I'm not qualified to talk about sports.
So maybe Bob Costas and others can leave the political commentary to people like me.
Not a quote but close enough to what she said and what she meant.
What's the word?!?
Why pandas? Why now?
If Bob Kostas really wanted to deter gun violence he should have spent 15 minutes talking about what an evil man Belcher is and how only evil, cowardly people use guns to kill innocent people. Instead he squats and produces a vision of Belcher as victim. That is sick! Belcher is a an evil twisted sadist bastard and so is anyone trying to kill people who aren't life-threatening.
2.5 million crimes per year thwarted in USA by average citizens using firearms per Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck's 1993 survey.
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed--unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." James Madison
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." George
Mason to the Virginia Assembly
And for its support of unconstitutional gun control measures via the Costas crap the NFL can kiss this lifetime fan goodbye. I'll stick with high school and college football.
Americans (civilians alone) have enough guns and rifles to outfit the Chinese -AND- Indian armies, hahahahahaha.
Guns have not helped ONE-LICK to slow down the tide of corporatism and sell-out of consumer-rule.
"We" did this -- "We" created this mess -- "We" are participating at some or all levels of the ever-increasing watcher-state.
Religion creates a God that watches thoughts and actions -- then judges and punishes us -- We create a Gov't that (eventually) will be able to watch all our actions and thoughts.........etc etc
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
"We create a Gov't that (eventually) will be able to watch all our actions and thoughts"
Well, you can drop the future tense, and use past and present instead, in that sentence - at least for your emails, it's a done deal already :
Email Privacy 1989-2012
"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.
"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius
a Creationist God.
Someone who watches us, avenges us, punishes us -- in thought and deed a like (one never being greater or worse than the other) -- as Jesus said, God watches and judges "heart crimes [sin]"
I don't know if any government of man, by man, can be good or isn't actually doomed to grow bad no matter what.
The one thing I know, though : both The Golden Rule and "Thou Shall Not Steal" have been, and still are, attributed to a God of Love.
I've yet to see anything anywhere as close to goodness in a government devised by men (for all others) who ignore - i.e., disregard - both of the above, precisely.
Or I missed it.
"If you press me to say why I love Him, I can say nothing but just because He is He, and I am I."
-- Michel de Montaigne
"Do unto others....." -- Who can "do unto god?"
If God is all things and casts us into Hell (forever -- that latter concept first introduced in the New Testament)
The Bible justified slavery -- how can you account for that obvious violation of the Golden Rule?
There are worse rewards for those we'd consider wicked today, in both the New and Old testament.
Organized Religion IS a Gov't Body -- Hahahaha.
Monarchs and Pharaohs were all "put into" power by the Priesthood (by religious zeal) -- in all ages huge gov'ts were certified by huge superstitions.
I know in the whole scheme of this discussion it is a minor point, but technically speaking, God allows people(unlike an overprotective Government) to choose whether or not to follow Him.
If people choose NOT to follow Him, God allows them to stay separate from Him forever which is what Hell is. It is the place that people choose when they decide to live separately from Him.
If people choose to accept Jesus' gift of salvation they live with God forever, which is what we describe as Heaven.
It is technically OUR choice to accept His gift or not, rather than God arbitrarily "casting us into Hell". He allows us to choose.
"The Bible justified slavery"
Where ? References ? Do not confuse justification with ... assessment.
"in all ages huge gov'ts were certified by huge superstitions"
True. In our age, the last 100 years, the dominant superstition is that of The Dismal Science - that is, specific flavors of Economics which attempt to put man into equations - it's no more about false religions. See Marx AND Keynes.
Here is the result, more efficient, in just ONE century, than ALL religious wars COMBINED :
This is FACT. But it's not even the point. Here is the point :
Central and ever growing government power, be it religious or anti-religious is what cannot be anything but always more corrupt. And EVIL - http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/
The family cell around the Golden Rule is what was intended by a creator, if any. THAT is how I read the Bible. And I know I am not alone, though I never forced anybody to do likewise.
We all have free will to do so, or to deny it, falsify it, and betray the language of the Bible and other positive texts**, to favor our agenda and special interests, instead.
Just my opinion / faith.
** Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
So we agree that Religion has always been the archetype of Gov't and vice versa -- Because both are based Organizational perpetual Hierarchic-ism and Butt-Loads of Nepotism?
EPHESIANS 6: 5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.
Timothy 6:1-2 1All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them.
1 Peter 18 Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God.
Your references are assessment of slavery being already there.
Actual justification of slavery would have been the Bible teaching us how to become the master of slaves, how to exploit them until their exhaustion, how to dispose of the bodies, how to trade them, how to make perverted laws to discourage natural compassion, how to turn free men into slaves, etc.
Just my interpretation anyway.
slave masters "how to be" good-noble slave masters.
It's perfectly logical all "souls" are "owned" by God and if we displease him he has the "right" to torture us forever.
According to men who wrote the Bible.
"According to men who wrote the Bible."
Well, that's according to **you**. Yet again.
Because that's not how **I** (and others, I hope) interpret what whoever wrote it (several authors, certainly) meant to say, but you are free to interpret it much more negatively, most or all the time, sure. This is your freedom, and believers have theirs.
Now, if one wants to exclusively focus on a (relatively) small, self-contained text written (yes, by men, granted) thousands years ago and not attribute any positive things to it, and meanwhile not pay attention to much more recent texts, and more binding as well, thru Laws Perverted much more explicitly :
... one is equally free to continue shooting at the boogeyman biblical text.
I kindly question, though, what sort of benefits for defending individual liberties we can expect from that use of our time. I have chosen the Bible to be positive for me... But, who has chosen for ALL of us the sort of binding text linked above ? I don't find it very positive, yet I HAD NO word to say about it. Had you ?
Whoever was attacking the Bible when their country officials let that U.N. text passed, how come they didn't notice the latter linked above if they were so concerned with (so-called or obvious) morally hazardous texts ? Wasn't it relevant ? Don't they say faith is in decline and atheism more and more prevalent in numbers ? That thing above should have had at least as much attention to be denounced, no ?
Food for thought :
"Give me six lines written by the most honest man in the world, and I will find enough in them to hang him." -- Cardinal Richelieu (disputed)
"We may employ artifice to deceive a rival, anything against our enemies." -- Cardinal Richelieu (undisputed)
Who would think the sort of church that Cardinal Richelieu was member of, could represent anything of a compassionate Christian faith ? Certainly not Blaise Pascal, for what I know. Neither would I. Neither in their time or ours today.
THE STATE, therefore, in all times, has been the best device and beneficiary for subjecting people. Be it a religious STATE - OR NOT.
Texts have never been living things, even less perfect ones, when written - and more importantly, READ - by imperfect and corruptible men. Texts cannot defend themselves. In all times good men have existed to recognize what is wrong or right in interpreting them, though. And likewise bad men have existed to interpret them in whatever ways would serve THEIR AGENDA.
I have no agenda in finding good or very good things in the Bible, except to (selfishly) help myself carry my own spiritual burden. It did help me a lot at times. Times of loneliness.
Thus I never pushed the Bible down the throat of anyone who just ignores it or tells me upfront they're not interested. But I always find strange the concentrated attacks on this (fuzzy, if you wish) spiritual text, while a thousand times as many pages of another kind have been written all throughout the 20th century to precisely justify at the same time (1) how better it is to not even try find anything positive in the Bible and (2) carrying out democides totaling an interesting score of 260+ MILLIONS innocent civilians slaughtered by THEIR OWN COUNTRY'S ANTI-RELIGIOUS STATE - and in just ONE century, the 20th.
The craziest, sickest religious fanatics' performances of all times combined cannot even come anywhere close to the latter, in terms of deathcraft efficiency. So much for such a dangerous text - the Bible - that even crazier people like me STILL strive to use only positively and only for their own personal, spiritual benefit.
Now, we all know what sort of agenda is pursued by people who want to burn the books they dislike and they don't find good enough for everybody, don't we ?
But, as for killing someone -
Man killed father in Wyoming bow-and-arrow attack
proves that a gun is not necessary!
In the comments on the yahoo article there where only joking comments about having bow and arrow controls. (except for the ones that were yelling that this has nothing to do with gun control, but about 3 people being killed).
Why wasn't this brought up on the talk show circuit?????
In 1994, O.J. Simpson, a famous sports celebrity was acquitted on the murder charge of his wife, Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman her alleged lover (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case ).
The victims were not killed with a firearm but instead a sharp instrument (knife?) was used as the primary murder weapon.
What do these heinous acts show? It's not the gun, the knife, the cudgel, the poison, etc. that is the reason for unjustifiable killings, merely the method used.
If a person is filled with so much rage and hate against another whether it be spontaneous or premeditated, the possibility exists the final act of taking a life will be committed. That person will use any means at their disposal, including strangulation with their bare hands if possible.
Bob Costas and many others believe more gun control would have saved Jovan Belcher's girlfriend as well as preventing his own suicide. But they are obviously wrong. Just ask the families of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman.
Motor Vehicle Deaths in the US, 1990 - 2009.
Our US Census motor vehicle accident death table shows 38,000 deaths in year 2009 alone.
Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul ☑
Chris Benoit didn't need a gun...
“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
― Ron Paul
You don't get rid of the problem by getting rid of the tools people use to kill another.
The taking of a life is a moral issue that will never be dealt with by goobermints.
Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.
What if she or one of the other people had been armed, too?
It seems to me that a pro-football linebacker was going to win that conflict no matter what, unless someone else had a gun.
The whole purpose of guns is to be an "equalizer" between the physically weak and thugs who are bigger and stronger.
He was obviously willing to use the gun illegally, so making them illegal would not help, and making them unavailable would still have made her the loser.
What do you think? http://consequeries.com/
I love my guns. I just don't have enough guns or ammo. I need to get more! Also, Costas better watch out, the Judge thinks he's handsome!
"Be a listener only, keep within yourself, and endeavor to establish with yourself the habit of silence, especially on politics." -Thomas Jefferson
I swear...I can't imagine who would think Costas is 'handsome'.
I'm not gay or anything...but I can understand someone saying Bradley Cooper is handsome...but Bob Costas? Maybe the bar is being set lower and lower in America.
costas could have reminded people how precious a childs life is or how strength can bring this family back together.....
instead he blamed guns.
he played politics, in front millions of wondering eyes he played politics rather than addressing what matters.
Whether you think you can or you can't, you're right. -Henry Ford
The easy counter-argument is that "knives are pretty much necessary for eating. Guns don't have much utility other than hunting, shooting someone or showing it as a form of self-defense".
I thought he should've brought up the "help protect us from the tyranny from government" argument.
with a bad wig. Did anyone expect anything sensible to erupt from his overpaid piehole? When he comes on I turn the channel to "Huntin' for Squatches".
yeah, that black stain he paints on top of his head is ridiculous. He's watched too many 'Just For Men' commercials.
Good grief...he is unlike the majority of English people I have met. He should be on CNN.
Great post! BUMP
The issue is not whether these two would be alive today had the gentleman possessed no gun.
The issue is not whether guns reduce or increase crime.
The issue is whether it is government's place to deny guns to those who would use them responsibly in order to keep them from those who would not.
Individual rights are more important than notions of "the public good."
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: