Welcome to a new feature here at Marshall Art’s. This is something I’ve been wanting to begin for some time, but just couldn’t decide on the format. I vacillated between a variety of options. It was after I saw this video that I decided to just jump in and do it. As you can see by clicking the link, the video is entitled “Name the poison”. Another way to say this is, “call evil by its name”. It’s what is so desperately needed in this country these days, lest we suffer the consequences that befall those where good men have done nothing. (The video itself does not relate to this new feature, but is worth a visit, as is the blog that posted it.)
So here it is and I intend to present as the Spirit so moves me the lies that are put forth to sway public opinion toward a far greater moral decline than our nation as thus far suffered. They will be presented in no particular order regarding importance or potential for damage, as I believe them to be equal in their insidious effects. Blatant lies or slight twists of the facts. There’s no difference.
Some lies are sincerely held as truths, though claims of sincerity also raise suspicion. Some of these lies are simply what some so desperately want to believe that they then lie to themselves about just how sincerely they believe them.
So the agenda to which I refer in the title is that of the homosexual agenda. Therein lies the first lie I will cover in this series: “There is no agenda.”
I could point to the book “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s” by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, but the liars will pretend that the opinions of two homosexuals does not an agenda make. But it’s not as if they are the be all and end all of the agenda and the movement that seeks to implement it.
It’s really far simpler than that. Every homosexual wishes their desires and behaviors would be tolerated and accepted as normal and equal to heterosexual behaviors. THAT constitutes an agenda.
Of course that would not include those homosexuals who do NOT put their urges above reason and righteousness. Not all men allow their desires to consume them to the point of demanding others accept them. I have no doubt some homosexuals insist on rising above letting their desires rule their sense of right and wrong. We call such people “MEN”, or “MATURE ADULTS”.
But to insist there is no agenda is an outright and obvious lie. It doesn’t matter if a particular homosexual spends no time actively pursuing the goals of the agenda. But to pretend an agenda doesn’t exist, or that that same particular homosexual dares to insist one doesn’t exist is a lie. The danger of this lie is in the attitude it hopes to encourage. It is the same as saying there is no real danger of Islamofascism to our way of life. The level of danger and how that impact might be felt at any given moment is irrelevant. But as more people begin to believe that there is no danger, that there is no agenda, the easier it is for that danger/agenda to metastasize and become commonplace in our culture, to infect it and lower our standards of behavior and morality.
Marshal Art's 
"Of course I know what it means."Ma.. please.. for the love of God.. find a dictionary.
Your memory needs repair.."That wasn't even widespread in the 1700's"vs. "Apparently you believe that at any given time in American history, EVERYONE was racist and eager to lynch black people."Its "widespread" vs. EVERYONE.. Which is it Ma? You cant even keep your argument headed in the same direction.
"What asshole seeks marriage for tax bennies?"Its more than just tax breaks… Second, why let the govt. know we are married unless we got some sort of bonus for doing it?Ma.. you confuse getting married in your church with the govt. recognition of a "marriage".
Both of you buffoons seem to ignore the reason for the difference. Traditional marriage is something that the state, that is, the people, find to be worthy of support for the benefits it provides society. The fact that some marriages don't benefit anyone is besides the point and not worth suspending those benefits over. Homo marriage does not provide those benefits so they are undeserving of the same recognition by the state.And no, you could not find any serious, credible study that would counter that fact. I have no time at present to respond to your goofy arguments in more detail. That will have to wait. In the meantime, perhaps Parkie can provide evidence that I've used any word improperly for which he thinks I need a dictionary.
"Apparently you believe that at any given time in American history, EVERYONE was racist and eager to lynch black people. You're such a history buff."Ahh.. speaking of racists.. where is Mark when you need him?
"Traditional marriage is something that the state, that is, the people, find to be worthy of support for the benefits it provides society."You dont even have a point.
"I've used any word improperly.."I'll settle for you correctly understanding the word "normal". We've already been through this 100 times.
"The fact that some marriages don't benefit anyone is besides the point and not worth suspending those benefits over.""Homo marriage does not provide those benefits so they are undeserving of the same recognition by the state."Anybody else having a hard time reconciling these two sentence that appear in sequence in the same paragraph?
Jim wrote (among other things),"I happen to be a member of LCMS, a very conservative church. You know how often we discuss gays or gay marriage in sermons or any congregational event?Never. In ten years the subject has never come up. We care about how we live and love. We don't care how others choose to live and love. None of our marriages is diminished by gay sex or gay marriage. We are strong in our faith and in our commitments."Actually, your denomination discussed it quite seriously after the ELCA went to the dark side. It resolved to continue following Scripture's dictates on human sexuality and Its determination that homosexual behavior is sinful in all its forms. (Ask your pastor)I am still, for the time being, a member of one of the most liberal, homo affirming denominations and you know how many times we discuss gays or gay marriage in sermons or any congregational event? Pretty much never. Oh, it has happened, but not with any regularity. But I wrote that off to its overall liberal bent and it the penchant of liberal churches for ambiguity in their sermons. It's much more sad and pathetic to hear the same from a supposedly conservative outfit."We care about how we live and love."You do if you abide Scripture's teachings."We don't care how others choose to live and love."You do if you abide Scripture's teachings. If you are speaking of righteous living, at some point details must come up or one cannot get the message out. It's not necessary to point to the homos in the congregation, or the adulterers, or the fornicators, but to at least occasionally speak on what Scripture teaches on moral behavior would be sufficient. Few congregations, conservative or otherwise, do this anymore. That's part of the reason our culture has taken such a nosedive in the last 100 years. An important reason."None of our marriages is diminished by gay sex or gay marriage."How nice for you. But what a liar to insist that such is a concern of those of us who defend traditional marriage and God's Will on the subject. If the whole world turned homo tomorrow except for my wife and I, our marriage would not be affected. OUR marriage is not the institution of marriage. You can stop that foolishness for good now, Jim. "We are strong in our faith and in our commitments."Well, you're not strong in your faith OR your commitment to it if you pretend there is nothing wrong with homosexual behavior and actually support state recognition of it.
Now for the professional idiot, Parkie.First, about Judaism. To begin, idiot-boy said I considered it deviant, likely because of the percentage present in the country, or, more likely, because he's an ass who tries to be clever while failing with incredible consistency. But I didn't say that. I said the religion is worthless. He found where I said that, linked to it, but failed to speak of the context. The context is that there is only one way to salvation and Judaism doesn't have it. That makes it worthless for the Jew's hope for salvation. But Judaism isn't worthless as regards its benefit to society by those who practice seriously the teachings of that faith. The bottom line, though, is that I never claimed there was anything deviant about Judaism. I use that term as regards particular sexual behaviors."Oh my.. Ma.. I'm not the one re-defining a word.. simply pointing out that you dont know what "normal" means."You haven't once shown that I've used the term incorrectly. Not once. What's more, Craig provided a dictionary definition and with that to aid you, you have yet to show where my usage of the word departs from that definition. But here's an example that you have rejected without sound cause: There are two sexes, male and female, each of which is created to be biologically compatible and complimentary with each other. The attraction of one for the other is normal due to this biological dynamic. For a male to be attracted to a male for the purpose of engaging in sexual relations is not normal. The fact that such attractions exist, for whatever reason, does not make it normal. "Ma.. please.. for the love of God.. find a dictionary."You don't love God. If you can show how I've misused the word based on the word's definition, bring it. I don't need to misuse words because I do love God and His Truth enough that I'm confident in my proper usage of the words I select. More…because he loves being stupid
Here's a real winner by the loser, Parkie:""That wasn't even widespread in the 1700's"vs."Apparently you believe that at any given time in American history, EVERYONE was racist and eager to lynch black people."Its "widespread" vs. EVERYONE.. Which is it Ma? You cant even keep your argument headed in the same direction."Notice how in the first quote, I'm stating what I believe to be a fact. Racism wasn't widespread (by which I meant "total" or "through & through" or "every damned citizen of the country"). That's what I stated that I believe. Then, the idiot quotes me again, but in the second quote, I'm presenting what HE apparently believes, which is proven true by my use of the words "Apparently you believe". From this, where I laid out what apparently he believes about "EVERYONE" being racist in at any given time in American history, from this he concludes that I'm, what, contradicting myself? WHAT. AN. IDIOT!"Second, why let the govt. know we are married unless we got some sort of bonus for doing it?"You don't have to."Ahh.. speaking of racists.. where is Mark when you need him?"Mark is not a racist and you are totally incapable of proving otherwise. However, you are doing a bang-up job of proving you're an idiot. It seems effortless for you. You make it look so easy.""Traditional marriage is something that the state, that is, the people, find to be worthy of support for the benefits it provides society."You dont even have a point."…the idiot says after I've just made it. If you can't understand the point, just say so. Don't risk looking like an idiot. Of course, being an idiot, that might be difficult.
Almost forgot this, Jim:"Anybody else having a hard time reconciling these two sentence that appear in sequence in the same paragraph?"Good catch. Those two DO seem incongruous. That's what happens when one fails to resist the urge to respond when time does not allow a decent attempt. Now that I have the time, I'll restate it:Not every hetero marriage provides to society the benefits that studies show are bestowed by the average marriage situation. But the law isn't required to demand that every couple seeking marriage provides those benefits. It simply assumes it to a degree, hopes for it to another and despite sometimes being disappointed still sees traditional marriage as worthy of its support. It's interest is in promoting the ideal, not demanding the ideal be met.With homos, however, the ideal cannot be met. It is not the same dynamic, it has not shown to be worthy of support and studies show this is true. The same can be said for incestuous or polygamous arrangements and thus, THEY are not supported. However, the gov't does NOT step in and prevent a man and woman from living together and even having kids together. They do NOT step in and prevent ANYONE from living together in a marital-like arrangement. Thus, they are not "banned". The gov't simply refuses to acknowledge these other arrangements as having equal benefit to society. That's because they DON'T and forcing such acceptance won't change that.
One more thing for Parkie. There is limited time for you to become an actual contributor at this blog. You continue to post idiocies and inanities, but never anything of substance, never anything meriting respectful responses. Thus, the time is quickly approaching when you will have gained the dubious distinction of being the first joker banned from Marshall Art's. If you could at least be funny, you might stand a chance. But you're never funny. Never witty. Never clever. Only stupid and idiotic, as if that is your purpose in life, which if it is, congratulations on your incredible success. From this point, I don't imagine you will be able to resist another stupid comment that exposes your worthlessness. That's too bad. I hope you'll prove me wrong. Any comment of yours that stands longer than a few hours will be such proof. No one will hold their breath. You're obviously keen on achieving this distinction, likely thinking that it puts me out to go through the effort to ban assholes. It's really, really a small price to pay to keep your stench from tainting this blog. But the extent to which you've bored me is beyond my ability to express, or perhaps I'm simply too bored to do so. I'm thinkin' this is "good-bye". You're too much the unrepentant asshole for me to expect any other alternative. I feel a final straw on its way…
"stupidly""idiot-boy""stupid""IDIOT""stupid and idiotic""assholes"…..:(
"First, about Judaism. To begin, idiot-boy said I considered it deviant, likely because of the percentage present in the country, or, more likely, because he's an ass who tries to be clever while failing with incredible consistency. But I didn't say that. I said the religion is worthless."vs. "The bottom line, though, is that I never claimed there was anything deviant about Judaism."
""stupidly""idiot-boy""stupid""IDIOT""stupid and idiotic""assholes""Parkie doesn't seem to enjoy the appropriate use of these terms directed at him despite his efforts to prove them appropriate. What he wishes wasn't true is that these words accurately describe his behavior and the types of comments he leaves here. There are others that leave comments with which I disagree, but few who are worthy of these descriptions as a matter of routine. Jim's recent comments have been very Parkie-like, but generally his are merely wrong-headed. Parkie's are always (pick from the list above). Time's running out. Parkie's banning seems assured.
Regarding Parkie's last comment of 12:45 PM, he's once again lacking a point and/or an explanation. He again seems to be trying to insist that "deviant" is the same as "worthless" in order to accuse me (wrongly of course) of indicting Judaism as a deviant behavior or belief. What a sad case he is. And he believes I'm the one in need of a dictionary! As Parkie the idiot-boy would say, "LOL!"Of course, Parkie may be speaking from a position of experience. Only he knows just how deviant he is, and add that to his obvious worthlessness as evidenced by his substance-free commentary, and he may be having trouble distinguishing between the two words. Being both deviant and worthless, he may view the words as synonymous. Keep him in your prayers after he's banned.
"But I didn't say that. I said the religion is worthless."I'll have to agree with you on this, MA. Not only did you not say deviant; the meanings of the words are quite different.Having said that, the mere fact that you have referred to one or several of the world's major religions as worthless, I suggest makes you deviant, bigoted and ignorant.
"He again seems to be trying to insist that "deviant" is the same as "worthless" in order to accuse me (wrongly of course) of indicting Judaism as a deviant behavior or belief." umm… not really my point. But, thanks for catching that. btw.. I thought I was already banned? Does this make me the first person in MA history to be banned twice?
"There are others that leave comments with which I disagree, but few who are worthy of these descriptions as a matter of routine."lol.. WWJXD?
"Having said that, the mere fact that you have referred to one or several of the world's major religions as worthless, I suggest makes you deviant, bigoted and ignorant."No, Jim. It makes me a Christian with a clear understanding of the consequences of following other religions and not Christ. What do they teach in your so-called "conservative" church? That Jesus is only one to salvation? There's two possibilities here, Jim. 1) You don't understand the faith to which you claim membership, or 2) Your particular congregation is entirely lame and less than accurate in the teaching of the faith. I'm thinking it's likely #1.Furthermore, Jim, you obviously aren't reading my comments in their entirety, you're purposely ignoring what I've written, or you're a twit. If you had paid attention, you'd know that I explained what I meant by "worthless", and that was that it is worthless for achieving salvation. As far as the benefits to society of a solid Jew who adheres to the teachings of his faith, there is much value. These are two distinctly different situations. One speaks of the religion's worth to our society, and the other to the Jew himself. If you think you can explain what is deviant, bigoted or ignorant about my position, bring it. But keep this in mind: The Jesus Christ you claim to follow as a member of the Lutheran denomination said that He is the only Way to the Father. If you can keep this in mind, what worth is there for one who does NOT follow Him?
Troll-boy,"umm… not really my point. But, thanks for catching that."Who you crappin'? You never have a point, except to mock, and you don't do that very well at all. One needs to be clever. You're not."lol.. WWJXD?"Again, who you crappin'? You don't have the slightest care for what Jesus would do. You think you're making a point by asking the question here? Why? Have I ever claimed to be a perfect example of Christendom? Have I ever feigned piety or sanctimony like Dan Trabue? Sure, I consider myself a believer in Christ. That doesn't mean you're not an idiot, an asshole, stupid and any other word on that list and then some. That just makes me truthful for stating what is. I'd much prefer you'd change your ways and be less of an asshole, but you seem intent on being the best asshole you can be. What would Jesus do? First, He'd very possibly call you on using His name in vain. Secondly, He'd call you a name of His own choosing, as He called Pharisees "vipers" and "hypocrites", for example. And He, too, would hope you'd come around, for the sake of your own salvation.
"It makes me a Christian with a clear understanding of the consequences of following other religions and not Christ."Sooo.. you're scared of JC. Thats one way to live. "As far as the benefits to society of a solid Jew who adheres to the teachings of his faith, there is much value."What about other faiths? What about having no faith? What about you?"You're not."See.. your faith is lacking. "who you crappin'?"lol.. what is that even supposed to mean? Can you cut the Ebonics for two seconds and join the rest of us in the real world."Have I ever claimed to be a perfect example of Christendom?"Ma.. the problem is you judge and judge and judge. Then cant take the slightest bit of criticism. Worse, you dont even try to be a better person or Christian. For once.. just one time in your life.. stand up and take some responsibility. Please.. for the love of God."First, He'd very possibly call you on using His name in vain."First.. there is no vain, unless you're upset at the added "X", which, if so, would be funny. "He'd call you a name of His own choosing, as He called Pharisees "vipers" and "hypocrites", for example."Wonderful. Following somebody that cant even follow his own advice. Try not to get lost in the wilderness Ma.
According to MA's skewed definition of agenda, here's an original agenda:"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…"
Feo, Declaration of Independence doen't trump the Bible according to MA though, right? 🙂
Feo and Jim,The preamble is not the agenda of the Declaration. Nice try, though. (Not really)
BTW, Jim. NOTHING trumps the Bible. Real Christians everywhere agree. Know any?
Foolish little Parkie,"Sooo.. you're scared of JC. Thats one way to live."Not scared at all. I'm a follower, in my own imperfect way. I know who He is and what He's done for me and accept Him as my Savior. I'm not scared. I'm grateful, blessed and saved. You? You're an idiot."What about other faiths? What about having no faith? What about you?"What about adding something substantive, troll? I have very little faith that you're capable."See.. your faith is lacking."Wrong again, nitwit. I have NO faith in you whatsoever. Only hope without cause. I take that back. I have total faith that you will take every opportunity to prove you're an idiot. You haven't failed me yet."lol.. what is that even supposed to mean?"It means you're full of crap. Should have been obvious even to an idiot like yourself."Ma.. the problem is you judge and judge and judge. Then cant take the slightest bit of criticism. Worse, you dont even try to be a better person or Christian. For once.. just one time in your life.. stand up and take some responsibility. Please.. for the love of God"Whoa! Look at little troll-boy getting all huffy! The difference, fool, is that you judge me for judging behaviors. Notice the distinction, or do I have to draw you a picture? And what do you know of how I live my life? You think you know me because of how I respond to your constant provocations? You certainly don't get any clues from my posts, because you haven't the brains to understand the point, and simply spew the usual childish lefty "judgements" against virtues and morality that you don't have the spine to adopt in your own life. As far as taking responsibility… for what, exactly? If you think you can show anywhere I've gone wrong in the things about which I post, try actually laying out a case that shows you have a clue. In the meantime, I'll continue to stand up and repeat the obvious, that you're a freakin' idiot and nothing but a troll with an incredible lack of wit or intelligence. NEVER have you attempted to stick your neck out and actually discuss an issue. You're worthless."First.. there is no vain, unless you're upset at the added "X", which, if so, would be funny."First…you're an idiot. There is plenty of "vain" every time you type things like "for the love of God", or "WWJD" with or without the "X", which isn't funny, just sad like all your other weak attempts at humor. You obviously don't understand what it means to take His name in vain. But as one with no belief in the Almighty, any mention of Him by you is taking His name in vain unless you're looking to truly and seriously discuss Him, or, be still my heart, repent and be saved. I won't hold my breath for the latter as you aren't that bright."Wonderful. Following somebody that cant even follow his own advice."Like others, such as Dan, you can't distinguish between what is permissible for us and what is permissible for Him. You apparently don't understand how your prove your stupidity by trying to pretend you can use the faith against me. You don't have clue one about Christianity, so you childish attempts won't work here. So now I've got a stupid question for you: Got any other idiotic things to say?
"Not scared at all.".. he says hiding in his Moms basement. "What about adding something substantive"Dodge.. “I have NO faith”.. “I take that back.” .. “I have total faith”Flip.. flop.."Should have been obvious even to an idiot like yourself."Oh.. Im not sure if I made this clear enough.. I don’t speak Ebonics. Please translate."Whoa! Look at little troll-boy getting all huffy!"Lol.. ma.. One thing you are very good at is jumping to conclusions. "The difference, fool"Lol.. the difference is you pretend to be Christian."You think you know me"Omg.. ma.. I don’t want to know you."lefty "judgements" against virtues and morality".. judgments.. are best done by people like you. Your version of morality is antiquated. "don't have the spine to adopt in your own life"Such as? My inability to be homophobic. I think I’m doomed! Ma, you hating gay people doesn’t make you stronger than anybody else. "As far as taking responsibility… for what, exactly?"Well. For being anti-gay or the lazy name calling. Or, really what I was talking about was your comments saying that you are imperfect. Which is good, but man-up (umm.. or so they say). "I'll continue to stand up and repeat the obvious"Are you going to cry? Besides, why would you ever think I care about your opinion? "There is plenty of vain"Umm.. no there isn’t. "But as one with no belief in the Almighty, any mention of Him by you is taking His name in vain unless you're looking to truly and seriously discuss Him"Ok? Glad you could make up the rules as we go along. The more and more you discuss your interpretation of the Bible, the more it seems to be filled with double standards.Besides.. who said I have no belief in the Almighty?"You apparently don't understand how your prove your stupidity"Lol.. ma.. Im not as naïve as you are. I am aware that I fall into the trap that allows you to feel better about yourself. The trap that “proves” to yourself that you don’t want to accept people different than yourself. And yes.. you know far more about the bible than I do. But, that is relevant… how?. So, we can call it even.
Marshall, it seems to me that a declaration of any kind has an agenda. Or it's not a declaration of anything. Notice, for instance, in the sample text below what immediately follows the clause where something needs to DECLARED:"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.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…"EPIC FAIL
More fun with the troll:".. he says hiding in his Moms basement."Unlike yourself, I don't live with my mother. You're projecting.""What about adding something substantive"Dodge.."No dodge, little troll. What need is there to speak specifically on any other faith tradition that does not worship Christ as Lord and Savior? The end result will be similar. Dodge? You wish."“I have NO faith”.. “I take that back.” .. “I have total faith”Flip.. flop.."If you say so, pathetic one. But note that both positions are really the same…you're an idiot. I have no faith in your improving on that, but I do have faith that you'll continue to prove you're an idiot. Yeah. That's a definite flip-flop. Uh huh."Lol.. the difference is you pretend to be Christian.""LOL!" Not pretending here, sad excuse. You insist that if I claim to be a Christian, that I must be a clone of Christ or I'm lying or pretending. But we both know that this is just a ruse so that you can carry on with your asshole remarks without consequence. As I said, the false piety and psuedo-sanctimony is Dan's forte, not mine. "Omg.. ma.. I don’t want to know you."I can live with that. It's your loss, not mine.".. judgments.. are best done by people like you. Your version of morality is antiquated."There are none so judgmental as a lefty. Libs like yourself stand in judgement of conservatives and Christians who support morality and virtue. What's more, morality cannot be "antiquated". Libs like yourself choose to believe that morality is man-made and thus is malleable by the will and desires of other men. That's what makes you morally bankrupt. Conservatives and conservative Christians believe morality is fixed, ever present and either something to which we adhere or something we ignore, which is what you and those like you do. It is quite similar to the preamble that is not an agenda but lists unalienable rights. Rights that exist not because of men, but because of Nature's God. Morality is the same. It cannot be out of fashion. Only basing one's life on morality can be out of fashion. Morality is constant. It is only out of fashion for the self-obsessed left. So my "version" of morality is morality. Period. You simply ignore and reject it for whatever idiotic reasons suit you. More fun with the troll…
…is here:"Such as? My inability to be homophobic. I think I’m doomed!Ma, you hating gay people doesn’t make you stronger than anybody else."Well, you're doomed, all right. I'd wager big bucks on that unless you repent of your asshole ways. Until then, it would be fun to see you try to prove I'm either "homophobic" or a hater of homosexuals. That would be interesting if you could muster the nerve to risk. Pardon me if I don't hold my breath.""As far as taking responsibility… for what, exactly?"Well. For being anti-gay or the lazy name calling. Or, really what I was talking about was your comments saying that you are imperfect. Which is good, but man-up (umm.. or so they say)."I don't see how you can say that I don't take responsibility for being anti-homosexual agenda. I talk about it openly all the time. I'm right up front in speaking out on the lies upon which the agenda is based, the sinfulness of the behavior, the abnormal condition of homosexual attraction…what more do you want? I mean besides joining in the stupidity of supporting homosexual behavior, that is. And what do you mean by "lazy-name calling"? Is there a labor intensive way to call people names? Truly, I call you what your words demand you be called. If you acted like a gentleman (assuming you're a male—I have no idea), a gentleman is how I'd label you. I could not help myself. But as you continue to act like an asshole…there's really no effort required. You are referred to by the name your words suggest. You name yourself by your words here. AS to my imperfections, I don't know how you'd expect anyone to manifest any effort in self-improvement on a blog. I own up to my imperfections. I don't pretend they don't exist. I don't defend them to avoid critiques based on them. In my own life, I work to eliminate them as best as I can. I don't gauge my success in that endeavor by the standards set for me by people who are themselves in need of improvement, and thus have no room to dare point fingers, such as yourself. So bite me.""I'll continue to stand up and repeat the obvious"Are you going to cry? Besides, why would you ever think I care about your opinion?"I don't understand what makes you think I might cry. As to you caring about my opinions, your constant visits are proof that you do.
Still more fun…""There is plenty of vain"Umm.. no there isn’t."Yeah. There is. Plenty of it, too, since you never pray here or speak much about Him here. All your comments that include Him are examples of your poor attempts at wit. You never speak His name with any hint of reverence."Ok? Glad you could make up the rules as we go along. The more and more you discuss your interpretation of the Bible, the more it seems to be filled with double standards."I don't make up the rules, but I do know what they are. Any time you'd like to risk showing examples that I engage in double-standards, that would be a real treat. Got the nerve? "Besides.. who said I have no belief in the Almighty?"Oh, please. Show that you do. Thus far, you've demonstrated a complete lack of it."Im not as naïve as you are. I am aware that I fall into the trap that allows you to feel better about yourself. The trap that “proves” to yourself that you don’t want to accept people different than yourself. And yes.. you know far more about the bible than I do. But, that is relevant… how?. So, we can call it even."????First, I'm not naive. Thus, you cannot be less so than I.Next, nothing you do has any effect on how I feel about myself. Are you that full of yourself to believe such could be possible?Then, what makes you think I have a problem with people different than myself. No one is like me. No two people are alike. I deal with differences between myself and others daily. I generally ignore differences except where those differences are harmful behaviors, either to themselves or others. I know YOU choose to believe that those who willfully engage in bad behavior are merely "different", but that's your corrupted sense morality talking (assuming you have any sense of morality at all).If indeed I do know the Bible better than you do, it has no relevance at all if you do not avail yourself of whatever knowledge you might glean here. None whatsoever. I don't see any way to call us even on any issue. You don't expound on your opinions at all on any issue, except to crap on my opinions in the most boring and unenlightening manner possible. All I can glean from you is that somehow, you don't agree with me. You don't say why, you don't offer any support in any fashion, you just disagree. Even? How can that even be possible?That's about it. Got any more (he asks knowing the answer)? I've got to show Feodor why he's goofy.
Feodor,"Marshall, it seems to me that a declaration of any kind has an agenda."Does it really seem so?"I declare, Miss Annabelle, you have the brightest blue eyes!" Oh, yeah! HE might have an agenda, but it isn't evident merely by the declaration. In fact, he might be a homosexual who is just fascinated by Annie's bright blue eyes."Or it's not a declaration of anything."Except of the fact that Miss A has bright blue eyes. A declaration of independence simply declares (to make known formally, officially, or explicitly) one's position or one's intentions. How one goes about achieving those intentions is the agenda. An agenda is a list of things to be done. A declaration is a formal announcement. The preamble you first posted is NOT an agenda. You could say that it was on the founders' agenda to first declare their independence, but that declaration isn't itself an agenda. All that education, all those books, and all you can do is fail in an epic manner. So sad.
In case anyone's forgotten, the post here is about the lie of the homosexuals that they have no agenda. Feel free to comment on that, too.
Marhsall, I'm afraid that you're not having been friends in life with a dictionary or the principles that reign in dictionaries has resulted in pretty simple mistake.Among the varied meanings of the word, declare, you're exhibiting one that has nothing to do with declaration.Your failure is now, first, of understanding what you are talking about (Epic) and, second, failure to be aware of varied definitions of a word (merely tragic).I know your book and intellect averse. But please buy AND look into a dictionary.
"I declare, Miss Annabelle, you have the brightest blue eyes!"I'm pretty sure Ma is drunk."the post here is about the lie of the homosexuals that they have no agenda."lol.. have you been paying attention? You act like having an agenda is a bad thing."Yeah. There is."Umm.. no there isnt. "you never pray here"Ma.. there is no "here" here. Fyi.. I pray everyday for you. "Oh, please. Show that you do. Thus far, you've demonstrated a complete lack of it."Once again.. youre upset that my set of beliefs is different than yours. Ma.. again.. put on your man-pants and growup."Next, nothing you do has any effect on how I feel about myself. Are you that full of yourself to believe such could be possible?"Lol. ma.. Are you a real person?"I generally ignore differences except where those differences are harmful behaviors, either to themselves or others."omg.. ma.. How do you balance all these conflicting ideas in your head?"I don't see any way to call us even on any issue."haha.. I dont either.. Btw.. California is now allowing gay history in schools. Can you imagine? History being taught in history class!"You don't say why, you don't offer any support in any fashion, you just disagree."Right back at you! Oh right.. you hide behind a really old book. Sounds logical to me.
For both feodor and the troll-boy:It would really be helpful if you could provide an alternate or better definition of words you believe I don't understand and a link to the source you use to prove your point. Simply saying I need a dictionary when I already use the words properly is childishness on your part. Indeed, showing exactly how I exhibit that I "don't know what I'm talking about" would go a long way toward demonstrating that you do. It's clear you don't like what I say. I get that. Furthermore, regardless of whether or not a word indeed has multiple or varied definitions, I rarely, if ever, use words here in a manner that is not in line with common usage and understanding. So, if you truly believe, and believe in a manner that will not provoke laughter and bemused amazement, that my understanding of the words "declare", "declaration" and/or "agenda" have not been used appropriately, prove it. Then, try to show how the preamble of your first post is an agenda, or that a declaration is an agenda at the same time. I await the entertainment your sorry attempts will no doubt provide.
More fun with trolls:"I'm pretty sure Ma is drunk."That would be funny…if it was."have you been paying attention? You act like having an agenda is a bad thing."Yes, I've been paying attention. You haven't spoken on the point of the post at all, that I can recall without re-reading every painfully stupid post you've offered. What's more, there is nothing in any of my comments that would suggest to anyone of even low intelligence that I have acted like having an agenda is a bad thing. Is there no limit to your stupidity? The point is whether or not one exists for the homo lobby. One does indeed and THAT agenda is indeed a bad thing for them and for us."Fyi.. I pray everyday for you."Pardon me if I'm not convinced you even pray at all. I certainly hope you do. Pray for forgiveness for supporting that which God calls sinful."Once again.. youre upset that my set of beliefs is different than yours. Ma.. again.. put on your man-pants and growup."Wrong again, Sparky. I'm not upset at all, only bored more than I can say. But the fact is that you never speak of your beliefs, other than demonstrating that you don't agree with me. That tells me so very little (likely a good thing) about what you believe. You obviously don't own man-pants and refuse to grow-up as evidenced by your consistent lack of substance in your comments. Stick your pencil-neck out a bit, troll, and state your case in a mature and reasoned fashion. THEN you can dare to question the manhood of others. Droll and witless comments of the type for which you seek fame ain't gettin' it done."Are you a real person?"No. My comments are spontaneously generated by a rogue computer. Idiot."How do you balance all these conflicting ideas in your head?"As shown by the above "flip-flop" accusation, you're not really good at identifying conflicting ideas. "Btw.. California is now allowing gay history in schools. Can you imagine? History being taught in history class!"Irrelevant and insignificant information will serve no child. The sexual perversions of an inventor have no importance as regards his invention. Only a morally bankrupt lefty would believe otherwise. The key here is whether or not these giants of education will focus on matters of true importance, or rather, as I have no doubt they will, inflate the importance of events, actions or influence of homosexuals in order to push the agenda that it is normal and morally benign behavior. The moral decline of our culture continues at a quickening pace thanks to fools like yourself.""You don't say why, you don't offer any support in any fashion, you just disagree."Right back at you! Oh right.. you hide behind a really old book."Now you're just a lying. I always provide support and will provide more as the goofy counterpoints of lefty visitors might provoke. And I don't "hide" behind the Bible. What a stupid way to put it. That's like saying that I hide behind a mathematics text because I defend the truth that 2+2=4.You really should give it up, Parkie. You're not equipped for this form of joust. If you want real discussion of our differences, I'm here for you. If you just want to trade quips, your time is short and getting shorter.
Why do you always want me to do your intellectual spadework?I refuse! I draw a line in the sand. I am like Eric Cantor in yesterday's crisis meeting: my lips are sealed. I cannot solve your problems.
"Now you're just a lying. I always provide support and will provide more as the goofy counterpoints of lefty visitors might provoke. And I don't "hide" behind the Bible. What a stupid way to put it. That's like saying that I hide behind a mathematics text because I defend the truth that 2+2=4."LOL.. Omg.. I havent laughed that hard in a long long time.
"THEN you can dare to question the manhood of others."Sooooo.. you're not going to step-up? Thought so.
Feodork asked:"Why do you always want me to do your intellectual spadework?"I've never asked you to do anything for me, as if I can't do my own work for myself. I've asked that you back up your lame accusations with something tangible, like proof, for example. I am well aware of the meanings of words I use. In fact, if there is any doubt in my mind about the actual meaning of a word I intend to use, I do actually look it up so that my meaning is clear and my intentions are plain. But you, you horse's ass, come here and claim I don't understanding a word you try to use improperly, claiming it is I who is so misguided, but you offer nothing to prove it, nor do you offer any explanation as to how I went wrong. The point here, and I take these extra pains because you highly educated lefties need pictures painted for you, is that if you intend to counter anything I've said, you need to prove your point. I'm not the one who has to research your claims against my position. That is not my "spadework", idiot. It is YOURS, since you're the one making the counter argument. The fact is you've made a fool of yourself and are trying to weasel out of admitting it or proving your idiocy is legitimate. You're not too shabby at sounding intellectual. But you're a far cry from being intellectual. All that education. All those books. How pathetically sad.
Troll-boy,I've deleted your more idiotic comments. Looks like I'll be deleting further comments from you until you get a spine and an actual thought and express something that, even if it isn't intelligent, might sound intellectual like feodor does. It would at least show some effort at actual discussion rather than your usual offerings of stupidity. I left two comments to which I will respond:"Sooooo.. you're not going to step-up? Thought so."I have a few hundred posts now at this blog. I've given my opinion on many things and have stood in to support those opinions at every turn. Step up? You've got to be a retard. And here's evidence:"LOL.. Omg.. I havent laughed that hard in a long long time."The constant "LOL" with nearly every comment indicates mental defect. You laugh, or claim to, but NEVER indicate in any way why what you "LOL" at is worthy of derision. You're a clinical idiot. What's so funny? When will YOU step up and defend whatever it is you think you believe, or at least why you disagree? C'mon, chicken-shit. Get off momma's lap and man up for a change. I can assure you I won't run away. But I tell you again, you're time is running short. Tick-tock, wuss.
I declare, Marshall, I don't understand how Parklife deserves your erasure when you've put up with me for so long.I declare, Marshall, take a look at the distinction of the verb, declare, having an object (like #3, i.e., "I declare, you have blue eyes") and not having an object (like #8, i.e., making a declaration.)FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL EPIC FAILde·clare [dih-klair]verb, -clared, -clar·ing.–verb (used with object)1.to make known or state clearly, especially in explicit or formal terms: to declare one's position in a controversy.2.to announce officially; proclaim: to declare a state of emergency; to declare a winner.3.to state emphatically: He declared that the allegation was a lie.4.to manifest; reveal; show: Her attendance at the rally declared her political allegiance.5.to make due statement of, especially goods for duty or income for taxation.6.to make (a dividend) payable.7.Bridge . to bid (a trump suit or no-trump).–verb (used without object)8.to make a declaration.9.to proclaim oneself (usually followed by for or against ): He declared against the proposal.10.Cricket . (of a team) to surrender a turn at bat in an innings before ten players are put out.
You're right, feo. You"FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL EPIC FAIL"Not once, in any of those definitions of the word "declare" do we see any relation to the word "agenda". That was your position, that the Declaration is an agenda, that preamble of said Declaration is an agenda. Your comment is pasted here:"According to MA's skewed definition of agenda, here's an original agenda:"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…""You have yet to show how my definition of agenda is in any way skewed, OR how you've presented an agenda by the excerpt you pasted. Failure, your name is "feodor".
"Not once, in any of those definitions of the word "declare" do we see any relation to the word "agenda"."Actually, I think #7 would fit.
Not a bridge player, Jim. I'll have to take your word for it.
Marshall, you're always forgetting the steps you've taken in the conversation (a good strategy for you would be to reread the comment thread before you attempt a response). You thereby create large gaps in the logic of your responses. This results in leading your even weaker readers astray, such as Craig.Witness:1. I quoted the Declaration of Independence which argues, as its agenda, that people have unalienable rights endowed by the Creator that cannot be ignored without social and political conflict. I thought you could have read the Declaration and gotten this simple sense, but I assumed too much.2. I did not know that you, with your nose too stuck to the ground, would follow the word "declare" in the Declaration right off the map of its use of "declare" as in declaration (without an object) into your use of "declare" which, as is now pointed out, a different sense (with an object, i.e., blue eyes).3. So, I had to teach you that your use of the word "declare" was not related to a declaration – therefore having no role to play in the agendas of declaration. You've now confused yourself in that you think I think the word "declare" itself is supposed to have an agenda. If you read again – perhaps too large a burden for you to bear – you'll not find that.4. It is the phenomenon of declarations that have agendas, and the agenda of the Declaration of Independence is announced by and immediately follows the phrase which includes the word "declare: "declare the causes which impel them to the separation."So:5. The word "declare" has several senses. Your example is not the sense in which it is uses in the Declaration of Independence, as I have precisely demonstrated.6. The word as used in the Declaration of Independence is used in the sense of making a declaration.7. Declarations have agendas: to communicate, in a formal way, a or several reasoned point(s).8. Among the points constituting the agenda of the Declaration of Independence, but not the first, is that all persons are endowed with unalienable rights.9. I seem to hear a devaluation of whatever passages are thought to be included in what you call the Preamble. You'll notice, Marshall, that the text as written, and the text as our Founding Fathers printed it, nowhere writes, prints or mentions any concept that the document has a "preamble." Indeed, the first 90% of it is one long paragraph.[I hope you can follow this precision, but, to be safe, please reread a few times.]10. Lastly, and the original reason I introduced the Declaration of Independence in the first place is to agree with you that the GLBT community does indeed have an agenda. One that the Declaration of Independence shares: "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."Thus, your EPIC and HISTORIC FAIL.
feodor,"preamble: A preliminary statement, especially the introduction to a formal document that serves to explain its purpose."Yeah, though that first comment of yours doesn't necessarily refer to itself as a preamble, it is without a doubt a part of one. Indeed, Wikipedia refers to it as, "the famous preamble" (note: under "Text"; "The next section…"). What it is most definitely not is an agenda. And despite your weak attempts to parse words finely enough to match your incorrect definitions, a declaration is that which is declared. The D of I declares the grounds for seeking independence, self-evident truths, a list of grievances justifying the declaration, disappointments with their sovereign and there exists "conditions under which people must change their government". Yet, despite your frantic and desperate wishes to the contrary, no agenda for achieving anything. It is, merely, a declaration of independence. And "agenda" is, to make it easy for you to understand, a "to do" list. Declaring their independence may have been on an agenda, but isn't itself an agenda. So, to most of your list:1) The only thing that is simple is you and Parkie. 2) You have yet to show that my understanding of the words "declare" and "declaration" is incorrect. Your saying so is not proving anything but your own stupidity, as my usage is correct indeed.3) You've taught me nothing I did not already know about both words from #2, as well as what an idiot you are. You have reiterated the latter, however, quite well. Good job.4) You almost have a point here. To separate is an agenda point, but is far too generally stated to actually be an agenda in and of itself. An agenda would comprise steps to separate from Great Britain. At the same time, the declaration only states that they are declaring their independence or separation, not how they intend to achieve that, which would be an agenda. So close, but still an epic fail on your part, not mine.5) Again, you've demonstrated nothing by merely saying so. As I said, the declaration merely declares their independence. 6) This point is especially stupid. The Declaration of Independence IS the founders making a declaration. Duh!7) There is no "agenda" in the D of I. It is declaring their independence, their separation from GB. An agenda states what one intends to do. They are declaring what they are doing. How they are going to accomplish that will be an agenda as well.8) That, too, is a declaration. It's not an agenda. Stating that we are endowed by our Creator with rights is a declaration of a fact that serves as the premise upon which they will declare independence. It is NOT an agenda as the statement does not indicate what they will do, but what is. Boy! you're desperate!9) More stupidity that is somewhat explained above. They don't need to label the section as a preamble for it to be one.10) You could have easily done this without going through so much effort to show how stupid you are. A simple "I agree. They do have an agenda." would have sufficed and demonstrated the possibility that you aren't 100% full of shit. But it obviously must be on your personal agenda to make every comment a public declaration of how you've wasted time reading books and money going to universities. And BTW, homos have not been deprived of any of those unalienable rights despite their protestations to the contrary. They've been denied only that which others would be denied. Nothing more.