
sac wrote:
Jim, I mean no disrespect by this, and I’m 100% certain that it will not change your mind, but the very fact that the Bible was written by 50 people over a period of 1500 years, and in a variety of languages, many of them no longer in use, absolutely means that whatever the “original” intent of that first book in the OT was has been interpreteed and mutated over the years. Seriously, in this highly documented society we live in, the press can’t even get their stories straight over something happened yesterday. In my opinion, this does not diminish the widsom found within much of the Bible. In fact, it makes it all the more wonderous to me. But my question since 1st grade in Catholic school has always been, why the need for one (read: your) religion to be the only true one? I simply cannot get past that.
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 1:24 pm ¶
sac wrote:
SB, I gotta say, I find you intolerance for a little religious discussion to be as dogmatic as any Fundamentalist’s. I could understand of your beef was that this thread got way off topic. Again, it’s your blog, but sheesh.
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 1:27 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
This just in.
All Gods are equal. Goddesses too. None are more equal than others.
Including but are not limited to: the Christian God and Allah (vengeful, bloodthirsty motherfuckers both), the entire pantheon of Hindu gods (including those who spend all their time fornicating on temple walls or ogling nubile village maidens at their bath), the Norse gods, the Goddess, the Greek gods (bestiality and all), the Brechtian gods, the Jewish God, the Communist gods (Marx, Lenin, Mao?), the gods of every primitive/tribal society, the Native American gods, the Sikh Gurus, animal spirits, the gods of the First People, the Budhist God, the God of the Jains.
All these Gods and more are equally good and great and glorious. Equally deserving of adoration. (Or not.)
None is more better or most best. The concept of “the one true God” is an obscene abomination.
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 1:41 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
No, it’s not. It’s Matt and Jason’s blog.
You’re welcome to your point of view. Being compared to a Fundamentalist does not bother me.
I have an extreme aversion to any religion which preaches that it is the only true faith, and which agressively seeks to convert others to its brand of religious persuasion.
I have an extreme aversion to people who engage in such conversion out of such beliefs.
I don’t seek to convert anyone else to my views. I am not offended if anyone else disparages them, or finds then extreme or crazy or fundamentalist or whatever.
They’re my views. I don’t apologize for them. I don’t feel the slightest need to defend them. I merely state them for the record.
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 1:48 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
sac, I understand your viewpoint and it is a very valid question/criticism, however, if you were to study the way the Jewish people preserved the OT, how they built a whole practice around it, how the process of copying was so scrutinized having a very rigid defined validation and checks, you might reconsider that argument of degredation of the original text/intent. Here is a link on this topic. Specifically, rules of copying.
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 1:59 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
The way the Bible has been canonized is a process by which the Biblical scholars studied the materials to test if the material was in harmony with the rest of scripture, took into account the person who penned it, etc etc, these books weren’t just thought up and accepted by one man(John Smith), so do I believe they are inspired yes, you don’t, and I respect that, that’s fine…
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 2:02 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Is this some sort of poem?
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 2:02 pm ¶
sac wrote:
Oh, dude, come on. That link you provided attempts to prove the accuracy of the copies made by QUTOING A PASSAGE FROM THE BIBLE. My head just exploded.
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 2:08 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
I am not forcing anything on or down your throat. I’m not trying to convert you, however, this hostility is intriguing. Like I said earlier, at this point, I am merely responding to comments, the comments stop, so will my replies…
If you look back up the thread, I merely quoted scripture from the New Testament, nothing more, then the discussion morphed into a theological discussion. Are you so fervently afraid or angry at religion that you can’t even discuss it? If I was telling you that you are going to Hell for not believing my religion, etc etc etc, then I think you would be on point, but do you honestly think, by reading back up this thread, that I was doing this???
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 2:14 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
No keep reading, the copying process is well known outside of the Bible, but yes it was orignally commanded and recorded in scripture….but the process still remained and is well documented outside scripture. Look at it from an historical view….
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 2:16 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I am deeply religious in my own personal idiosyncratic way. But I have no interest in discussing your religion with you. Or in discussing my religious beliefs with you.
And yes, I am both deeply afraid of and angry at almost any form of organized religion.
I believe organized religions are responsible for more hate and misery, more death and destruction, than anything else in society. For centuries, they have been instruments of oppression, not enlightenment. They have been responsible for closing minds, much more than opening them. And I believe that for the most part, they still work in this way today.
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 2:49 pm ¶
jamie beth wrote:
“. . .these books weren’t just thought up and accepted by one man(John Smith)” — isn’t mormonism the fastest growing religion in america, still, today? the book of mormon is HARDLY accepted by ONE man. as far as who wrote what, all i’m saying is anyone can claim to be divinely inspired and if they are charasmatic enough, they can start their own religion. happens all the time. gets debunked this day in age due to our advances in communication and cynisim, but no different than what happened back then. hokum. (my husband just beat me in scrabble with that word, so i had to throw it in there!)
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 3:47 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Husbands should not know words like hokum. They should have to go look them up.
(Wives too, of course.)
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 6:32 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Sarabeth, I have heard your frustration over the way organized religion has acted in the past and even today. My response is that even though one group says this or that, don’t take the actions of men and project them onto the Bible they claim to follow. Basically, don’t judge Christianity by the actions of Christians. I know that sounds odd, but Christians are not perfect people, far from it. I’m not perfect either, far far far from it. It does break my heart to hear someone who has been soured on the Word of God because of actions of men. You don’t have to be a part of the “religion” to see the truth in the Bible. I believe that the many failings in churches is due to a falling away from the teachings of the Bible truths. Reading the Old Testament or the New Testament does not mean you have to join any club. I totally believe that even if only one person in all of history were to actually read the Bible and see its full truth, then God would have still had written that Bible just for them alone…
I think it is good you see the problems but I think it would be fruitful to see why these groups failed to follow the teachings they claim to follow…
Jamie Beth,
What I meant by the one man (and actually I think I got his name wrong, I think it is Joseph Smith) is that he alone wrote this suppsoedly new revelation but it totally is out of alignment with historical facts (such as a lost tribe of Israel coming to America in ancient times). His account is at odds with the rest of the Bible, meaning it does not present a single accord, not in harmony with the other 66 books. So, yes I do believe the Mormons to be a “cult” twisted and wrong but that’s my belief based on research I’ve done comparing their teachings with the teachings of the New Testament.
What’s amazing is that the Bible warns of many who would come to frustrate the Gospel and present errant doctrines. I believe this is why we see power hungary churches in history, persecution by the church, even the anti-semitism found in some churches in history, all of which are errant churches who fell away from the teachings of the Bible.
I know you ladies don’t want to discuss religion with someone like me, but I think it is good to do so, in order to find some common understanding because like you have stated, I also do not like a lot of the stuff that so called Christians are doing, for example, the absolutely heinous group whose website is “God Hates Fags”. This group is completely twisted. They are why people like you have such a stinging view of Chrisitans. They have clearly lost their way and what’s more they are a “Baptist” church, the same label which is on my church.
Anyway, if you wish to end this discussion, please lets do…
Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 9:17 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Evidently not. I was not talking about the people who follow a given religion, I’m talking about the organized religion itself. For example, not any given group of Christians but the Church itself. As a whole.
I have not been soured on the Word of God, thank you very much, so you can unbreak your heart.
I don’t think you don’t understand at all. I don’t think you can.
I read and celebrate the Word of God every day. The Bible has no monopoly on the Word of God. It’s there in Jane Austen as much as it is in the Bible. It’s there in the rose I smelled this morning more than it is in any book.
I think finding common understanding is highly over-rated in many cases.
No, they’re not (not for me; I don’t know about “people like me”, or who you think they are). You don’t have a clue what I feel or why. And you don’t have a clue that you don’t have a clue.
Posted 03 Jun 2006 at 7:25 am ¶