Please

Please practice what you preach. If  you urge people to respect free speech in the public arena you should also respect that free speech in your private area. If you urge people to make, mine, or grow things, then you should make mine, or grow something. If you urge people to get married young and have lots of children, you should have married young and have lots of children.

 

Practice what you preach. Unless you are a hypocrite, unless you are holding yourself up as an example of what not to do.

 

The Lord will know us by the company that we keep. I am done keeping company with hypocrites.

 

Neo is no hypocrite. I assure anyone reading that is not the case.

 

I also assure anyone that Watson the first, second, or the third is no hypocrite. Nor is Casper, nor are any of the Pitchfork crew. Not even Mitchthekid. None of them are hypoctrites. Filthy dirty stinking hipster communists yes. Hypocrites no.

 

What did Our Lord and Savior do with hypocrites? Hint. It’s in a book we all should be reading and you can find it in that book. No spoilers from me. Maybe Jer will tell you, he is a better Minister than I’ll ever be.

 

I am done with authoritarians,. It does not matter if they reside at Blogs4Victory or at the DaileyKos.

2 cents people, 2 cents.

Advertisements

47 thoughts on “Please

  1. neocon01

    borrowed…
    “” I’d like to remind readers of this blog that we do not delete comments for any reason unless requested to do so, or in the case of errant information or potentially actionable cases of libel; ”
    YUP!

    Reply
    1. neocon01

      Not even Mitchthekid

      well now…….I wouldnt go that far….. but he is a %$^&#@$^%$ azzahola LOLola as well as what else you said!!

      Reply
  2. GMB Post author

    I stand by my ” Filthy dirty stinking hipster communist” comment. I guess I could add rotten and smelly but that would be overkill. 😛

    Just for the record, I am not offended in the least by the use of curse words. Spell them out exactly as you mean them. What do you think I am, some kind of remf? :O I am sure that cluster, amazona, babcock, and sundry others consider me an asshole.

    Nor am I offended if you spell out the word God. God is what he is. God is not his name.

    I have free speech, you have free speech, Jer has free speech and even “” Filthy dirty stinking hipster communists” have free speech here.

    I am going to do my best to practice what I preach.

    Reply
    1. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots)

      Spell out G-d if we wish?
      Mighty magnanimous of you, however be it known that there is only one G-d; so in reference to Him the three little letters are synonymous with His Name. The reason we do not spell it out is out of respect for His Commandment to not trivialize His Name in common conversation when not in praise. This is our belief; we need not have to justify our belief.

      Your Comment on Free Speech is “Awaiting Moderation“???? The irony is palpable!

      Reply
      1. GMB Post author

        God is what he is . God is not his name. He has a specific name. It is in just about every version of the Bible you can find.

        Every body who post for the first time goes into the moderation que. Contact wordpress. I am sure they will take up your complaint asap.

      2. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots)

        You’re sure WordPress will take up my complaint ASAP?

        Was that supposed to be sarcasm? Are you dismissing and trivializing my statement? Because if it is what you intended then it certainly shows that you are not as Altruistic as this thread was intended to be.

        You might as well just written, shut the fuck up Count. And then deleted me.

      3. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots)

        As far as G-d; since you’re slow I’ll explain it monosyllabically.

        There is only one.

        When we refer to Him we call Him by that name.

        There can be no other that we mean.

        We do not trivialize Him.

        You do as you wish; you are in no position to judge my people as we do as we believe.

      4. GMB Post author

        “Your Comment on Free Speech is “Awaiting Moderation“???? The irony is palpable!”

        Was this supposed to be sarcasm? I think you are all right at giving but taking may be a bit of a problem.

        God has a very specific name. God is what he is. When you are Church, you know the one that want a crying baby to be left out of, does your Minister say “now lets give thanks to Geeee dash Deeee or does he say God?

        When was the last time you actually heard a Minister say God’s name?

        Be pissy all ya want. I can handle it.

      5. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots)

        It sounds to me as if you are demonstrating a self-perceived superiority of your belief system over mine.

        Last time I heard a minister speak His name was … never

        My Rabbi speaks his name in Hebrew often.
        As do I.
        When I praise His Name.
        Or what we Call Him.

      6. neocon01

        Count……WELCOME!! aboard.
        There will be no moderation but for liable statements, threats, or the revelation of peoples name address etc so fire away my friend.
        I am with GMB on the “GOD” thing. I do not see how leaving out one letter changes the intent or meaning of the word, f#ck is still fuck, so how does leaving out one letter change things?
        I am not being sarcastic I would like to know why some people think one way is disrespectful and leaving out one letter isnt….

      7. neocon01

        DUH
        seems I missed this …….
        “he reason we do not spell it out is out of respect for His Commandment to not trivialize His Name in common conversation when not in praise. This is our belief;”

        That makes sense to me, will you feel insulted If I do not follow that admonition when speaking with you in a post?
        How ever we usually refer to GOD as the following

        Yahweh
        From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        For other uses, see Yahweh (disambiguation). See also: Tetragrammaton and God in Abrahamic religions

        Yahweh (/ˈjɑːhweɪ/, or often /ˈjɑːweɪ/ in English; Hebrew: יהוה‎) (Phoenician-Canaanite 𐤀𐤋), was the national god of the Iron Age kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The name probably originated as an epithet of the god El, head of the Bronze Age Canaanite pantheon (“El who is present, who makes himself manifest”),[1] and appears to have been unique to Israel and Judah,[2] although a god Yahweh may have been worshiped south of the Dead Sea at least three centuries before the emergence of Israel (the Kenite hypothesis).

        In the oldest biblical literature (12th–11th centuries BCE), Yahweh is a typical ancient Near Eastern “divine warrior” who leads the heavenly army against Israel’s enemies; he and Israel are bound by a covenant (a feature unique in ancient Near Eastern religion) under which Yahweh will protect Israel and, in turn, Israel will not worship other gods.[3] At a later period, Yahweh functioned as the dynastic cult (the god of the royal house),[4] the royal courts promoting him as the supreme god over all others in the pantheon, notably Baal, El, and Asherah (the last of whom may have been his consort).[5] Over time, Yahwism became increasingly intolerant of rivals, and the royal court and temple promoted Yahweh as the god of the entire cosmos, possessing all the positive qualities previously attributed to the other gods and goddesses.[4][5] With the work of Second Isaiah (the theoretical author of the second part of the Book of Isaiah) towards the end of the Babylonian exile (6th century BCE), the very existence of foreign gods was denied, and Yahweh was proclaimed as the creator of the cosmos and the true god of all the world.[5]

        By early post-biblical times, the name of Yahweh had ceased to be pronounced. In modern Judaism, it is replaced with the word Adonai, meaning Lord, and is understood to be God’s proper name and to denote his mercy.[6] Many Christian Bibles follow the Jewish custom and replace it with “the LORD”.

      8. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots)

        neo,
        Leaving out one letter is a way to respect His name (or what we call Him) because once written we cannot control what may happen to His name.

        Is there a prohibition on you spelling out His name (or what you call Him)?
        Think of it this way, when a Muslim burns and kills because some infidel drew a cartoon picture of Mohammed, he screams You can’t draw a picture of the Messenger to which I would reply, No, YOU can’t draw a picture of Mohammed, I don’t buy what you’re selling & I can do whatever the Hell I want.

  3. GMB Post author

    I have thought about this. Most of what passes at the collectivist progressives sites and an ever increasing number of so called “conservative” sites amounts to one thing only.

    Shut up!!!

    No You shut up!!!

    No You!!!!

    YOU!!!

    I am a big boy. I can handle your insults. I will give back to you either as good or better than I get. What the vast majority of you want is a place where you can give but never have to take any in return.

    Face it, you just another coward. An authoritarian coward, but a coward none the less. Yes I am speaking to you Mark, Amazona, Cluster, Rusty, Mitch. Yeah you all something in common now. Boil away the supposed political differences and the end result is still the same.

    SHUT THE FUCK UP because I say so and I will ban/delete you.

    All of you should take a lesson from a man named Gabriel Malor. He’s one of Ace of Spades co bloggers. Some of the most vilest things I have ever seen on the net have been posted by commenters on AoS attacking Gabe.

    Yet every single comment just stays there. No bannings, no deletions.

    Why?

    Gabe has a very thick skin. That is why. Maybe you all could grow some? NO? Rats, I think he would be a very good role model for you.

    Reply
  4. GMB Post author

    Calling somebody a racist is easy. Just throw the words out there. Now prove it. That should be easy for somebody as intelligent as you amy, shouldn’t it?

    Reply
    1. neocon01

      It is borrowed from saul alinsky to shut opposition up and hide the truth of what is going on in REAL life in all major citys across the nation, not some little farm in bum fuck egypt with no daily connection to real life America.

      Reply
      1. neocon01

        ahhhhh liberalism (communism) aint it grand??

        April 19, 2014
        A Lesson in Liberal/Democratic Party Hypocrisy
        By Lloyd Marcus

        What do Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Tim Scott, Michele Bachmann, Condoleezza Rice, Allen West, Dr. Ben Carson, and TW Shannon all have in common?

        Calm down, Joseph. I see your hand, but I want someone else to answer for a change. No takers? Okay, Joseph.

        You are correct. They are hated by liberals and Democrats. Tell us why? Correct again, Joseph. They are women and minorities who honor God, family, and country. They are self-reliant, extremely successful and do not view themselves as victims.

        Liberals and Democrats will not tolerate such liberated independent thinking by women and minorities. It threatens the foundation of the Democratic Party which is built on insidious evil lies, class envy, and victimhood-ism.

        Very good, Joseph. Please continue.

        For decades, liberals and Democrats have been indoctrinating women and minorities, filling their heads with lies, such as that America is eternally racist and sexist. They claim that the only way for women and minorities to succeed is through Democrat-led government-mandated lowered standards, entitlements, and special concessions.

        Women and minorities who succeed via education, right choices, and hard work, without Democratic Party intervention, upset the Democrats’ applecart. These uppity women and minorities must be silenced at any and all cost.
        More
        http://americanthinker.com/2014/04/a_lesson_in_liberaldemocratic_party_hypocrisy.html

      2. neocon01

        now DAT be edumications

        April 19, 2014
        Logic and standards jettisoned in college debate to aid black debaters
        Thomas Lifson

        …it appears that the decline of standards–indeed, the abolition of any standards at all–has come to the world of college debate. The Atlantic reports:

        These days, an increasingly diverse group of participants has transformed debate competitions, mounting challenges to traditional form and content by incorporating personal experience, performance, and radical politics. These “alternative-style” debaters have achieved success, too, taking top honors at national collegiate tournaments over the past few years. …

        On March 24, 2014 at the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) Championships at Indiana University, two Towson University students, Ameena Ruffin and Korey Johnson, became the first African-American women to win a national college debate tournament, for which the resolution asked whether the U.S. president’s war powers should be restricted. Rather than address the resolution straight on, Ruffin and Johnson, along with other teams of African-Americans, attacked its premise. The more pressing issue, they argued, is how the U.S. government is at war with poor black communities.

        In the final round, Ruffin and Johnson squared off against Rashid Campbell and George Lee from the University of Oklahoma, two highly accomplished African-American debaters with distinctive dreadlocks and dashikis. Over four hours, the two teams engaged in a heated discussion of concepts like “nigga authenticity” and performed hip-hop and spoken-word poetry in the traditional timed format. At one point during Lee’s rebuttal, the clock ran out but he refused to yield the floor. “Fuck the time!” he yelled.

        It sounds as though academic debating has come to an end. Debating is all about logic, and what these folks are doing is not logical. In some instances, new-style participants reject the proposition that they are supposed to be debating.

        more
        http://americanthinker.com/blog/2014/04/logic_and_standards_jettisoned_in_college_debate_to_aid_black_debaters.html

  5. GMB Post author

    There isn’t much to do about it except to scream Constitution then shut up, vote for the rino favorite of the day, and hope the gope will amazingly turn conservative and save us.

    If you don’t recognize the sarcasm dripping off this comment, lean close and smell it.

    Cliven Bundy has for now, created a “federal government free zone” out there on his ranch. What an amazing feeling that must be. Shows what a tad bit of courage can accomplish.

    Reply
    1. neocon01

      WOW!!
      The Marxist muslim commie break the law? where is D-holder?

      Just In: Obama Accused By Congressman Of Illegal Action At Bundy Ranch
      He cites a severe violation of U.S. Code — 43 U.S.C. Section 1733, Subsection C

      After the federal Bureau of Land Management agents backed down from their intimidating stance at the Bundy Ranch last weekend, ample evidence has surfaced indicating the standoff between the government and the Nevada ranching family is far from over. Throughout the weeklong stalemate, members of the Bundy family were physically assaulted by armed officers, numerous cows were shot dead, and protesters faced threats of gunfire for merely expressing their outrage.

      Immediately after what many considered a victory against a tyrannical federal agency, a number of leftist voices – most notably, Sen. Harry Reid – indicated the action against this family will continue.

      In response, Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman sent a letter to Barack Obama, Department of the Interior Sec. Sally Jewell, and BLM Director Neil Kornze, laying out his position that any such action by the agency would violate the U.S. Constitution.

      “Because of this standoff,” he wrote, “I have looked into BLM’s authority to conduct such paramilitary raids against American citizens, and it appears that BLM is acting in a lawless manner in Nevada.”

      He cited the limited powers granted to the federal government, noting the bureau has no “right to assume preemptory police powers, that role being reserved to the States,” and explained “many federal laws require the federal government to seek assistance from local law enforcement whenever the use of force may become necessary.”

      The letter included a section of the U.S. Code — 43 U.S.C. Section 1733, Subsection C — stating exactly that point. [Emphasis Stockman’s]

      “When the Secretary determines that assistance is necessary in enforcing Federal laws and regulations relating to the public lands or their resources he shall offer a contract to appropriate local officials having law enforcement authority within their respective jurisdictions with the view of achieving maximum feasible reliance upon local law enforcement officials in enforcing such laws and regulations.”

      In the case of the Bundy Ranch, he continued, “the relevant local law enforcement officials appear to be the Sheriff of Clark County, Nevada, Douglas C. Gillespie.”

      Gillespie, however, conspicuously took a back seat to BLM forces during the standoff.

      “Indeed,” Stockman wrote, “the exact type of crisis that the federal government has provoked at the Bundy ranch is the very type of incident that Congress knew could be avoided by relying on local law enforcement officials.”

      The stated purpose of the correspondence is for the Obama administration “to bring the BLM into compliance with 43 U.S.C. section 1733.”

      Absent a full investigation into the agency’s actions, he concluded, “the federal government must not only stand down, but remove all federal personnel from anywhere near the Bundy ranch.”

      Legislators and law enforcement personnel have stood alongside state militia members and the Bundy family in opposing the excessive force employed by the BLM. Stockman’s letter adds even more weight to the growing sentiment against the federal overreach.

      The full letter from Congressman Stockman follows:

      Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/congressman-pens-letter-obama-blasting-lawless-blm/#cA3izJBDm07v82UE.99

      Reply
  6. neocon01

    All enemies, foreign and domestic
    Thomas Lifson

    The Bundy Ranch showdown has once again raised the issue the proliferation of SWAT teams and militarized response forces proliferating throughout the federal government, and the spread of military-style units to local governments. It is almost as if the state is arming itself to suppress the citizenry. John Fund at NRO has an excellent piece on the subject, The United States of Swat:

    Dozens of federal agencies now have Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams to further an expanding definition of their missions. It’s not controversial that the Secret Service and the Bureau of Prisons have them. But what about the Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? All of these have their own SWAT units and are part of a worrying trend towards the militarization of federal agencies — not to mention local police forces. (snip)

    Take the case of Kenneth Wright of Stockton, Calif., who was “visited” by a SWAT team from the U.S. Department of Education in June 2011. Agents battered down the door of his home at 6 a.m., dragged him outside in his boxer shorts, and handcuffed him as they put his three children (ages 3, 7, and 11) in a police car for two hours while they searched his home. The raid was allegedly intended to uncover information on Wright’s estranged wife, Michelle, who hadn’t been living with him and was suspected of college financial-aid fraud.

    http://americanthinker.com/blog/2014/04/all_enemies_foreign_and_domestic.html

    Reply
    1. GMB Post author

      Read that article. isn’t it grand how our “Constitutionalists” help get this ball rolling? Our Founders rioted with loaded weapons because George III but a tax on their breakfast drink.

      Now, we get the TSA, DHS, ADDA, and swat teams making raids over money. Where were the constitutionalists when this started?

      MIA.

      Probably out buying a new big screen plasma tv so they could watch msdnc or some other worthless bull.

      Reply
      1. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots)

        I do not really see how “constitutionalists” can be responsible for the militarization of law enforcement – or even tacitly approving of it. It is we Constitutionalists that are participating in legal action (as defined in the Constitution) to bring the other co-equal branches of government to bear on the out-of-control branch.

        If the Constitution is to survive, it must be applied as written; there is no clause in said Constitution for an armed rebellion or civil disobedience as a remedy. We further objected in principal to the Patriot Act (I wrote extensively at that other blog) and the agencies that grew out of that Act; fruit from the poisoned tree.

        However, once again, to put faith in the Constitution is to appeal to the machinations approved by the Constitution. We have a Rule of Law that works; if it fails to work as intended we replace th3e people misrepresenting it not the Rule of Law.

        Btw, I think you might mean ländliche Jugendlicher oder umgangssprachlich: Junge Landbevölkerung.

      2. GMB Post author

        I do not claim to be proficient in Deutsch. I did not grow up speaking Deutsch. I grew up speaking Fannisch. A Pennsyvania dialect of german. Spoken by Amisch and other Old Order Mennonites.

      3. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots)

        Hrumph. dismissive again. No explanation on the issue of constitutionalists’ responsibility vis-à-vis militarization of the police?

        Why do I feel like we need someone here to move an argument forward?

        I posted a reasonable question to an unreasonable accusation. I get sarcasm , ridicule and dismissiveness in return.

        I offered a reasonable (and informed) observation on the more proper use of a foreign language and I get flippant rejoinder.

        seems to me your ideals are higher than your capacities.

      4. neocon01

        Count
        I do not think the constitution will survive if we become a police state either, and we are approaching that very state extremely rapidly. From the founding there was NO federal law enforcement until the FBI was instituted, and they were an UNARMED investigating department.
        Now we have the freeking postal service and the IRS with swat teams, plus many many many more armed agencies. 99.999% of all swat interactions are unnecessary on both the local and federal level.
        Ruby Ridge and Waco was a tipping point when the US government used snipers, tanks, helicopters, and bus loads of jack booted masked thugs on women, children, and men. The ATF got their ass shot off and handed to them ….so much for the big macho dressed to the 9’s ass holes.
        Did you notice when the blacks burned, looted, murdered almost every major city in the nation in the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s there were NO police, ATF, SWAT, FBI, or ANY around to stop it??
        ever wonder why?

      1. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots)

        Jeremiah , It’s a bit disturbing to me that you feature that poor woman in such a state.

        When a toddler has a temper tantrum it is most often because the child is incapable of communicating the concern with which the child has an issue.

        This woman obviously has a problem that needs addressing, not ridicule or scorn. Mental health issues are easy fodder for mimicry, understanding and offering help is much harder. I know; I have been struggling with mental health problems for most of my life and I thank G-d that I have someone in my life that would never think to record my condition for the amusement of others.

      2. Jeremiah

        Count D’Haricots,

        I can empathize. Though in some cases, I can’t, because I’ve not experienced them. But in your case, I can. I wish I could put into words how much I’ve been through with chronic depression and anxiety, I would go to bed sometimes and wish I never woke up.

        This woman has two problems, as I see it, one is a nicotine fit (withdrawal symptoms), and two, she is spoiled to a large degree. That’s just my general first glance impression. I don’t know the full extent of this man and woman’s relationship, but what I do tend to notice is a pattern of sorts, in that, many women are like her. Many woman call the shots in a relationship, they make all the decisions, and if something happens that it doesn’t go completely their way, all Hades breaks loose. But certainly not all women, there are good women out there, who joy in a mutual share of decision and planning.

      3. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots)

        Jeremiah,
        You do understand.

        Depression is not the same as being depressed. You know yourself that depression is a cold dark painful place with which some of us struggle to find meaning in anything we do or say.

        Some great actors and comedians and comics perform at a manic pace to deal with their demons, then we all sigh and say what a shame when they shoot themselves in the head to stop the pain of facing another day.

        You can no more encourage someone to not be depressed when depression is the reason than you can encourage someone to walk straight when they are lame.

        We can treat depression; we can deal with the symptoms but it’s always there.

        How awful if someone were to video record me at a social function as I try desperately to blend in with the wallpaper and pray that no one talks to me or even notices I’m there. Record me slipping out the side door unnoticed. Then splice that image with my public speaking engagements where I’m funny, animated, charming and engaging. The audience surrounds me afterwards and I’m the Belle of the Ball, silently wishing I could disappear forever and never be forced in front of a crowd again.

        But, I get up and face each day and go about my business and thank G-d I don’t have to explain my demons to anyone because that’s worse than facing them.

        Think now, how that woman must feel when her familiars see that video.

  7. GMB Post author

    I ♥ msiplleed wdros. I ♥ dab gaammr. I ♥ ppoele ohw saepk mroe tahn neo lnaugage.

    ♥♥♥

    You would be surprised at how many people can not understand that. ♥♥♥

    Reply
  8. GMB Post author

    ‘Because’, he says, ‘if you are going to defend freedom of speech, you have to defend the right of people to say things you would devote your political life to opposing. Your good faith is tested by whether or not you would defend the right to free speech of people with whom you profoundly disagree. That’s the test.’

    Back on topic. I could not agree more. Authoritarians have no good faith. They have no faith at all. The surround themselves with sycophants that parrot the party line. For what ever reason.

    Reply
  9. GMB Post author

    Can you wait until I have had a proper dinner. All your concerns will be addressed with my translator at side. She speaks much better Englander than I ever will.

    Reply
  10. neocon01

    I think I dated a few like her, ONCE!
    Im not sure that woman has mental health problems, drug problems, drinking problems, or is just plain nuts. If were known she had mental health issues then the post could be construed to be in bad taste by some, If she is just a spoiled ass hole with no control she should be on the internet.
    PS
    Im sure her husband or close friend filmed and posted it, Jer merely re posted it in a light vane of humor.
    Sorry you suffer from mental illness. 😦

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s