Farm animal sex. Free animal sex movies. Free animal sex videos. Free animal sex pics. Free animal sex video. Free animal sex pictures….

Sex with animal. Animal sex pics. Animal farm sex. Free animal s… animal sex pictures url. Animal sex….

Zoo sex….

Gay animal sex. Animal sex movies. Animal sex laws. Free animal sex videos. Free animal sex video. Animal sex pics. Animal sex video. Animal sex stories. Animal sex….

So long as people think they really can trade a great deal of essential liberty for a little temporary safety, most will seize the opportunity and thank the tyrant heartily.

Nailhead. A cynical friend of mine once remarked “What good is free speech if I can’t afford a newspaper subscription to my own city? What the hell does the 2nd amendmant matter when I can’t afford a gun?”

A little safety guaranteed and delivered will ‘buy’ a lot of freedoms. Want an easy example? Look no further than the little man who turned a broken, bitter German nation into a military powerhouse that made the world tremble.

I feel your pain, believe it or not. I’ve been to the New Orleans and Baton Rouge tea parties and they did not pray while I was there, but if they had it would have annoyed me mightily. As a practical matter, I don’t want someone else’s faith rammed down my throat, and if mine can be permitted to hold sway now, someone else’s might later.

Some people give their lives to God, [comma, pause, prepare for the next thing]

That would certainly include professing born again Christians who use that exact terminology all the freakin time. It’s extremely common Christian-speak, commonly heard in the context of one’s testimony, as in “After I lost my husband back in 1989 when I was pregnant, I gave my life to God.” If you don’t run with that crowd (as I do, because I’m one of them) then perhaps that didn’t mean to you what it meant to me. Fundamentalists of all stripes use that phrasing; I’ve certainly heard it from Muslims. Having believed that I understood what group(s) you were describing, I moved on to

allowing the Bible, the Koran, a guru, the tarot, or a funny-colored crystal to think for them.

and perceived that your meaning was particularly devout people as described above allow some external object to think for them.

I think that’s a fair reading. If you meant it less literally, then, great. But I did actually read what you wrote. I promise. I also did write in my response “but doubtless some are out there” and speculated you knew some of those people, so my response wasn’t based at all on outrage about the admission that such people exist.

As a matter of simple logic, I do take issue with your complaint that “some people slavishly follow what they believe to be the word of God” because all I can think of there is, Duh.

IF – and this is the Big IF – one accepts the supernatural and truly believes in a sovereign, eternal, all-powerful God; not just lip service or superficial/cultural religion but truly does believe and then DOES NOT slavishly follow God’s commands, that person would be an idiot. Because he’s GOD. It would be completely irrational not to do so, IF one held that belief.

Struggling with a sinful nature which makes disobedience all too easy, and struggling to rightfully interpret what those commands actually are, is the (painful, rewarding) Christian struggle. But at the base of it “giving your life to God” precisely, specifically means attempting to slavishly follow his will (using our brains and talents to discern his will and obey it.) The bible uses that slave terminology all the time – Paul’s writing in various parts of the new testament. If God isn’t the be-all, end-all most important thing in your life, then you don’t really believe in an eternal, all-powerful sovereign God. Having said that – and you could probably write it in half as many words – the intent of those people (including me!) is precisely the same as the whack jobs you listed in your 9:49. The only difference, as far as I can tell, is interpretation. I’m not talking about outcome here, just motive, but I think it speaks to your point “that some people slavishly follow what they believe to be the word of God.”

I do not bow my head during the inevitable prayers offered, nor do I raise a fuss. I am there voluntarily. I only seek common cause in limited government, lower taxes, strong defense, and self reliance. I am not alone in my reason for being there.

To those who want to impose their system of beliefs on all, you will fail. Seek what all but the liberals have in common, a least common denominator, which is a fiscal and libertarian discipline as envisioned by the Founders.

Think of when Pat Robertson tried to run for President. He drew 5% in the primaries. No one was buying his nutjob, I personally speak to God daily routine, except for his daily audience.
I/we seek change but not to another system of control, where prayers in school are mandatory or where wearing a cross is necessary to be with the ‘in’ crowd.

Separate the fiscal conservative essentials from the social engineering, and the conservative movement can beat the crap out of the libs in 2010/2012 — our last chance to reclaim our country — or try and ram crap down my throat no more tasty than the shlt sandwich Nancy P is offering.

Good heavens, an amazing number of people accuse me of being an excellent writer, charge me with saying what I meant — and then fail to read my actual words!

To repeat, this is the bullet item that produced so much angst:

Some give their lives to God, allowing the Bible, the Koran, a guru, the tarot, or a funny-colored crystal to think for them.

Did I write all? A huge majority? A narrow majority? Most? Many? Or even quite a few? I wrote — and meant — some… some people do just that.

If you deny my contention — that some people slavishly follow what they believe to be the word of God, thereby causing great distress to themselves and many people around them — then I suggest it is you who are afraid of the truth. Come now, you know very well that some people do it!

Since all the outrage centers on the admission that such people exist even within the Christian and Jewish religious traditions — nobody here rejects the idea that Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, and Wiccans can be like that — I’ll confine my examples to those “voluntary slaves” who profess belief in the Bible or Tanakh:

* Think of all those who sat in the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church in Chicago and applauded when he called upon God to damn America.

* Think of Raymond Jessop and others who follow the teachings of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS).

* How about the “congregation” (whatever you call the followers) of the “God hates [gays]” guy (he uses the obvious pejorative in place of the last word).

* I was also thinking of some of the extreme ultraorthodox Jews, who would refuse to rescue a drowning child if the kid had the bad luck to fall into the water on the Sabbath (can’t do any work then, and swimming constitutes work!)

* Stepping a little further afield, but still within the Judeo-Christian tradition, consider Jim Jones, founder of the Peoples Temple, which ended its days (and those of its members) in Guyana, drinking cyanide-laced Flavor Aid.

* And how many Christian-based millenarian cults have sprung up, even just since 1900?

I must presume, taking you at your word, that you do not believe that any of these people or groups existed.

Again, I never said that described the religious experience of all “people of the Book,” but only some of them; so if you reject this statement, then you are claiming that not a single person who thought of himself as Christian or Jew ever acted like this.

If you are honestly willing to stand by that counter-claim — that not one self-described Christian or Jew has ever let (his conception of) the Bible do all his thinking for him — then please arise and be counted! Laura is right that merely saying such a thing isn’t enough to persuade me that the speaker is right; but at least I’ll admire your consistency…

Dafydd

I think he’s an outstanding writer and said precisely what he meant. Why sugarcoat it?

You’re right.

Dafydd ab Hugh, I thought your post was about a politics, and your message was “argue based on results”. I think that’s a good idea. I also thought the rest of your post was terrible: pointlessly insulting to vast swathes of people, ignorant on the varieties of religious experience, and highly likely to distract from your main point.

So I tried to get the conversation back on topic, since you had more or less trolled yourself (creating an inflammatory distraction from your main point).

But Laura is right: you’re an excellent writer and surely meant to say what you said.

I disagree, and I think you displayed ignorance, offensiveness and arrogance in what you said.

I recommend you read The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James.

People only have a limited amount of energy and they prefer to use it just taking care of their own lives. Working, raising their kids, etc. It takes something major to make them turn from their own lives and lead a revolution. Those who were in the revolutionary war had to leave their families behind, stop building their own lives and focus on something that was extremely dangerous.

So many revolutions go badly after they’ve overthrown the government because people want to return to their own lives as soon as possible, leaving the establishing of a new government up to those who want to make government their lives.

If people were looking for someone else to tell them what to do capitalism wouldn’t work since people would have no idea what to do day to day. In reality it works so well because everyone knows what they want and (when no one stands in their way) they don’t need anyone to tell them the best way to get it.

A person who is commanded and does is greater than a person who does without being commanded

The reason given is that in spite of all, there is a center in every human being that resents being told what to do and increases the tendency to oppose it. Everybody has the two contradictory impulses within him, the relative proportions differ in each one.

Rabbi Samson Rafael Hirsch wrote a comment on the story of the Tower of Babel. He analyzed the exact wording (in the original Hebrew) an spoke of the difference between “language” and “tongue”. He pointed out that many words from different languages, that translate as the same word when brought into one’s own language have totally different connotations. Examples include “right” and “wrong”, “charity”, “justice” and “folk” or “populace”. The examples that he gave explain, for example, the “good German” example that you pointed out and also helps explain the ability of the founding fathers to conceive of the liberties that they fought for.

Once the seeds of the different concepts took root, even though the people originally “used the same words” the dissolution of the Babel society was inevitable. The story of the Tower of Babel shows that G-d caused these differences to reach their natural end by a miracle to have the entire development occur at once rather than over a period of centuries.

I think what Dafydd is trying to say is those who blindly and totally give themselves up to an authority posing as God (i.e. a preacher) or those who can only live by one code at the exclusion of all others.

I think he’s an outstanding writer and said precisely what he meant. Why sugarcoat it? When someone isn’t a believer, they naturally enough think believers are idiots. I don’t know any Christians living such an unexamined caricature of a life, but doubtless some are out there and maybe that’s who Daffyd’s been in contact with. Likewise for the Tea Partiers. He asserts that the main reason people show up is for a social event. That’s not been my experience at all, and there’s absolutely no empirical evidence that it’s true. But it’s pointless to quibble about the details. I’m quite sure nothing I write would convince him he’s wrong.

Daffyd, I do think you’re absolutely right about the way going forward:

The task for those of us who reject the Grand Bargain even in principle is to make all the zombies realize that such a deal always, always, always falls apart in practice. The ghouls who offer it never intend to fulfill their side of the bargain; their only goal is to lull us into a false sense of security, so they can loot us of everything we think we own.

Folks do understand the appeal of rational self-interest when they’re reminded of it because they know what’s in their own hearts: Me first! George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin fought the first (and only) revolution for liberty because they knew freedom was in their best interest. And at this point, especially in CA and NY, I think the Democrats are making that argument for us.

Yeah, I gotta call BS on this.

Just because you give your life to God, to do as He wants, doesn’t make you a slave to Him. Far from it: It is, in fact, liberation from the slavery of sin.

Is the son a slave to his father? Is the husband a slave to his wife?

I am describing a natural relationship, not a master/slave relationship.

BlameAmericaLast on November 12, 2009 at 1:48 AM

I think what Dafydd is trying to say is those who blindly and totally give themselves up to an authority posing as God (i.e. a preacher) or those who can only live by one code at the exclusion of all others. I’ll be the first to say that anyone who truly lived by what the bible says is a man living a life worth living. On the same hand, there are those who blindly follow their preachers off cliffs of moral hazard.

Like Sekhmet said, the Nidal Hassans of the world come to mind.

That said, excellent post Dafydd. I’ve got two new co-workers who are blind liberals. They have no idea what liberalism is, what conservatism is, and quite frankly what anything is. I’ve decided never to argue with them. If they cannot listen to reason, then I’ll not try reasoning with them.

If slavery does come, I’ll simply ask them ‘is this what you wanted?’ It is what they voted for.

Some give their lives to God, allowing the Bible…(snip)…to think for them.

Yeah, I gotta call BS on this.

Just because you give your life to God, to do as He wants, doesn’t make you a slave to Him. Far from it: It is, in fact, liberation from the slavery of sin.

Is the son a slave to his father? Is the husband a slave to his wife?

I am describing a natural relationship, not a master/slave relationship.

exulted earlier this week at a Barack Obama rally that this was “the most memorable time of my life.” Why? As she told a Florida reporter on a YouTube video now viewed by hundreds of thousands: “Because I never thought this day would ever happen. I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know. If I help [Obama], he’s gonna help me.”

Did he, Peggy? How do you feel about that now? Can you tell us anything you’ve learned from your experience?

The best argument for liberty, then, is not to try to persuade people that liberty is better, finer, more advanced, or more godly than slavery — but to convince them that slavery doesn’t work. So long as people think they really can trade a great deal of essential liberty for a little temporary safety, most will seize the opportunity and thank the tyrant heartily.

That’s the money quote right there. Excellent. And as for the slavery to a belief system—I think he has the Nidal Hasans of the world in mind.

Think how many opportunities “we” — the universal we; I don’t mean every reader of this blogpost or its author) — how many opportunities “we” seize to divest ourselves of responsibility for thinking for ourselves:
Some give their lives to God, allowing the Bible, the Koran, a guru, the tarot, or a funny-colored crystal to think for them.

Wow, offensive much?

Good thing I don’t give a crap about your view of my particular belief system or how I live my life. But just because you don’t believe in it doesn’t mean you should dismiss all people who have religious beliefs as trying to “abdicate” responsibility for their life choices.