In Love We Trust

[vicente]

In Love We Trust. Such words, for me, deeply resonate with the idea of the America envisioned by Thomas Paine, the Father of the American Revolution; words which however, are unequivocally in opposition to the current, Constitutionally illegal National Motto that replaced Franklin, Jefferson and Adams' E Pluribus Unum during the reactionary McCarthy Era, with the monotheistic motto 'In God We Trust'.

Most of the Founding Fathers of America were quite wise to be advocates for a religious neutral Nation. However, that neutrality, and their maxim, "From many, One", has lost its appeal within contemporary Christian Groupthink. A groupthink that does not have its roots in the 18th Century Independence of America, but through 20th Century Christian Reconstructionism.

Christians proselytize that America was founded as One Nation under their God. Yet the truth is, according to such eminent persons as Herman C. Weber DD, an expert in religious census and statistics, few early Americans were affiliated with Christianity. In the 1933 Yearbook of American Churches, the census of 1800 showed just 6.9% of US citizens as belonging to a church. By 1850, Christian membership rose to 15.5%. In 1900, Christians doubled their number to 37%. But, not until 1942, just 8 years before Senator Joseph McCarthy brought Christianity into government and subsequently, the Republican Party into power, did Christian participation exceed 50%.

In 1954, at the height of McCarthy's fear based propaganda, much like todays Republican lies and deceit to promote their agendas, Congress began officially putting Christianity's monotheistic god in government, with the addition of the words 'under god' in the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by the change of the US Motto to reflect the new Christian majority's agenda. But now it’s time to get it out. It’s time for Christians to start rendering to America what is America’s, in compliance with their Matthew 22:21. It's time for real Americans, nay, it is their duty, to bring the values of the Constitution back, and dissolve the rightwing despotism and revisionism usurping our Nation.

The Ninth Circuit Court in 2002 was right on the mark when it said "The Pledge, as currently codified [with under god], is an impermissible government endorsement of religion because it sends a message to unbelievers "that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community."

National Mottos gives direction and purpose to a Country. The present Motto, although accepted by the majority, precipitates intolerance, and denies full membership in America for those who do not adhere to their concepts of a monotheistic god. Even George Bush Sr, on August 27, 1987 said, "I don't know that those who do not believe in God should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God". To me, this is most serious, and most unAmerican. In fact, many Christians in America today can be accurately viewed as anti-Americans; that is, domestic threats to the Life, Liberty and Quality of the Nation.

On Constitutional matters, contrary to the groupthink media-ted by Christian Reconstructionists, that is, those attempting to rewite history from their own predisposed, faith-driven point of view, there is no majority rule. The majority has no right to tyrannize the minority because they do not adhere to the majority's belief in their monotheistic religion. Todays conservative theocracizing of America would have most of America's Founding Fathers literally up in-arms. They would ask, what Country do these Christian Republican think they live in; it for certain isn't America. Simply consider that under George Washington, a document was drafted in 1796, then ratified by the Senate and sign into law on June 10, 1797 by John Adams which said, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded upon the Christian religion".

Even though this document was well publicized at the time, there were no complaints or public outcry, as when Christians balked over the illegality of 'under god'. In fact, at the signing of the above 1797 document, John Adams said, "Now be it known, that I, John Adams, President of the United States of America, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End, may it be observed and performed with good faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; and I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill every clause and article thereof".

If America is to faithfully observe and fulfill every clause and article of that document, it is time to replace the McCarthy Era motto of In God We Trust, but instead of going back to E Pluribus Unum, I suggest we take a step forward in our evolution and replace it with In Love We Trust. Imagine America, the first Nation to trust in Love. But what is Love? What is Trust?

Many Christians believe the god they invoke while spreading their faith, is Love. However, in the whole of their Holy Book, the Bible, it only suggests the idea that this god is love at the very end, in the late 2nd Century apology 1John. Mostly, their Patriarch is clearly a murderous, pro-slavery, vacillant, petty, racist, conditional god. Fundamentally, Christian love, what they like calling agape, like their god, is merely a conditional love; a love based on unselfish, non-sexual commitment to those of similar convictions. To better understand this type of love, simply consider the Great Love Chapter of Christendom, Corinthians 13; ie., "love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things", 1 Cor 13:7. Although this form of love, that is, bearing, believing, hoping and enduring is more compassionate then passionate, more commitment orientated then fleeting, it isn't Unconditional Love, but merely the devotion, attachment and expectation to the conditions of their beliefs. Thus, no matter how one perceives it, experience born of belief can only be experienced through the condition of that belief. A self-perpetuating delusion.

Passionate or emotional love, is another type of conditional love. This is the love of solicitudal desire and enthralled obsession. Such love is usually, but not necessarily, accompanied by biological, chemical or instinctual love, which manifests a yearning for the welfare, possession and companionship of another. Ordinarily, emotional love is based on something received through physiological or pyschological arousal, and commonly includes, as in Christian love, an attached expectation.

The highest love a human can awaken to, is the amoral intimacy of Conscious Love. This is the Love of the Bodhisattva; the wish for the well being and liberation of all; without predisposition, and indifferent towards the consequences to the lover.

A wish, in this context, is not synonymous with hope or desire. Hope and desire belong to an anticipation and expectation of the future. Hope and desire ensues from the thought of lack; that things should be other than they are. A wish on the other hand, is an intention, unencumbered by predisposition; to allow Love to flow, and arrive at its own harmonium.

Individuality is incessantly convinced of its separateness; it bears, believes, hopes, and endures within a perceived encapcilated form, manifesting conditions that perpetually repeat themselves. A wish arises from the Heart of ones Essence. It realizes that Love cannot be sent or given, not even to oneself; for Love already is complete, whole and without lack. There is no absence of Love, anywhere, only an enshrouding by the beliefs that have been built against it. But who would be against Love? Only beliefs are against love, even when they think they are for it. For if a belief saw Love, that belief would instantly dissolve.

Love cannot be sent or given. Such an agenda, on any level, implies that the Sender/Giver thinks Love is lacking. There is no deficiency or absense of Love anywhere. Love is the Unconditional fulcrum from which Duality effects its motion.

The fragrance of love is as a tremendum uncovered by surrendering expectation, and through that immediacy be witness to a grand preferenceless reality. A reality of Love's own flow; unveiled of what belief and predisposition think it should be.

Belief implies doubt. To trust in a monotheistic god, or any belief, is committing ones reliance, dependence, certitude, allegiance and potential transcendence to something that is false. Failure to recognize the false as false, or a belief as that which suppresses, denies, disempowers and disconnects, is the ruination of destiny's and self-sabotage of the full expression of ones inherent gifts.

If we are to trust, let our trust be with something we can never leave and that can never leave us. Let our trust be in love. To trust in the myth of a deity is not just misplaced love, it is insanity. Simply consider the hundreds of conditions that the Judeao-Christian-Muslem gods put on their faithful. For example, what if ones greatgrandfather was born outside of marriage; are the parents punished for this? Of course not. The children are punished. And not only them, but their children as well; as it says in Deuteronomy (23:2), "no bastard shall enter the kingdom of heaven, not even to the tenth generation...". For those who would say that is the old covenant, such comments only imply that their god is indeed a vacillant, conditional god. Love however, real love, is unconditional.

'In Love We Trust' should be an acceptable National Motto to nearly all, especially freedom loving, Constitutional minded Paine-Jefferson Americans. Love is our inherent nature; the essence of our uncorrupted, unmedia-ted Human Beingness. What better motto to encourage us to fulfill the dream of America's Founding Fathers,...Of many, One.

© 2002 Vicente Marco

[dog goddess]

just out of curiosity, how much time have you spent alone just wandering through the forest?

i suppose that my views are different than yours because i've lived deep in the wilderness and spent days without seeing or hearing from others. i guess that given the time to think for myself and witness the beauty around me i don't see a need to scoff at what others have done. i do not care how others have interpreted things. i do not seek out other peoples thoughts to form my own. in another thread you called my creator a myth. well to you our creator is a myth because you will not allow yourself to believe simply because of what other humans have done through their own agendas. my belief in my creator is not a dependence of any sort. i am not so proud that i cannot say thank you. the beauty and grace which surround me i am humbled by.


love is not so difficult as you make it out to be. it would be good if our motto was in love we trust. too few people are willing to love freely though. too few are willing to give so much of themselves.


i just don't understand why you look at what others have done in the name of religion to form your beliefs. look only within yourself. i hate that others use religion to serve their own purposes. i certainly do not allow their actions to mold my own beliefs.

it's quite impressive the things that you know. but it's also quite obvious the things that you don't.

[vicente]

Hey Dog,...I'm not much into knowledge or learning. I enjoy unlearning. As for love, in my opinion, it's perfect. From my observations searching for love just manifests more to search,...the key is to let go of the barriers we have, through beliefs, built against it. Then, there is love,...unobscured and present.

Regarding forests, there's nothing wrong with hanging out in the wilderness. I've lived much of my life in remote places in Oregon, Montana and Washington. Unadulterated nature is quite marvelous,...walking through the forest on a dark night lite only by the stars and auras of the trees. One gets an appreciation, and eventually the realization that natures music does not exist outside things.

Religion is dishonest,...and only honesty will set you free.

vicente
:)

[dog goddess]

free from what vicente?

[vicente]

Hey Dog,...free to flow with the current of the river,...allowing Spirit to take you where the river is going, instead of you putting predispositions on the nature of the river and your relationship to it.

You, Dog, as seen in the words of your posts, do not appear to be free,...but are instead, very stubbornly attached to your beliefs. Would you like to see for yourself what I mean in 1 hour? Are you willing to invest 1 hour for a taste of what freedom is? 99% of the Collective are not.

vicente
:)

[dog goddess]

attached? how wrong you are about me. i have no attachments.

and as to the collective, i've never been a part of that. i sit back and watch from the outside.

[vicente]

My dear Dog,...if you believe in a creator, and the many other beliefs you've mentioned, than that is certainly an attachment. You have never been on the outside, nor the inside,...if you were, even close, you would not have posted the beliefs you have.

But hey,...if you ever wish to discuss letting go of those attachments the you that you are not, thinks its doesn't have, perhaps then we could play. In the meantime, the opportunities just float by.

:)

[Craig]

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


I find that the Declaration of Independence for the good ol USA is also unconstitinutional after all it states Creator and God in it in a definate and obvious statement if we are going to delcare the Pledge Uncostitional why not the Declaration of Independence be made Unconstitutional?

Not too mention the Emancipation Proclamation should we declare that Unconstitutional after all lets see how Abe Lincoln finishes this Proclamaion And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God.


Oops He mentioned God in this Proclamation lets try to declare this Unconstitutional while we are at it and see how many people Liberal and Conservative get upset.

[rich]

Craig,

You made 2 excellent points, but very soon you shall find out, that Vicente has an answer for everything. If I were you, do not waste your time, for the fixations in his mind are programmed to block out the truth.

The same words apply to Vicente's disciples too. :o

[...]

Before the forum got updated, you were asked why it is necessary for you to use Vicente for opposition. Could you tell what kind of investment you have concerning the remarks you made to Craig...?

[rich]

...
Posted on Jun 30 2003, 12:34 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before the forum got updated, you were asked why it is necessary for you to use Vicente for opposition. Could you tell what kind of investment you have concerning the remarks you made to Craig...?


rich
Posted on Jun 29 2003, 11:04 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig,

You made 2 excellent points, but very soon you shall find out, that Vicente has an answer for everything. If I were you, do not waste your time, for the fixations in his mind are programmed to block out the truth.

The same words apply to Vicente's disciples too.

...,
If your post was directed to me, no investment is applicable. Craig's post corrects the fallicies of Vicente's POV, which he implies are truth.

Vicente and I have been debating about Creation for over 2 years now, and each of us think our own viewpoint is truth.
I do not quite know what you mean, when using the word investment?
Could you explain? :unsure:

[...]

You made 2 excellent points, but very soon you shall find out, that Vicente has an answer for everything. If I were you, do not waste your time, for the fixations in his mind are programmed to block out the truth. The same words apply to Vicente's disciples too.

I do not quite know what you mean, when using the word investment? Could you explain?

Rich, what was meant; can you see which motion of perception spurred you to write above?

[dog goddess]

Originally posted by vicente@Jun 28 2003, 07:27 AM
My dear Dog,...if you believe in a creator, and the many other beliefs you've mentioned, than that is certainly an attachment. You have never been on the outside, nor the inside,...if you were, even close, you would not have posted the beliefs you have.

But hey,...if you ever wish to discuss letting go of those attachments the you that you are not, thinks its doesn't have, perhaps then we could play. In the meantime, the opportunities just float by.

:)





curse missed opportunities.

[sahyo]

"Vicente's disciples"?

[rich]

Originally posted by asheera@Jul 1 2003, 04:28 AM
"Vicente's disciples"?

Vicentes disciples are those who, believe in a creator, and the many other beliefs you've mentioned, than that is certainly an attachment. You have never been on the outside, nor the inside,...if you were, even close, you would not have posted the beliefs you have.

But hey,...if you ever wish to discuss letting go of those attachments the you that you are not, thinks its doesn't have, perhaps then we could play. In the meantime, the opportunities just float by.

The bold type, is extracted from a reply Vicente posted to dog goddess,
earlier in this thread. :( B)

[sahyo]

"Vicente's disciples"?

[rich]

"Vicente's disciples"?

asheera, random hack, ocre, curved angles, ... and fu; to name a few. :unsure: :mellow: :)

[sahyo]

f'rich'unnnnny :D

[Craig]

To All who wrote about Vincent and his so called disciples,

Why does it seem that the good discussions always get ruined by name calling and people getting off track. If Vincent wants to reply with something the seems right to him let him. Dont call him close minded or other things. After all many people are fed lies and told to be open minded in reality they are taught to reject anything that goes against what they say. If what he says it false so be it. If he is right I would agree with him. All I know is that I know the truth, and know how to get answers to questions I may not know. But can we please refrain from calling people names. The truth is offensive enough to most people.

Remember.... Always be prepared to answer every person that asks why you believe what you do but answer them with meekness and revrence.

[...]

Guess not...

[Polaris]

Remember.... Always be prepared to answer every person that asks why you believe what you do but answer them with meekness and revrence.

Craig, I agree we should always have a reason as to why we believe in what we do but I think there are occasions when it is inconvenient when we don't have to answer when asked. And I'm not sure why, if we do answer, we should do so meekly and with reverence. I should think it might be more appropriate to answer with conviction but also with respect (not reverence) to the fact that the people you are talking to might believe in something different (which is their right)

As far as this Vicente Disciples business is concerned -------> ????? :blink: I don't get it.

[sonrisa]

But to get back to the topic..... I think it's interesting that Vicente chose to start it this week, what with Friday being the 4th. Does anybody really understand what the 4th is about? Does anybody really care? :blink: This Fri, some of my friends & I are going to find out: we are going to go to a public picnic at one of the local city parks & read excerpts from the Declaration & other like minded documents & see if anybody does give a rat's wazoo. As for the rest of y'all- have a very happy 4th. Enjoy the fireworks! :)


ps Richie, I don't think Random's anybody's disciple. Where the hell is he anyhow?

[zygoat]

sonrisa,
may i ask what the 4TH means to you?i will enjoy the fireworks,it is something that is a tradition in our family.and while my younger ones don't know all the wherefor's and whyfor's i can only hope that they feel a love for our great country. GOD<span style='color:blue'> BLESS <span style='color:red'>AMERICA</span></span>

[Ronagon]

Love?

Please.

Love is counterfeit currency, printed by phonies, to pay off suckers.

Whatever "love" is, no two people can agree on it, so throw it in the rubbish bin, I say.

Give me "respect" instead. That's all "true love" really is, a feeling you have for someone who's developed virtues and attributes which you deeply respect.

I despise vagueness. What a slimy, slippery eel.

[rich]

Originally posted by Craig@Jul 1 2003, 01:03 PM
To All who wrote about Vincent and his so called disciples,

Why does it seem that the good discussions always get ruined by name calling and people getting off track. If Vincent wants to reply with something the seems right to him let him. Dont call him close minded or other things. After all many people are fed lies and told to be open minded in reality they are taught to reject anything that goes against what they say. If what he says it false so be it. If he is right I would agree with him. All I know is that I know the truth, and know how to get answers to questions I may not know. But can we please refrain from calling people names. The truth is offensive enough to most people.

Remember.... Always be prepared to answer every person that asks why you believe what you do but answer them with meekness and revrence.
Rich is the one who posted these words, and as Rich sees it, that specific post, is the only post, on this topic, which may have a hint of being a little blunt:


Craig,
You made 2 excellent points, but very soon you shall find out, that Vicente has an answer for everything. If I were you, do not waste your time, for the fixations in his mind are programmed to block out the truth.

The same words apply to Vicente's disciples too.

--------------------
Rich

I did not realize my post deserved a retort. Perhaps in the future I should keep my ****ing opinion to myself. :o

[sahyo]

Give me "respect" instead. That's all "true love" really is, a feeling you have for someone who's developed virtues and attributes which you deeply respect.



no "you"- "someone"-"who's"-'other'

loving not exclude....no separate

;)

[ianthe]

pls be coherent if u want a good answer. i do not consider that as an answer. ;)

[sahyo]

:D

[a random hack]

:rolleyes: :unsure: :blink: lol :huh: :)

That was for sonrisa.
Glad my disciple-ships don't show too deeply.
This Fri, some of my friends & I are going to find out: we are going to go to a public picnic at one of the local city parks & read excerpts from the Declaration & other like minded documents & see if anybody does give a rat's wazoo.

Sounds 'like' fun.

For RT,
dis·ci·ple (d-spl)
n.

One who embraces and assists in spreading the teachings of another.
An active adherent, as of a movement or philosophy.
often Disciple One of the original followers of Jesus.
Disciple A member of the Disciples of Christ.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English, from Old English discipul, and from Old French desciple both from Latin discipulus, pupil, from discere, to learn. See dek- in Indo-European Roots.]

Interesting to compare the difference between the definition ('embraces and speads') and the roots ('pupil' and 'to learn') of the word, eh?


ron,

Give me "respect" instead. That's all "true love" really is, a feeling you have for someone who's developed virtues and attributes which you deeply respect.

So what's that feeling you have for someone who (in your opinion), has NOT developed virtues and attributes which you deeply respect? Pity? Is pity the opposite of love?

Generally,
I wonder what the limits of my acceptance of opinions are? Where they relate to 'me', perhaps? Relate to my opinions, more likely!! lol

[rich]

Originally posted by asheera@Jul 3 2003, 02:33 AM
/Ronagon
Give me "respect" instead. That's all "true love" really is, a feeling you have for someone who's developed virtues and attributes which you deeply respect.



no "you"- "someone"-"who's"-'other'

no loving not exclude, but include loving....no separate but together.

;)
See asheera post below, interpreting what she really means.

[sahyo]

but include loving....no separate but together.

no :)

[rich]

Originally posted by asheera@Jul 3 2003, 02:33 AM

Give me "respect" instead. That's all "true love" really is, a feeling you have for someone who's developed virtues and attributes which you deeply respect.



no "you"- "someone"-"who's"-'other'

loving not exclude....no separate

;)
asheera posted:no "you"- "someone"-"who's"-'other'

loving not exclude....no separate


Rich attempted to clarify, by posting:

no loving not exclude, but include loving....no separate but together.


which was promptly greeted by asheera's reply:

but include loving....no separate but together.

no

:)
:unsure:

What is meant, in what you posted, originally :huh: ?

[sahyo]

not think:
exinclude
aparttogether
othernotother

:)

[rich]

Thank you for your meaningless meaningful reply. :lol: :P :unsure:

[sahyo]

:P
:D
;)

[sahyo]

thankingthanking

[rich]

Originally posted by asheera@Jul 4 2003, 03:24 AM
thankingthanking
:rolleyes: am quite sure that thanking who asheera thanked is
:thankful for receiving thanking reply. :lol: :D :wacko:

[rich]

Originally posted by rich+Jul 4 2003, 06:28 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (rich @ Jul 4 2003, 06:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--asheera@Jul 4 2003, 03:24 AM
thankingthanking
:rolleyes: am quite sure that thanking who asheera thanked is
:thankful for receiving thanking reply. :lol: :D :wacko:

P.S. rich not meaning rich as thankful, but meant you were thankingthanking. Quite sure that thanking is thanking too.
OK, i'll shad up. [/b][/quote]
B) original post revised in this manner, cos no edit tag appeared on screen for posts in this thread. :o :huh:

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by a random hack@Jul 3 2003, 09:15 AM
:rolleyes: :unsure: :blink: lol :huh: :)

That was for sonrisa.
Glad my disciple-ships don't show too deeply.
This Fri, some of my friends & I are going to find out: we are going to go to a public picnic at one of the local city parks & read excerpts from the Declaration & other like minded documents & see if anybody does give a rat's wazoo.

Sounds 'like' fun.

For RT,
dis·ci·ple (d-spl)
n.

One who embraces and assists in spreading the teachings of another.
An active adherent, as of a movement or philosophy.
often Disciple One of the original followers of Jesus.
Disciple A member of the Disciples of Christ.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English, from Old English discipul, and from Old French desciple both from Latin discipulus, pupil, from discere, to learn. See dek- in Indo-European Roots.]

Interesting to compare the difference between the definition ('embraces and speads') and the roots ('pupil' and 'to learn') of the word, eh?


ron,

Give me "respect" instead. That's all "true love" really is, a feeling you have for someone who's developed virtues and attributes which you deeply respect.

So what's that feeling you have for someone who (in your opinion), has NOT developed virtues and attributes which you deeply respect? Pity? Is pity the opposite of love?

Generally,
I wonder what the limits of my acceptance of opinions are? Where they relate to 'me', perhaps? Relate to my opinions, more likely!! lol
[QUOTE=a random hack,Jul 3 2003, Glad my disciple-ships don't show too deeply.
[/QUOTE]
awww Random... are u copping to being Vicente's disciple? :huh:
& I thought u wuz a free thinker. B)

But onto the serious stuff: let's see, what does the 4th mean to me (um, didn't I do this back in grade school?) What comes to mind is something Schlotty (where r u?) said a few months back in another forum, about how even though the Founding Fathers had their problems, they still attempted to build a country based on higher principles, they strove to achieve something greater & better than what was currently the status quo. They built a country based on human rights that are currently under attack by those abominable un-Patriot twins. Does anybody seem to care? This country has a proud history of ingenuity, of rising to meet challenges Did you know that the world record patent holder- anywhere is (my homeboy, btw) Thomas Edison? Right now one of the biggest challenges our country faces is meeting our energy needs. There are any number of cheap, renewable, & less to non-polluting energy souces around- if we would only get busy & develop them for practical use. So what does the Govt do? Bomb the sh*t out of any country that has anything remotely to do with oil. And with dirty bio-hazardous DU bombs at that! Afghanistan is a trashed wasteland (& the Taleban are making a comeback there, btw) Iraq is a mess, & from what I saw on my screensaver when I got online this morning, it looks like Liberia (read oil port) is next on the chopping block (HAPPY 4TH LIBERIA!) Does anybody care? I don't know how old you are Zygoat, but I grew up in the 60's, when John Kennedy challenged the country to put a man on the moon, & the scientists at NASA rolled up their sleeves, rose to the challenge- & did it! These days NASA can't even get an astronaut out of low Earth orbit. Is that pathetic, or is that pathetic? Does anybody care? This country could be so much better than what it is, if only people would care enough to hold it to the Founding Father's higher standards, & force it to live up to its potential.
I ask you, Zygoat, exactly what do you mean by "God Bless America"? At face value, it's nice sentiment, but anymore, it oftentimes seems to be perverted as an excuse to spread hate. Not that I'm accusing you of doing that, I don't know what you mean by it. I'm just making an observation based on the contexts that I've heard other people express that sentiment. In which case I would hope God would have nothing to do with spreading hate. Otherwise I'll just take a leaf from Vicente's book & quit believing in her!

[sonrisa]

oops!! I thought I had edited out the stuff in random's post that did not apply to me. Obviously not! :blink:

I just want to add that I LUV fireworks. Even if the 4th meant absolutely nothing at all I would still LUVVIT for the fireworks!! Have a happy 4th y'all!! :P

[Polaris]

Originally posted by sonrisa@Jul 1 2003, 06:42 PM
This Fri, some of my friends & I are going to find out: we are going to go to a public picnic at one of the local city parks & read excerpts from the Declaration & other like minded documents & see if anybody does give a rat's wazoo.
This has been of some concern to me for the past couple of days and I find myself sitting here with some anticipation awaiting the results of your exploratory.

Did anybody give a rat's wazoo?

Upon recieving a rat's wazoo is it customary, or even necessary to say "thank you"??

What does one do with a rat's wazoo? (or maybe that question is too personal) ;)

:D :P

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by Polaris@Jul 4 2003, 11:20 PM

Did anybody give a rat's wazoo?

Upon recieving a rat's wazoo is it customary, or even necessary to say "thank you"??

What does one do with a rat's wazoo?* (or maybe that question is too personal) ;)

:D* :P
ok Polaris, rat's butt then. Sure you can say "thank you" if somebody gives you one- that's only good manners- & you can do whatever you want with it so long as you don't wave the nasty thing in my face! :P

As for the exploratory, I'll tell you what was sposed to happen, & then what actually did: every year on the 4th there is a parade that goes down one of the city's major streets & winds up at a local park, where the City sponsors a picnic. This picnic draws several hundred people & so the plan was to go to the park & do a little street theater, except it'd be in a park. Now this worked out just fine for me, becuz I was on a float in the parade, & had planned to meet my buds when I got to the park. There was a meeting last Sun (6/30) to finalize which excerpts from which documents we were going to read. Now I don't work on weekends, but that Sun turned out to be the one weekend I had to work, so I couldn't go, but I wasn't worried becuz I had already given my recommendations to my friend who was organizing the thing. Well, you know what they say about missing meetings.... A few daze after that, somebody (NOT the organizer) circulated an APB stating that they were going to hold their own picnic by the duck pond at another park, which is actually a small urban forest, where nothing was going on. That's one thing about the park we were originally going to do this in- from any one point in that park you can see all of the rest of the park, so we would of been able to find each other quickly & be highly visible to the picnic goers. Instead we were now going to have a picnic of our own in the middle of the woods with nobody else around, & the woman in charge of the food was somebody I didn't even know. That's when the whole thing lost its appeal for me. I mean it's one thing to be stirring up some stuff with a group where everybody's tight with each other, but quite another when you got a bunch of strangers involved. And if you aren't gonna do it in front of an audience, then what's the point? It's not, to use Random's words, "like" fun any more. So I didn't go. I talked to my friend who was sposed to be organizing the thing, & it was as I suspected- another wave of people who hadn't been involved in any prior planning (friends of friends of friends) came to that meeting Sun & took it over changing everything around & losing the whole purpose in the process. He said he didn't want to object to the changes too much becuz he didn't want to be contrary. I told him it was his idea & he shouldn't of left those other people take it away from him & screw it up. He said he wants to do it next year & do it the right way at the City picnic. So we'll see. It might interest you to know that he said only 15 people came to the picnic in the woods, & some of them ate & then left before the rest of them started reading to each other.
As for me, after the parade, I had a good old time at the City picnic with my friends from the float. And when the firemen pulled the firetruck up to the park & let rip with the firehose, that was TOO much like heaven, let me tell you. I did drive thru the woods after leaving the park (the firemen turned off the hose, so we left) but I didn't find the other group, so I went home & chilled til it was time to go watch fireworks. And that's pretty much it. :)

[sahyo]

"strangers"? sonrisa

[sonrisa]

Yeah, some of them were. Not like fun anymore :unsure:



ps, happy B'day Asheera!! I hear tell it's some time in July! :)

[a random hack]

sonrisa,

Is it just my imagination (not that there's anything wrong with that :lol: :lol: ), or is your story appropriately metaphoric??
Enjoyed it immensely :D

[sahyo]

are
"strangers"?
;)


oh.....
mmmm.....hear tell???....
yes body july.......ummm....had forgotten, hehe
....thanks sweetnessing
:D

[sonrisa]

are strangers what, asheera? not following u.


Random, if you mean metaphoric in that these strangers hijacked our little action, rendering it irrelevant, & the Bushits hijacked the White House, rendering elections, the UN, & the Consitution irrelevant, then I do believe you have a point. I must say, I do admire the way you can keep with us Americans when we use these forums to bitch about our current events, & even inject a comment or two of your own. I don't think I could do likewise if the discussions were about Aussie current events. :blink:

[sahyo]

you? other? stranger? :)

[sonrisa]

no just strange :P

[a random hack]

You might be amazed how much US news we get here, I know I am.

Saw also the metaphor of illegal alien invasion with fear of takeover (the other side of the coin, if you like) in your reaction to the takeover. Not that I can say I never felt this way too :)

Well, you know what they say about missing meetings.... A few daze after that, somebody (NOT the organizer) circulated an APB stating that they were going to hold their own picnic ..... That's when the whole thing lost its appeal for me.

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by a random hack@Jul 6 2003, 12:29 PM

Saw also the metaphor of illegal alien invasion with fear of takeover (the other side of the coin, if you like) in your reaction to the takeover. Not that I can say I never felt this way too :)

Well, you know what they say about missing meetings.... A few daze after that, somebody (NOT the organizer) circulated an APB stating that they were going to hold their own picnic ..... That's when the whole thing lost its appeal for me.
Actually, it lost it's appeal for me when I found out that somebody I didn't know was in charge of the food. Not that I'm not inclusive towards strangers (maybe this will answer whatever Asheera was getting at as well) but a group of us who all know each other fairly well had been planning this thing for weeks, & then some of us couldn't make the final meeting (I found out later I wasn't the only one) so another group of people who had nothing to do with this until that Sun come along & put themselves in charge of it- ok I see what your getting at, the illegal invasion of Iraq & what passes for it's current puppet govt. Yeah, I guess you could say there's a metaphor there, hadn't really thought about it that way tho. hmmm. <_<


You might be amazed how much US news we get here. I know I am.

Oh really. Are you saying that Aussies don't do enough newsworthy stuff so y'all have to import your news? I don't believe that. :blink:

[Polaris]

Thanks for the 4th of July review Sonrisa. Sorry the rat's wazoo test didn't work out according to plan but it sounds like you had a good day regardless.

Interesting banter about the metaphorical qualities of your day. :)

We get a lot of US news here in Canada too, but of course we get all your TV channels so sometimes there's no avoiding, even if we try really hard!!

One thing I'll say, the difference from what we see on networks such a CNN and our own news networks, such at CBC Newsworld and CTV Newsnet makes for a very interesting comparison. For example, prior to the war on Iraq CNN and the like had headlines like "Countdown to War" or "Showdown Iraq" etc... even when they UN inspectors were still in Iraq hunting for weapons. The war was a fore-gone conclusion even before the UN had a chance to establish itself properly in Iraq. The American news was completely saturated with only one viewpoint on the situation. Being on the outside of that saturation in a country where we were still freely broadcasting a wide variety of news and opinions on the Iraqi situation from around the world, I think we may have had a broader view of it available to us and were able to establish decisions based on that broader view.

I've since had my suspicions of the level of saturation your news networks operate under when churning out their stories because I have talked to several sets of friends who are "snowbirds" in Florida and come back to Canada for summer. Their impression of the US news process was that the majority of Americans supported George Bush and the war in Iraq because they were not presented with any alternatives like those of us outside your country had.

Just a scary example of how much power the media has... and especially those who control it!!

[a random hack]

ok I see what your getting at, the illegal invasion of Iraq & what passes for it's current puppet govt. Yeah, I guess you could say there's a metaphor there, hadn't really thought about it that way tho.

See how easy this game is? :)
I was thinking more of the paranoia of citizens of rich countries against citizens of poor countries, specificly how 'they' want to share what 'we' have. And I'm not implying that was your thought process, as obviously, it was mine. Prolly prompted by current events in Oz.

Oh really. Are you saying that Aussies don't do enough newsworthy stuff so y'all have to import your news? I don't believe that.

So, you want a tape? You'll need a PAL compatable VCR...

Polaris,
I know what you mean regarding the war coverage. It just wasn't worth watching the commercial TV coverage here except to gauge the 'US' media attitude.
Our public stations were far superior, with coverage from al jezera (?) and coverage from other parts of the world not so beholden to 'big media'.
Interestingly, one of the ruling partys senatorial hacks (I can't believe I just used hack as a derogatory term :lol: )has been big-noting over the alledged anti-US coverage of the war by our biggest public media network, the glorious 'Auntie' ABC http://www.abc.net.au/

But I guess the perception of bias in public media is not new. :)

[Polaris]

Polaris,
I know what you mean regarding the war coverage. It just wasn't worth watching the commercial TV coverage here except to gauge the 'US' media attitude.
Our public stations were far superior, with coverage from al jezera (?) and coverage from other parts of the world not so beholden to 'big media'.
Interestingly, one of the ruling partys senatorial hacks (I can't believe I just used hack as a derogatory term )has been big-noting over the alledged anti-US coverage of the war by our biggest public media network, the glorious 'Auntie' ABC http://www.abc.net.au/

But I guess the perception of bias in public media is not new.

Same with our public stations (all two of them) They regularly had reports from independant sources around the world and it appeared to me that all aspects were being covered in full. At the time, it made perfect sense that Canada decided to not participate in the Iraq war because there was no evidence to prove such a war was warranted. As it turns out, there's STILL no evidence that such a war was warranted. I think that the reason the people of the US were so outraged by our decision is because to them there was overwhelming evidence that Iraq was an imminent threat to US interests with its weapons of mass destruction and Al Quada ties when is reality, neither threat has been proven even though they have had over 3 months of occupation in Iraq to find evidence.
<_<

[sonrisa]

Polaris, I'm not surprised that you would get US news & channels- broadcast airwaves know no political boundaries. I think that plays heavily into why the strongest concentrations of Americans against this illegal invasion are in the border states where they have access to the (more unbiased) Canadian channels. I agree our TV "coverage" (read propaganda) is inferior to what the rest of the world is getting, tho, ironically, the worst station is Fox News. It's so bad it's often spelled "Faux" News, & I believe Richie once referred it it as a redneck station, which pretty much sums it up. The irony is that Faux News is owned by Rupert Murdoch, & that makes me wonder, Random, how do the Murdoch stations stack up back home?

Our print media is getting a little better, Time & Newsweek magazines are starting to ask pointed questions about the necessity of this invasion. Every now & then something floats down from the Toronto Star. I think it all depends upon where you live. Here we are fortunate enough to have a fairly decent newsweekly (citybeat homepage (http://www.citybeat.com)) which prints both sides of the story.
In my opinion, the best place to get info- of any kind- is off the net. With so many places to pull info from why would anybody be happy being fed the crap on what passes for TV news in this country?

[Polaris]

Try this.

1. go to google.com
2. type in weapons of mass destruction
3. hit the I'm Feeling Lucky button instead of the usual search button
4. Read the "error" message carefully


Also, accessed through fiddling with various links available through the "error" page I found this page concerning the New York Times (http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/blair.html). I don't know how to access that one through Google though.

:lol:

Fox Network is good if you're looking to be entertained since it has lots of empty headed nonsense programming on it. I wouldn't go there for news though.
I thought TNN was the redneck network.? :)

[rich]

Ted Turner is married to Jane Fonda.

Jane Fonda is Public Enemy No.1 to the Red Necks.

If true, aren't they strange bed fellows? Or maybe, anyone married to

Jane Fonda, would become a red neck? Now, that is not nice to say about Jane is it?

I don't know? :unsure:

[sonrisa]

no Richie, that's not a nice thing to say about Jane. tsk,tsk. ;)

Polaris, you are confusing the Fox Network- a broadcast station which does have some good shows, tho the best (Married with Children & X-Files) are gone- with Faux News- a cable station which evidently your cable company wisely doesn't carry or you'd know the difference, believe me. TNN was bought by somebody who kicked the rednecks out. TNN now stands for The National Network. or something similar, & if your cable company doesn't carry it you should call them up & ask for it becuz they air Trek out the waz--, I mean rat's butt. :P
That's it!- it's Trek Nation Network! :D

[Polaris]

Ahh.,. right.. I've never heard of Faux Network. Good thing. We might get it up here if we got the full digital cable package,,, which we don't.

I miss X-Files and The Lone Gunmen. What on earth were they thinking by cancelling the Lone Gunmen and then killing the characters off on the finale of the X-Files? :( A travesty to be sure!! And as much as I liked Mulder I think they should have just ditched that whole "where's Mulder" story line and let Dogget and what's-her-name carry the show with whole Mulder/Scully business clogging up the works. Get back to dealing with good old fashioned x-files like in the early days. That show could have made it even with the new characters if they'd done that.

I don't know about TNN not being a redneck channel anymore. Yeah, they have Star Trek but it's diluted by shows like "American Gladiator", fishing shows, hunting shows and car/truck shows. My 17 year old son loves the truck show where they take already really expensive brand new trucks, put them on a hoist and make incredibly expensive "improvements" for the sake of "performance". <_<

[sonrisa]

TNN used to be alot worse when they aired stuff like I-40 Paradise. I'll take your word on the truck shows. I only watch TNN whenever I'm in the mood for some Trek- & it always seems to be on whenever I tune in there. Much as I like Picard & Co, they could mix it up with some Voyager & DS9 (Worf, double dose!) tho. In lieu of the truck crap perhaps? Today I was reading one of the many little weekly rags we have here, & somebody wrote a letter to the editor suggesting they print some of it en español. So far, reasonable. Then the dude went on to suggest that they print some of it in Klingon too! He said they should have an English/Klingon speaker on staff!! Seriously! So that was my laugh for the day! :D

I agree with you completely about the X-Files. They should of sent Mulder & Scully off (looking for their son, maybe?) & continued the show with Doggett & Reyes (whatsherame) They had a nice chemistry & could of carried the show just fine. As Trek's many incarnations prove, as long as you got good actors with chemistry between them, & good stories for them to act out, you can carry on same old same old ad infinitum- or at least for 30 odd years. :)
I liked the Lone Gunmen too & wished they hadn't killed them off- or their show. One thing I did like tho was when that Indian sent Mulder off to see the "shaman" in the old ruins- & it's Cigarette Man!! I nearly popped a rib I laughed so hard. Ah yes, I would LUV for the X-Files to come back..... :)

[sonrisa]

Polaris, that Google thing must be making the rounds, 2 people sent it to me in as many days... it is funny tho, I'll probably pass it on tomorrow.

ps You have to have a subscription to read the NY Times online- which is probably why you couldn't access the link.

[Polaris]

Actually I recieved it a couple of times too. :)


You have to have a subscription to read the NY Times online.

I usually read news on Google News once a day and I get stuff from all over the world. It's free and constantly being updated.

[sonrisa]

make that 3 people in as many daze. :)

You've been able to access the NY Times? To be honest, I haven't tried for awhile becuz every time I clicked on a link toone of their stories, I got routed to thier subscription page so I quit trying. I'll have to try one of their linx sometime.

[Polaris]

No, not the NY Times. But other news places from all around the world can be accessed through Google News. It's just nice to get a different perspective on a story from a place on the other side of the planet.

[rich]

Do any of you youngsters remember that song,
Barney Google, With His Goog-goo Googly Eyes?

After I post this, will try Google search for this, and find out how accurate Google really is. :lol:

[sonrisa]

NY isn't on the other side of the planet. Ok maybe not geographically, if state of mind however..... :rolleyes:

Ri chie, 2 things: a) you're showing your age! B)
b ) I can call up a foto of one of my Aunts on the Google & it looks like her, so I'd say it's pretty accurate.

[rich]

Originally posted by rich@Jul 11 2003, 01:17 AM
Do any of you youngsters remember that song,
Barney Google, With His Goog-goo Googly Eyes?

After I post this, will try Google search for this, and find out how accurate Google really is. :lol:

One site from Google search.

My Webpage (http://www.toonopedia.com)www.toonopedia.com/google.htm -

I thought everyone in this forum knew my age.

I was born in 1922, and still a kid at heart, unless
someone made me mad. :angry:
:D :P

Maybe one of your Aunt's is still a kid.

Anyone in their 70's or less is still a kid, relatively. ;)

[sonrisa]

as long as my Mom still breathes I'm somebody's kid! :)

[rich]

My mom died Dec 31st 1972.

When one is 81, no longer a baby, except when I am in my second childhood. :) B)

Sonrisa, are you a teen- ager? :lol: ;)

[sonrisa]

mentally, yeah :P

physically, another story :unsure:

[rich]

Physically another story?

You seem pretty perky, mentally.
OOPS, :o that is what you said.
Tell me the other story about physically,
sil vous plait. :D :)