Subject:  It sounds like we’re in one heck of a pickle…

(By the way, my stuff is not always in chronological order.)

January 20, 2007

But, I think I’ll wait till it gets worse before I really gloat:

“The United States has thoroughly destabilized the Middle East by invading Iraq.”  Clinton (and Bush) should have stuck with my ending the sanctions idea, strongly advised in my first “Isn't that the way Christ would do it?” 2-21-98 fax to the White House.  Ephesians 2:8-9: “⁸For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, ⁹not of works, lest anyone should boast.”  Matthew 5:16: “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.”  I wonder which one is Jesus talking?  I’ve got it: one’s for self, and one’s for Father.  Gee, which one should I choose?  There must have been an early Christian controversy: James (brother of Jesus) 2:17: “Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.”  I can see a reason for both:  One is for those who are really saved, and the other’s for those who aren’t.  If Iraq leads to war on our mainland, I can really gloat, can’t I?  Creed, 1997: “One, oh one: the only way is one. I feel angry! I feel helpless! Want to change the world, yeah! I feel violent! I feel alone!” but I can gloat.

Who likes Hannity’s rear end?:

Hannity should be more honest and change his bumper sticker from “Support Our Troops!” to “Support Our Troops, Right or Wrong!”  Someone tell Hannity that if he wants to escalate the war so bad, then he can pay for it.

Two seconds or two-tenths of a second?:

How come people like to tailgate when they are angry at another driver?  Don’t they realize if there’s an accident, it’s their (the tailgater’s) fault?  What is this great intelligence I don’t understand?  I’m sure I’ll prove somebody stupid when I apply rapid pressure to the middle pedal when spotting man’s best friend in pursuit of those smart looking trees on the other side of the highway, or when I discern a fine piece of furniture hand-crafted in North Carolina, proudly exhibited in my lane.  Maybe it will be during a sudden fulfillment of my divine aptitude in predicting the future site of a deer crossing sign.

Embryonic stem cells / abortion “line”:

Are you ready (Pacific Gas, 1970) for the intelligent answer; which I clarified 9-17-01 (possibly at bad time to bring it up)?  When should it go from the mother’s wishes to the unborn’s wishes?  How about when the unborn starts having wishes?  Which is probably about the same time the unborn has developed his / her own feelings of pain / suffering and happiness / pleasure.  About seven weeks after conception, according to the brochure I picked up at a pro-life booth.  That gives the pro-lifers 82% of a win over pro-choicers.  You see, I've observed that most people are opinionated to just one extreme or the other: conception or birth.  The reason?  It’s easier to think that way (we’re all dumb animals).  With that (7 weeks), a woman can miss two periods and still have about a week to decide (probably longer).  Learn today: The essence of all our desires are entirely based on lessening pain and suffering, and pursuing happiness and pleasure.  It’s the way God programmed us, or we’d just walk off cliffs.  We are not violating such by killing something that doesn’t sense.  Otherwise, each and every female that is not trying to get pregnant right now is violating the logic of the pro-life theory of the wrongful prevention of the process to the goal of eventual sensing life.  Well, now you know.  You didn’t have a clue before.  No one, even a thousand years from now, will be able to have a better moral rationalization than mine.  So, realize, I’m living now… until I see that deer.

I don’t know much about their views on the issues, but Claire McCaskill just looks more Missoura (as also her name sounds).  Jim Talent looks more “Washington DC” – get a rope!

Recent polls show that 66% of Americans think “the country needs to find a middle ground on abortion laws.”  Only 29% say there is “no room for compromise.”

Warren Jeffs:

I thought it was a 16 year-old girl.  Well, you can tell Fox News really gives me the facts.  Still, it doesn’t “really” hurt a 14 year-old girl to have sex (unless she gets pregnant or an STD).  Believing in other dumb people, sex can make someone feel like a victim, though, or cause heartbreak.  But, concerning our legal authorities: You mean if I just religiously believe that all 14-year-olds should get married, or should start having sex, or they will go to eternal damnation, and state my belief, I can go to prison… for life?  Well, let me rescind that belief very quickly.  Sir… I religiously recommend chastity belts for all adolescents until... let’s say… the age of 25.  How’s that?  So, I’m on my knees because: where’s the fun in being critical if there’s only one guard that can hear you?  Unless, I be like John the Baptist who constantly yelled for Herod to repent, shaking the door continually, optimizing all to hear the ones who cry in the wilderness, but only disturbing the kept woman.  Statutory laws is his problem concerning when one is allowed to become married, but since other states and conditions allow 14 year-olds to marry, it should be a light fine or sentence: not a life sentence.  A guardian influencing a minor into a “crime” is a problem; because, if I tell my ten-year-old son to shoplift, I’m the one the courts will penalize (I think).  But, if I’m a crazy religious writer standing on the corner of the street telling various kids to shoplift (or to get married), then I don’t know, I think Freedom of Speech / Religion might hold.  You lawyers out there: let me know.

When I stand on the corner in front of the White House, I holler: “Repent!  The end of the world is coming!  Repent!  Before it is too late!  Repent!”  Well, it’d probably get better understood than what I’m doing now.

Instilled dishonest prostitution evidence:

Revelation 18:12-16 says the basis why woman like non-functional jewelry (and other frippery / waste) is because it shows how a man has labored or suffered for her to display.  Sure, let’s see a woman dig deep into rock, just to show the riches she’s risked her life for.  Actually, all fluff is unfair knowing that there are homeless people, etc.  If we’ve got the time to make dingledangle, then we have to time to feed and shelter the homeless, etc. (“the least”: Jesus).  We just don’t so to motivate all to work.

Open / free sex will eliminate the rape problem:

Oh yes it will!  How much longer are females going to have to fear most everyone, and most everywhere they go?  How much longer are women going to have to put up with a controlling / demanding husband just so they will feel safer in public?  How much longer are they going to have to keep acting impolite so to not suggest availability?  I’m telling you, James Dobson doesn’t have the answer.  I wonder if Hannity is smart enough to realize this?  No way, José!

Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (movie):

What makes the producers think that an uncontrollable sex orgy would be the result of a crowd feeling like they are in paradise (via the scent so good it makes you sense paradise)?  Does paradise and unconditional love correspond somehow?  What would happen to the world if we all actually lived in paradise?  Would anyone want to go back to the marriage (conditional sex) standard?  You mean all we’d have to do is rearrange the way we pay for the raising of “our” children (a nationally paid child support program), then we adults can all live in paradise?  And the kids can too when they grow up?  So simple, yet so far from happening.  And, that’d be “guaranteed” financial support for “our” children, and with no feelings of guilt and shame for the recipients, which statistically would surely lessen future crime.  And, since there’d be no more deadbeat fathers who are disallowed to visit their kids, all kids will be able to get to know their father.  Tell me how I’m wrong Hannity?  Explain to me why I know now what you wouldn’t know in a thousand years?  The movie is in limited release because the orgy scene is “too much for the typical audiences in our society to handle.”  You see, its-a cause humens is a too smarder den anmals.  (I wreck in itted knot bother anmals.)  The 2000 showing of The Exorcist didn’t cause as many nightmares as it did in 1973, but this new generation is still a bunch of wussies.

Five issues:

The sex issue is the issue that, by far, people are most in the dark (ignorant) about.  The war / justice issue is the most we are dumb about.  The artificial salvation issue is what we are most dishonest about.  The vegetarian issue is what we are the most evil / selfish about (and what God is appalled by the most).  And the economic / work issue is what the vast majority would like to see a fairer solution on.  Den weez uh bee wall can round widd a pair of dice.  (Butt Miss. Tur Kret tee kull doan wreck amend gamm blean.)  I’d enjoy hearing Hannity try to explain to me how I’m wrong.

The sex issue relates to the economic / work issue; and the economic / work issue relates to the war / justice / save face / fairness issue; and the war / justice / save face / fairness issue relates to the artificial salvation issue; and the artificial salvation issue relates to the vegetarian issue.  Or you can reverse this (to put it in chronological order): (1) The original sin (the knowledge of good and evil); (2) smart enough to believe in God, Homo Erectus eases his moral conscience; (3) quickly he starts being unfair to his own kind; (4) free food is removed to cause more riches for king, agriculture begins (all must labor for food); and (5) marriage is established to feed the women and their children.  By the way, the last two had to have been recent developments (last 10,000 years or so), because the pre-Columbus American Indians had free food and free sex, but lots of wars ….

Again, God hurts most by the vegetarian (eating animals) issue; the artificial salvation issue causes the most amount of problems; the war / justice / save face / fairness issue is what we are divided the most about; the economic / work issues is what we complain about the most; and, the sex issue is the key to the solution to it all. 

Men really don’t want women around:

Remember when we were all kids, the clubhouses that had a sign: “No girls allowed!”  Then when we all passed puberty, we experienced a power larger than any nuclear explosion.  I’m thinkin’, if each sex could like each sex (with no monogamy), what would happen then?  And that power is not the orgasm: most of us can make ourselves have an orgasm.  Therefore, sexual human touch, and recognizing it as a value / object, is what all the fuss is about.  I know we’ve all been taught, that women have been taught, that being an “object” is demeaning; but, that’s what makes me believe I’m smarter than you.  And, someday I’m going to be dead; then… total recurring dumbness is all the world will have.

Eight days to travel across one state line (from postmark):

I appreciate you government people for finally delivering my Smalley video.  I just wanted to watch it, that’s all.  Am I really that big of a deal and threat to the Presidency?  Welcome to the United States.  Respect the laws!  Think about all the trillions of future souls justified in condemning you if I am in the right.

Election ’06:

Before the election, I overheard Republicans on Fox News expressing optimism about the polls showing they’ve advanced from losing by a landslide to just losing.  Do you think the Republicans will smarten up before ’08 and impeach Bush?  It’s the advantage of millions versus the advantage of one – I doubt they’re smart enough to overrule taught stupidity.  Impeachment should be advantageous to a party when someone of that high of position flubs up.  Sometimes you have to overrule status-quo thinking and flush the toilet when the smell gets so bad you can’t breathe, instead of thinking that no one in your party is capable of “error.”  Notwithstanding, I think people are unfair in voting against their Republican congressmen just because one Republican (Bush) can’t control his anger.  But, that’s the nature of the beast.

How does one throw away a garbage can?

Election 2006: Republican and Democrat victory parties:

There’s two totally different reasons why one asks the bartender: “Give me another drink!”

Criticism about criticism:

“It’s so easy even a caveman can do it.” (Like Osama bin Laden?)  You’d think I’d support John Kerry’s calling American soldiers stupid; but, being difficult to stereotype, realize “constructive” criticism is the only way to improvement.  Calling people stupid for just being military material is not “constructive.”  The military, police, me knocking out a guy robbing a grocery store, etc. is a very honorable position… except when it hurts / kills “innocent” people!  That is the only part that deserves criticism; and, hard-line, harsh / insulting criticism.  Authorities emanate so much vacillation concerning various criminal penalties, because everyone is so dumb when it comes to knowing true right from wrong.  Everything seems to really just depend on your bias point of view.  But, when you know exactly what is true right from wrong (“never hurt an innocent person”), then harsh and insulting criticism and penalties are meet, simply because dumb animals (people) learn best via harsh and insulting (not initially, but down the road).  There are many “educated” people who are for the war in Iraq, so troops don’t need any kind of different criticism than does “educated” people.  I remember attending a computer-related conference where the speaker – I forgot the context – told how something relating to intelligence ranged “from [intelligent people] to truck drivers.”  I thought to myself how insulting that was to truck drivers, and to the value of their services.  I think John Kerry should take advantage of his mistake by stating it was as mistake (he finally did later, but still in failure), to show how he is man enough to admit it, compared to President Bush.  If Kerry becomes President, I feel I’m going to be very busy giving rational guidance.  And, if he’s just like Bush (as it appears), then I will have my work cut out for me.  I think Kerry just wants to be President regardless of the righteousness of the issues.  He just slams the Iraq war because it is so obviously to his advantage.  He’ll probably change his consistency the moment he gets personally angry about something, and starts a war killing the same kind of innocent people and American soldiers that Bush has.  Of course, show me a new President with intelligence and Godly fairness, and I’ll think I died and woke up in the far future.  Some things may be true, like the Pope slanting historic Muslims; but, for the sake of respect (to alleviate further avoidable problems), shouldn’t be said.  We can’t correct the wrongful violence of people who are dead, nor is there an advantage to stupid authoritative insults toward one of the diverse kinds of aptitudes which we are lucky to have (the Kerry thing).  I’ve put my foot in my mouth many times during my lifetime, so I’m not any better than anyone else.  Let me know if I’ve insulted anyone unconstructively, or have said anything that just seems inconsistent – I want to know where I need to elaborate per my very unique stereotype.  Muslins today should be told one thing: “They are never justified in hurting an innocent person.”  But, since most of the guilty run things, it won’t get said.  And Muslins are just as dumb a Christians, so there’s no solution.

Donald Rumsfeld:

As much as I watch “fair and balanced” news, I still don’t know exactly what Donald Rumsfeld did wrong.  I have heard a lot of disapproval about Rumsfeld, but nobody is explaining exactly why they feel that way.  Concerning anything that has gone wrong or unethical during the Iraq war, that’s not Rumsfeld’s fault, that’s President Bush’s fault – He’s the President; he’s in charge.  The buck stops with Bush: the way I see it   Unless Rumsfeld disobeyed the President’s orders, e.g., Bush is the one who could have ordered Rumsfeld to not kill any civilians.  Since I don’t think Bush ordered that, then someone please explain to me exactly what Rumsfeld did wrong (other than wrongly participating like anyone else involved).  Regardless, I think it is a duty of “fair and balanced” media to explain these things to viewers like me who don’t already seem to know the exact “reasons” for such grievances.  Unless I’m supposed to turn to another source?  I mean, if you are going to call (or let someone else call) someone bad, etc., there’s no intelligence to your statement if you don’t explain exactly “why.”  Sounds like anti-Truman Bush is just passing the buck to Rumsfeld.  Now that Rumsfeld’s gone, who’s the new Vice President?  Nancy Pelosi or Cindy Sheehan?  (Finally, Vice Presidents that turn me on.)

Hey Joe, Jimi Hendrix, Woodstock 1969:

Say, I didn’t know that Hey Joe was the last (finale) song played during the entire Woodstock 1969 festival.  Usually venues and artists save the best for last.  Crank it up.  There’s a valuable message there, for the betterment futurity of mankind.  Bull horns up top.

Cop-outs:

I would really like someone to try to explain to me exactly what is going through their mind when they justify being a Christian with their cop-outs.  For some reason, none of you wonderful, born-again Christians wish to be righteous enough to share it with me.  My mind is open (again) – please enlighten me. 

What is the Goldenrule?:

The Goldenrule can be broken into two sub-groups: (1) Not sinning: Not hurting an innocent person, and (2) Doing good deeds.  Hurting a “guilty” person (someone who will hurt an innocent person) is not breaking the Goldenrule; because, e.g., if you would, say, knock out your brother if he was trying to kill your mother, (both you love), then doing same to a non-relative is not violating anything you wouldn’t do to someone you love, or to even yourself:  If you, hypothetically, would stop yourself, or have yourself committed or placed in jail to stop yourself from hurting an innocent person, then you are doing as you would do to yourself.  So, hurting those who hurt innocent people is not breaking the Goldenrule: the Word of God.  I agree that today’s authorities would never do anything against themselves, if it was to their advantage to hurt an innocent person; but, my instruction is for a society far into the future.  It is very likely no one will ever live again that is smart as I concerning these kinds of issues; therefore, a future righteous society needs my current guidance.  Jesus Christ was just a necessary supportive prerequisite to me: He has set me up.  His vast popularity is a great influential power.  So, you current people can just store my writings please, then go back to sleep.

What do you mean you think I’m too insulting?  If you were the next civilian to be killed by an American soldier, you’d strongly wish that I would have been much more harsh and insulting.  I know your mindless, self-centered, animalistic emotions:  I know everyone is adamant about ignoring me because I’m not being nice.  If you were to soon die from something that my logic would prevent – would you want me to say it to the bumbling idiot in charge soft (waiting for acceptance) or loud?

If Jesus sang on American Idol, he might not look so praiseworthy.  How come?  Everyone can have their special niche.  But, if the Goldenrule (the word) sang on American Idol, then, well, it wouldn’t hurt it a bit.

When to hurt an innocent person:

Pursuant to what I said in a prior email, about what if you had to hurt innocent people to save the world:  It’s like driving your car into a tree to prevent you from going off a cliff.  It’s worth the trade-off, but you would still have to pay for the repair of your car hitting the tree.  Same with afterlife suffering in killing an innocent person to save the world.  You just have to ask yourself if the price of you having to be burnt alive several times over, in your afterlife, is worth the benefit.  I will guess that approximately 100% of you would think it’s not worth the price, which further shows it as the solution.

Also realize that civilians who work in military ammunition plants, for example (e.g., WWII Germans), aren’t “innocent.”  So Roosevelt shouldn’t have had to pause bombing the German ammunition factories, because of his wish to not kill innocent people.  Same in this country:  If you are a “conscientious objector” (probably just a coward), but worked in the states for the war effort, and the war is not righteous, like in Iraq or Vietnam, then you are not “innocent” or any different that the troops.  Me, I turned 18 right after they quit drafting people, so I don’t know for sure exactly what I would have done (back when I was a moron and idiot), but there’s no way I would kill an innocent person today – or, be an accomplice to the crime!  Nor will I vote for someone who will.  So I just don’t vote.  And, I still don’t think I’m perfect.  But (and most people will agree) there certainly is a major gap between the way I think and the way other’s think. You see, I believe in God.  I don’t just do what suits me, and go to church on Sunday just in case there’s afterlife judgment.  Cop-outs don’t work anyway.  They will just make things worse.

Waterboarding the terrorists:

Some churches say Baptism should not be done until the individual is an adult and requests it.  And there’s a controversy if it should be full emersion or just sprinkling.  I say just do it either way, if you want to join a church; or, if it saves innocent lives.

“Innocent” lives:

I don’t think Iraqi’s who pay back the crimes Americans soldiers have done to their wives, children and entire country, especially for the cowardice, one-sided (for the U.S.) WMD reason, are killing “innocent” people when they kill American soldiers.  Because, Willie and Toby would do exactly the same thing if say China or Russia forcefully invaded and killed American wives and children just to stop our WMD program; and, then change our fundamental laws to boot.  “Hey, looky out the window there Toby, there’s that same Russian soldier who set your wife and kids on fire (when you was out fishin’)” … BANG!.  Somebody should explain to my how that wouldn’t happen (nobody will or can).  And in a land of chaos (that we caused), where local disputes to the killing of one another escalates, “we” are the full blame for the sectarian, etc. violence.  I don’t see how “one” American soldier in Iraq can be considered innocent in the eyes of God / Fairness.  And, every person who wishes to hurt or kill an American soldier, that an American soldier hurts or kills, even in direct self defense, is not justified, under the definition of fairness and the rules of logic and ethics.  And, doing so will surely only create more enemies for the United States, and a higher restitution price we will eventually have to pay (or eventually be destroyed).  Do you really think you could get Willie and Toby to see the error of their (revengeful) ways, after destroying their home and family?  All this takes a realization thinking process that no one yet I’ve seen present.  Or, if they know it, they don’t know how to explain it.  People are simply too stupid to know that they would do the same kinds of things, which they consider others doing as being evil.  Of course, that’s what all wars have been about.  A recognized superior mind like mine would solve the problem – a problem proved unsolvable throughout all of recorded history.  For example, possibly Iran wouldn’t feel the need to develop WMDs if they knew that the U.S. would help them (like we did with Kuwait) if one of their neighbors invaded them; but, when Iraq attacked Iran, we just showed not only we are not going to help them (Iran), but we are going to furnish weapons for their adversary (Iraq) to use against them.  So, we have proved conclusively to Iran that if they want to defend themselves, they’d better up their defenses.  Or, we’ll surely come in someday to steal their oil and change their constitution.  Don’t ask me for advice when we start getting hit with WMDs, because it will then be too late.  Right now, we are stuck with Iraqi violence getting worse, or pull out so it will become a breeding ground for terrorists.  That’s a great situation, just because you all though you were smarter than me back in 1998.  Still, my advice today (basically same as my 1998 advice) is the only way to reverse the problem, but mankind has proved that it cannot learn by talk alone, it has to learn the hard way, but this time it may very well lead to the total destruction of the United States, or the entire world.  Or, I’ll admit that all these terrorists are “just” evil people, and that will make you all like me, right?  I say the terrorist have the exact same mindset as Toby and Willie.  And George W. Bush has the same mindset as Saddam Hussein.  And you can take the sweetest woman in the world, come in her house and kill all her kids, then stand guard outside her house holding your weapon with pride – but, logically and in fairness, you may get shot if her dead husband left her a gun.  And, what’s pathetic, you and George W. Bush, will never understand why that would occur.  So, explain to me how I’m wrong, or how I don’t know anything that you all don’t already know.

So, if you’re torturing Iraqi insurgents to get info, tell them you are doing it to save the innocent / collateral lives.  Tell them you’re not doing it to save the lives of American Soldiers.

Now those who believe in karma, or that Hitler lost because he was the most evil, should worry, because as I see it, we are the Adolf Hitler in the Iraq situation, or any other country we invade for developing WMDs.  How would we like it if someone started bombing us because we have WMDs?

I’m guessing Bush (and especially the American people) would like to just go back to the time just before the 2003 invasion, when Saddam Hussein had all the sectarian violence in control, where he allowed weapons inspectors run of the entire country to look “anywhere,” even in Saddam’s wife’s bra if we so demanded.  And instead of provoking Saddam personally as much as he possibly could, maybe George now wishes he would have implemented my simple 1998 lifting the sanctions advice, and got some more good healthy trade going.  After something like that, why would they have wanted to destroy us?  It seemed to work that way with Japan.  “Emotional pride” (overruling intelligence) is the only thing that keeps it from happening, and it’s “self-centered pride” (not admitting fault) that is keeping the error going, as the restitution debt grows larger. 

Republicans express “rosy reassurance” about the Iraq pickle (but not quite toast).

In a country of free speech, why are there phone bills? (Hohoho)

And, how do "Do not walk on the grass" signs get there?

Death penalty for Saddam Who’s-sane?:

I agree with the Vatican and oppose the death penalty.  However, one does not commit a sin (hurt an “innocent” person) hanging anyone who has killed an innocent person.  This is assuming that not every Saddam victim was a true enemy, necessary for, e.g., self-defense, or valid defense of other “innocent” Iraqis.  Status-quo thought seems to just emphasize the atrocity of the act(s), ignoring any kinds of justification, especially in comparison to what we do.  I thought releasing him and giving back his power would save American lives, but our trusting administration disagrees, and nobody else is near smart enough to even consider it.  But, like Moussaoui (9/11 terrorist), I can say that giving the death penalty to Saddam justifies the death penalty for President Bush or anyone who has supported the Iraqi invasion.  That is because those have killed “innocent” Iraqis as a result, therefore are as evil as Saddam Hussein.  (And, for these same kinds of reasons.)  That’s not just me talking, that’s just fair and truthful logic.  Tell me how I’m wrong?  You can’t, so you have no choice but to ignore me.  The obvious corruption of justice is when we invaded Iraq for WMDs reasons, and then when we find we’re wrong, we get him for something that we cared less about in the 1980s when Saddam was more of an ally, just because we’re hate based.  That’s sort of like one of those kinds of cops who pulls you over thinking you’re drunk, but nails you for something else frivolous, after he finds you sober.  I’m just talking about the kind of cops who shouldn’t be cops.  So, whatever you want to make good for the gander.  I don’t know how unjust Saddam Hussein was, but an incredible example of injustice is that Saddam’s original judge was fired because he was siding for Saddam.  So they fire him and get another.  How much more obvious can injustice be?  Remember, once Saddam is dead, he we will have a heck of a time showing the people of Iraq amends.  If / when things get really bad, the releasing Saddam option won’t be available.  We are even emphasizing the newly created terrorists we’ve made by invading Iraq, so if that grows to becoming a real threat against our mainland, we may wish then that we were able to make and show restitution sometime before.  I think Bush is going to kill him just for pride reasons – because Bush really can’t see beyond his nose (maybe that’s not even obvious today).  “Dumb” is what we all need to admit before we can find solutions.  I’m sure people who lived 100,000 years ago had themselves convinced by their advanced high communication skills, that there was nothing they didn’t know.  But, even today, humans are not smart enough to know it until we’re taught it: Shiites celebrating Saddam’s sentence, shooting guns in the air, don’t realize the danger of what a bullet can do to the head that drops from the sky.  And, “Just when things couldn’t be worse, now the roof is leaking.”  We would, e.g., do the Iraqi people better by having them watch The Mexican, 2001, with Brad Pitt and Julia Roberts.  The simple quick lesson, and others like it, should even be taught in U.S. Schools.  “Dumb” is what we all need to admit before we can find solutions.  “Saddam himself called for peace in the wake of the verdict, according to his lawyer Khalil al-Dulaimi.”  Well, that is someone trying to save American lives.

I didn’t know too much water could kill you.  I’ve always heard to drink lots of water.  That’s another example of what our schools should be teaching.

Butcher of Baghdad bagged for a Boot Hill necktie party:

High Noon in Nagasaki (6 am Baghdad time; 9 pm in Dodge) stretched the neck of Saddam Hussein.  I’d be kickin’, clawin’, screamin’, scratchin’, bitin’, pawin’, spiting out my teeth at them, shakin’ blood off my hair at them, kickin’ up excretions dropped down my pant legs, where I’d be beaten so badly that I would hope to die before they got the noose around my neck.  But if I didn’t, I’d let out a blood curdling yell that would make your skin crawl – like how John the Baptist did – on my way down; instead of praying to Allah for a last minute cop-out.  Or, I’d just cry like a big bawl baby.  But, they may have had him sedated.  With that lousy video, I question if they really did it.  I could easily stomach a full drop shot zoomed in on his neck breaking.  But, I understand that only me or Dirty Harry could handle it.  What will this mean?  Ask yourself what would Toby best base his revenge lyrics on if Russians assassinated our President and killed some innocent women and children to boot.  I think he’d get better emotional results basing it on the killing of the innocent people.  So, I’m-a guessin’ not much is going to change (get “worse”… than it would otherwise) in Iraq.  George just wants to learn the hard way.

Shortly after I keyed-in the above, Fox News actually showed a disgusting picture of Saddam Hussein dead.  Well… of course it made me sick.  That big rip showing the red guts bubbled out of his neck surrounded by his fuzzy beard.  Eww, sick!  Thanks for grossing me out Fox!

So, what we have is life with Saddam Hussein (in the ‘80s):

And life after Saddam Hussein:

Any questions?

I just thought that partnering with Saddam Hussein might lessen the insurgency and sectarian violence, thereby saving American lives.  But, apparently George doesn’t really care about that, and just for revenge reasons (Saddam tried to kill his father) wanted to make sure he was dead before those Democrats do something to not let it happen.  Obviously, to those with a higher I.Q. than O’Reilly’s, that was Bush’s only intention in the first place.  The media reports (you decide) that Iraqis are thankful that we invaded and removed Saddam Hussein; but, I betcha most Iraqis are really saying “This ain't no party, this ain't no disco, this ain't no fooling around. No time for dancing, or lovey dovey: I ain't got time for that now.” –Talking Heads, 1979.  Maybe Psycho Killer (George) needs to slap himself in the head.  ‘Course, dead Iraqis are discoin’ singin’: “You dropped a bomb on me, baby: you dropped a bomb on me.” –The Gap Band, 1982.  “I, I-I, I-I-I won’t forget it.”

Windows Vista:

Disregarding the added restrictions, I, I-I, I-I-I think the only real advantage is a backup utility that (supposedly) actually works.  So, we’ve finally advance Windows to the capability of DOS 3.  That’s for backin’ up the whole kit and caboodle.  But, does it create a one-click for daily backups from a specified date and specified folders, onto just a CD-R, or will I be glad again I’m early ‘90s computer savvy (with batch files)?  Someone let me know.

Michael B. Nifong:

He’s just aliken to Rosco P. Coltrane:  No matter how hard he tries, hook or crook, he just can’t get them Duke boys.  Kik-kik-kik-kik-kik-kyah!!  The only reason the true story is coming out in this case, is because of the national exposure.  Nifong, does whatever he wants to save face because I’m sure he’s always done it that way in the past, and no one had ever stopped him.  And, I’m sure there’s a tremendous amount of other innocent people who are being convicted in the same way.  Higher authorities do nothing about it simply to avoid the extra work, and we all know that government employees’ number-one priority is to get out of doing their work, to the extent that many find a thrill how they can actually be a derelict and incompetent and still have their jobs.  They’ll even brag about it.  Since the public is far too stupid to fix it, a fear of God is the only possible solution; and, today’s churches do everything they can to counter that Biblically based truth.  So, news people who aren’t trying to correct the church don’t have just cause to complain about the vast majority of problems in the news.

If a train station is where the train stops, what is a workstation? (Hehehe)

Or, “crime doesn't pay”...does that mean that your job is a crime?

“Nobody calls me stupid!!!”:

Instead of punching out someone who calls you stupid, like how an alcoholic has to “admit” he’s an alcoholic before he can quit, people need to verbally state (to themselves and to others) that they are stupid and don’t know it all, like every morning or something.  This is another major catch-22 hurtle on the road to utopia.

I just don’t want to be a victim of a future terrorist attack:

Maybe these terrorists should be informed that not everyone in the U.S. is a bias, self-centered, lying, cowardice, bully, bigot; who are so dumb they don’t even realize it.  And, some of us actually offer our charity by talking about true, unbiased fairness.  Possibly, these terrorist would have second thoughts before killing just any American.  So, somebody tell them about that!

Paxcon:

Saw on Fox News 11-11-06, Line-X sells “Paxcon” – a paint which supports bricks, etc. to protect a building from a terrorist truck bomb.  Hey, there’s some great technology.  Why not for the court house, over all houses, etc.: to protect from tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.?  Let’s get them prices lowered and implement a safer world.  Millions of lives can be saved!  If we invest just half of what we’ve spent on the against Saddam campaign, we could save millions of future lives.  Like maybe just explain about slant drilling, etc. so we can divert millions of dollars from future wars.  But oh… what terrible shape the Iraqi people would be in right now, if we would not have brought them their new “freedom.”  They are so lucky no one had faith in me back in 1998.

Iran threatens Israel:

I’ve already written about Israel.  Search “critical” in your Deleted folder.

South Hills Evangelical Church, Missoula Montana, turns the other cheek to looters:

You see, giving gifts like that makes a criminal not wish to harm givers like that.  Placing criminals in jail doesn’t make a criminal not wish to harm the jailers (not to mention jailers who enjoy showing it’s okay for jailers to break the laws but it’s not okay for inmates to break the laws).  Motivation by gifts is much better than motivation by pain (but both gets the horses / dogs to run a fast race).  The wrongful church condemnation of sex outside of marriage causes the church to be an enemy of much of society.  Criminals / you are going to feel better about hurting someone who deserves it, and not feel good about someone who just gave you a gift.  However, eye-for-eye is still not a sin, it’s just not recommended mainly because we are all too stupid to even know what’s right and wrong in the first place.  All we know is favoritism.  Everyone disagrees with me “because” everyone is too stupid to realize they’re all too stupid.  How could any judge, jailer or cop who eats meat know right from wrong?  Everything is just a big game to all of them.  The Missoula congregation says they are doing it because God forgives us, but that won’t sell to get others to turn the other cheek.  What will sell is stating “vengeance is Mine, [and] I will repay, saith the Lord” (Leviticus 19:18; Deut. 32:35; Proverbs 25:21-22; Matt. 5:38-42; Hebrews 10:30; Romans 12:16-21: “Do not be wise in your own opinion”; etc.).  Forgiving others because someone forgave us is not going to work overall; but, forgiving others knowing Jesus assures us he will cause equal afterlife suffering, will work.

Phelps Family Zip Code:

Did you know that the Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church zip code is 66604?  Does that mean there are three imbeciles somewhere who are worse?  And with the “0”, does that mean there at least six to 95 more blatant simpletons somewhere, selling their totally opposite versions of Christ?

Stingray coincidence:

That proves that God can do anything; therefore, if you have good luck and lots of money, looks, and health, that you are going to assume that your unfairness must be with God’s favor (… not!), because we are all too dumb to know if our unfairness is unfair in any other way.  But, to discredit that theory, all I have to do is show “one” (1) person with “good luck and lots of money, looks, and health” that is noted to be evil.  And conversely, if you have bad luck, a lousy job, are ugly, or in poor health, then God must think you deserve it.  I’ve actually heard “Christians” state that every innocent person, fireman, police officer, etc. that died in 9-11 had to deserve it.  So, to also discredit the theory, all I have to show is “one” (1) person who has bad luck, a bad job, is ugly, or in poor health; who is a good, non-hurting-others charitable person – and I bet I can find a lot of those (and a lot of the good-luck evil people too).  So, if you can get away with a lot of unfair stuff, and you still have good fortunes, you still might want to listen to a little logic.  “Afterlife” punishment and gifts is what Jesus was talking about, relating to a “resurrection.”  The trick is, today’s churches say God can do anything conveying that if you are rich and lucky, you are God approved, because those are the ones who can give more money to the liars.  And, it has a twofold advantage as it tells the poor and unlucky that God disapproves you, which stresses for them to not have sex outside of marriage (financial support), so the rich and lucky don’t have to pay out so much welfare (which was even standard in the Roman era).  Plus, the poor and unlucky have nothing to give to the church so the decision is easy to make.  However, I think if Jesus conveyed to his poor and unlucky audience that they were purposely condemned, I don’t think he would have attained His following.  Conversely, Sermon on the Mountain told the poor and unlucky they are the ones that God finds favor in, but that their rewards will be in the afterlife.  Jesus warned and criticized the rich telling them that God was not pleased; therefore, just because you have a fine and dandy life, doesn’t “just” mean you’re right with God.  And it’s probably the opposite.  Oh sure, churches will tell it both ways, but the bad way is 99% of what they emphasize; therefore, how is it even possible for, e.g., George Bush to not feel adequacy for killing innocent people??

12-13-06: Bush announces adamancy about his method of helping Iraq, and his method to make the Iraqi people like us more:

But, with the majority of Americans against the Iraq war, and with a muddled Iraq (with so many Iraqi’s thinking it was better under Saddam Hussein), George looks like he’s ready for the rubber room (“RRR”).  I still suggest that a better kind of happiness can be found admitting you were wrong about removing Saddam Hussein, and making restitution to all involved.  If somehow he could just make those Americans who originally supported the Iraq invasion pay the bill, that would be great!  No matter how many Iraqi’s and Americans die, George doesn’t want to admit that our invasion is “the cause” of all the Iraqi problems.  “What a man, what a man, what a man: what a mighty good man” –Salt-N-Pepa, 1994.

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals):

As I’ve said before, my mission is to find fault in everyone!  I’m not going to let this PETA bunch beat me.  I “will” search high and low until I find something wrong with them.  Plus, it’s embarrassing for my followers to see a grown man cry when I visit Christian vegetarian websites.  Mr. Critical will not allow these organizations to cause me to forsake my insults and degradations.  I wish all people to be more like O’Reilly and President Bush, who are not so challenging.

“Freedom”:

“We will never back down from the threats to our freedom.” –George W. Bush.  I don’t believe for a second that the terrorists want to kill us because they don’t like our “freedom.”  That’s an old relic from the communism days (which I don’t even think was correct).  I don’t think the terrorists attacked the World Trade Center because they don’t like the way we treat ourselves (our freedom: i.e. First Amendment).  Yet, cockamamie George will say it and most people “just” believe it.  And he’s been saying that since 9/11.  When I hear these kind of irrational / cop-out excuses, it makes me can’t help but think the terrorists are in the right.  Again, I’m one of the few who wants to find the real solution to the terrorist problem.

“Infidels”:

“An unbeliever with respect to a particular religion.”  The translation from the Arabic is “infidels”?  I’m not buying it.  If the only reason the terrorists and Iraqi insurgents want to kill us is because we’re not Muslim, then they’d also attack China, etc.  I think we are the “worst” evil with a government and media that likes to convey false translations just to save face.  I’m trying telling you all, it’s going to backfire against us someday… (What do I mean “someday”?)

The Goldenrule:

I think I have explained it right; but, the problem is: I’m nobody.  And the catch-22 is, if people can’t see the logic from a nobody, then a somebody will always be able to sway the people in the future.  Hopefully, the somebodies are now starting to realize that they may not already know it all.  And hopefully after more somebodies prove they don’t know the solution, maybe I will start to get listened to.  So the somebodies are going to have to support a nobody – I don’t see it happening either.

June 22, 1941:

“Germany launches the largest land invasion in history, attacking Russia with some 3 million troops and numerous tanks.”  It amazes me how 3 million oxymorons with weapons can really not be in charge.

Trying to get the essence of the Golden Rule announced in today’s media:

I think the problem is that people today live so far from the truth that when I present the real meaning of an authentic necessary duty from Jesus (Matt. 25:34-46), they just ignore it and hope it goes away.  And, it will when I die.

And, so easy to stereotype, O’Reilly only reads viewer comments that are either to his favor or ones he can refute.  Now, I’m admittingly the stupid one for giving some of you others the benefit of the doubt.  Not one of you can justly complain to whatever the future begets.  If the meek inherit the earth, who do you think they will praise: me or people like O’Reilly and all others who refused to print the essence of God’s Word?  Ask O’Reilly: if God can do anything, why do we need secular laws?  If God can cure all ills, why do we have to wait for medicine and pills?  Regardless, if God can or can’t do anything directly, it violates our entire reason for being if God intervened.  Jesus said the miracles were only necessary because, otherwise, we wouldn’t have believed.  And, if we wouldn’t have believed, then I wouldn’t have Jesus for support of my further assessment.  Yes, I have all the answers when in comes to right and wrong, and I have it concisely.  It makes a lot of sense that my stuff would clash with an unrighteous world.  We just (barely) have laws today to protect me: 500 years ago I would have been burned at the stake.  Heck, 100 years ago I would have been tar and feathered and drug down Main Street.  I did not pursue this hoping I’d have all the answers: I pursued it after noticing I knew (or could figure) a lot of things which appeared others didn’t know, so I felt it my duty to put it on paper starting in 1996.  Then, I found a tremendous amount of support for what I had written in the Bible, especially in Revelations (e.g., the evil of hunting animals).  So what am I supposed to think?  What started out as a two week project is still monopolizing my time today.  Are there many ethical based problems in the world?  Yes.  Do I know why these things are happening?  Yes.  Should I share it with those who apparently don’t see the solutions?  No, according to many of you.  Individuals who are too weak to admit to themselves they don’t already know it (about these major subjects), seems to be my main obstacle.  Knowing how powerful your self-pride is, logically my endeavor is impossible; which may be the reason past genius’s have keep their mouths shut (and then there’s the being blackballed reasons).  I guess as long as I’m enthused, I’ll keep repeating my stuff to everyone.  And, just because someone other than me is an ethical genius, doesn’t mean he’s righteous / sacrificial enough to allow himself to be blackballed (as I have allowed).  You will likely never find someone like me ever again.  I’ve got all the answers.  Oh, there’re different kinds of genius aptitudes: just because you can communicate well, or write number-one music hits, etc. doesn’t mean you can ethically reckon beyond your box – you still have yourself as a major obstacle.

Values for the “mysterious” whore of Babylon (allegory in Rev. 17-19 [chapters]. Again, fornication meant prostitution in the original text):

http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/getStatute.do?number=11564, K.S.A. 21-3512 (Kansas “criminal” law: prostitution):

“Prostitution. (a) Prostitution is performing for hire, or offering or agreeing to perform for hire where there is an exchange of value, any of the following acts: (1) Sexual intercourse … Prostitution is a class B nonperson misdemeanor.”  Well, any of you men who have paid for a woman’s dinner, movie, living expenses, etc. (things of “value”) who you’ve had sex with, is in violation of Kansas law; or, if you have just offered it.  Unless the females lies to the cops and tells them that she would have had sex with the guy even if he didn’t buy anything for her.  So, the way the laws (and marriage laws) are, we technically have to lie to keep from violating the law.  And, a man or woman cannot be a true Christian if they participate in this dishonest game.  Moreover, the statute doesn’t section for marriage as a defense.  Believe it or not! –Robert Ripley.  I know you’re saying “no, no, no… that’s not correct,” but my job is to show how it is technically correct (in all honesty).  So, everyone be on the look out:

http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/getStatuteFile.do?number=/22-2403.html, K.S.A. 22-2403 (Kansas “criminal” law: citizen’s arrest):

“Arrest by private person. A person who is not a law enforcement officer may arrest another person when … any crime, other than a traffic infraction or a cigarette or tobacco infraction, has been or is being committed by the arrested person in the view of the person making the arrest.”  Aren’t the laws dandy?  So, buy all the porn you want; but, beware… Mr. Critical may be looking over your shoulder the next time you buy those movie tickets, or pay your restaurant bill, rent, groceries, etc.  The law is the law, ask O’Reilly.  You can be sure I’m going to bring a calculator along the next time I take out Ms. Critical (for our last date).  So, who wants to help me take a bite out of marriage?  It’s for supper.

It appears not everyone today has properly earned it: “Well she comes around here. Just about midnight. She makes me feel so good; she makes me feel alright.” –Shadows of Knight, 1966.  If this was an open / free sex world, you wouldn’t even have to know, spell, or especially shout her name.

If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends? (Hahaha)

And, if love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?

They “sound” smart, and people will die in the battlefield for them, but:

Today’s quick, gifted, highly education leaders with excellent communication skills are like driving a clean and dusted Rolls Royce across the country without a map or road signs.

Duh:

Animals shouldn’t be born if we’re not going to be nice to them.  Some people justify their eating of animals because “the animal didn’t die in vain,” but I don’t see any of them people lying in a field so the buzzards can have a feast (even if you had someone slice your throat first). 

U.S. now divided on another issue:

Some are figuring that Mr. Critical must have gotten too many spankings, and some think Mr. Critical surely didn’t get enough spankings.  I haven’t completely studied the best way to raise our kids.  I’m just trying to get it right for the adults, first.  But, for kids, there’s school, discipline, etc. that probably need superior counseling / improvement.  Somehow day care, etc. people are able to maintain sufficient control without spanking.  I first need to learn how they do that.  Where, me, I’d spank the heck out of George W. Bush if I could.  Or, somehow I’d tell him to not hit all the nearby kids when just one stole his toy.  And, if you can’t do it without hitting the other kids, then you let the bad kid keep it, and instead tell the adults about it later, like how adults should tell God about it.  You see, maybe spanking is the only thing some kids / adults will understand.  I know when a parent promises punishment, then doesn’t carry it through later when emotions have changed, they lose their integrity for the next promise.  I’m guessing that’s the case with all those brats we all see now and then.  I remember being told to not spank under the age of three as it can cause permanent problems.  So on my kid’s third birthday, he got tanned so much that he couldn’t sit down for a week.  No, I’m just kidding.  I do know one thing for sure, parents should punish their kids when they do something against the parent(s), “and” when they do something against anyone else.  Not doing so will also create another evil for the rest of the world.  “Never hurt an innocent person” is of mandatory importance in the kid world also.  Of course, the big problem with that is when the parent is flat-out wrong or excessive in their punishment.  Knowing how dumb adults are, and how emotions (and advice from other dumb adults) dictate usually 100% of punishment, I don’t see a quick and easy solution.  Give me the facts now, before I’m dead, and I’ll work on it.  I’m guessing when (the correct) logic overrules default emotions, we won’t need to spank; but, until then, spanking may be better than not (over 3 years old).  We all agree spanking the kid just because the parent is angry at someone else, is always wrong.  Today, to stop a kid who likes to run out into the street a lot, spankings will make a kid listen better.  We just have to find out a way to teach logic in a way that’s more influential or entertaining than default spanking.  A correctly made video might work best.  Someone today wishes she had seen an interesting video about how drinking too much water can kill you.  She probably spent many, many years in “school” wishing she could have learned valuable things, but realizes now how dumb our superiors really are.

Bush on The O’Reilly Factor:

On The O’Reilly Factor 10-18-06, George said his faith in God sustains and comforts him.  As it does with many criminals and idiots.  The cop-out emotion is available for the taking, via practically all of today’s churches.  So, when the Bible says turn the other cheek, God sustains and gives George comfort for dropping bombs on children (then he says it’s for “their” freedom).  I guess God didn’t know about the missing WMDs.  You either have to be dumb or a good liar to yourself to get that kind of comfort.  The Mormons easily recruit folks by asking them to ask God if the Book of Mormon is true; then if they feel a good feeling, that’s God assuring them it’s true.  The brainwash is simple: If one wants to believe it, they’ll simply get the good feeling.  I openly tried it once, but it didn’t work.  But, I understand it works for most people.  How come?

Put up your dukes, many more kooks are going to have nukes:

“30 more countries could have nukes soon.” –Associated Press, 10-16-06.  Sounds like a good time for a Goldenrule fad.  But, it ain’t gonna last without free sex.  I know you all think I’m screwed up because you can’t think outside your box.  It’s a very high intelligence thing verses what you’ve been taught.  So, most of you shouldn’t even try.  If you lived to be a thousand years old, you would still not be able to figure it out on your own.  You have to wait until “somebody” tells you.  Plus, the free sex isn’t going to work until there’s a fad to desire diversity in looks.  The next time you look at an attractive woman, analyze how I’m trying to overrule that kind of power.  For that one I definitely need some pretty extreme support from God (Matt. 5:28-29): “Pluck it [your eye] out” or “be cast into hell.” – Now that’s some super emphasized support from the Almighty against desire for only the attractive.  Because there’s no other way open sex can work when everyone only wants one kind of appearance.  Ugly women have difficulty getting picked up even in bars (ugly guys don’t even want them), so sex is not the priority that everyone thinks it is: looks is.  But, I’m talking extreme, hundreds of years in the future stuff.  Mainly today I’m just trying to remove the church condemnation against free sex; everybody can do whatever they want.  I’m simply for – among other things – sexual… “freedom.”  Difficult to fathom the difference, but changing liars is lots easier than changing your visual lust for those attractive women, which would have to start with a new generation.  I mean, you “could” get an influential religious leader to change and be honest overnight, by you can’t get men to quit lusting for beautiful women overnight.  (Lots of you are thinking it’s impossible for either, and you might be right.)  Hard to stereotype: I actually don’t recommend promiscuity, orgy cults, etc. until there are cures for STDs, which church-honesty about sex would expedite.  Today, monogamy is the safest thing I recommend, and because it alleviates damaging church and societal condemnation.  Let me absorb all the ignorant condemnation.  Otherwise, you’re on your own.  Even in an eventual free sex society, I predict there will still be some who truly only want monogamy, and hey, that’s fine: God likes all kinds of diversity (that doesn’t hurt the innocent).  I’m just pushing for the “freedom” of the down-deep desires of all the rest (and especially in women – they’ve been suppressed the most).  In the old days, you couldn’t keep the women away from the eunuchs, because they could still have and enjoy sex, with guaranteed infertility.  If you were a woman back then, would you really want to do anyone else?  To keep my stuff, I’ll be glad to be loyal to one woman for the rest of my life.  And, don’t make the same mistake your parents did: use birth control!  By the way, since my wife died, I’ve been in the dating scene for several years (women only), and it seems that all women are looking for a man who thinks like a woman, and all men want a woman who thinks like a man.  “Compromise” seems to be the only thing holding anything together.  And, the singles who are available, understandably, are the ones who have been taught to not compromise (or think that “compromise” means somehow still getting their way all the time).  In the old days, a happy relationship was where the man was in charge, and the woman was happy (and had pride in) doing as she was told.  (And, each was happy if the man didn’t abuse, or was unfair with, his power.)  Today, both sides have to be smart enough to know how to compromise or neither will be happy.  I remember a popular 1995 book called The Rules (Fein & Schneider), which actually taught women that the best way to get a man was to be very dishonest, and I’m getting so sick of dating women who play those same games, testing me to see how I will react.  I try to tell them the rules are, there are no “rules”: it’s just whatever works (welcome to the land of the free); but, as you all know, I’m a nobody.  Today, I’ve heard of many instances where women will treat their man cruel just to show he’s not in charge.  And, when he gives in to her new abusive authority, she’ll dump him as she is appalled by and bored with his weakness.  You could have a great wife, but one certain kind of chat with the ladies in the rest room, and your perfect match could now be your new worst enemy.  I’ve heard there’s a tremendous amount of domestic violence filling up the court dockets nowadays because of women’s lib.  Women’s lib is a very good thing, but we are very, very dumb animals and don’t know how to deal with it.  Marriage is definitely on its way out, but more and more people are going to move away from the church, as long as the church is saying sex outside of marriage is wrong.  No time is better than now for a Mr. Critical (with a little experience).

By the way, “lust” doesn’t just mean sexual desire: it means a higher / bias / favoritism kind of sexual desire; specifically something that relates to the human “eye.”  If lust only meant sexual desire period, then mankind would end, if everyone in the world became that kind of Christian, duh!  But, that’s what the church teaches, and everyone is truly dumb enough to “just” believe it.  Solutions will never be found as long as we think guys like O’Reilly are smart.  O’Reilly can only think within a stereotype, he is just very good at communicating inside that box.  I bet I could make double what O’Reilly makes, if I sold my soul to tell the rich exactly what they wanted to hear (or, your typical preacher).

goldenrule.com’s:

Many “golden rule” websites list examples.  Some list sex between single people as breaking the “golden rule.”  They are very good people in many ways, but don’t realize consensual sex (between singles) doesn’t break the “golden rule.”  That supports my speculation that dumbness (verses evil) is more the real problem I’m fighting.  With chin on fist and elbow on knee, possibly I should only pursue in-depth analysis between the words dumb, dumber and dumberer.  Then I’ll listen to O’Reilly and get all messed up again.  By the way, I found later that O’Reilly and others apparently lifted the blocking of my emails.

What…? When…? Where…? (people should be honest like Barbarino):

First, we must be able to admit we don’t already know it all.  I think that some major world problems can disappear once the American media starts being fair and balanced (e.g., slant drilling).  “High communication skills” is the only reason we excel over the other animals, which allows us to teach the next generation.  Trial and error is the only way we can further learn and achieve: e.g., default human intelligence says baby is safest in mother’s arms, when riding in car.  And, baby thinks so too.  So… explain to me the big difference???  “I’m so confused!”

O’Reilly puts down Cindy Sheehan and Sunsara Taylor for having a small group of direct followers, suggesting minority views must not be valid and should be ignored; then states how Fox is the only media that’s not liberal.  So who’s the real minority Bill?  (This is ignoring the polls showing that more than half of Americans are against the war, placing Sheehan and Taylor into the majority.)  I think lots of people watch O’Reilly because he’s the one they love to hate.

Who’s “tough”?:

I’ve noticed two kinds of people who others define as tough.  There’s tough fair, and there’s tough unfair.  I recall in my school days, being assigned a teacher that many people called tough.  Fearing problems, I found he was tough, but was fair tough; which gains a lot of respect from me and other students I’m sure.  He was very smart, well mannered, and a person could learn more in his class.  Then there’s others who are also called tough, who are just mean, dumb, unfair (when it suits there personal emotions) and self-seeking.  Mike Nifong seems to be the best current example.  But abusive and corrupt police, judges, etc. are also good examples.  Many people will define those as “tough,” even “manly”; but, I don’t: I define them as “week” and “pathetic” and many times “evil.”  I suppose you could have two prison guards that inmates call tough, where each is a totally different kind of tough.  The problem is there’s a lot more tough-week people out there than there is tough-fair people.  Since society uses the same word to describe two totally different kinds of people, does the answer lie in analyzing the real intelligence of society (dumb or dumber)?  There’s also many who are not tough when they should be, but society (and I) agree better things will come hiring those who are “tough.”  I think when we have a firm basis of right from wrong (never hurt an innocent person), then maybe society will be more easily able to see the difference between the two kinds of “tough.”  It will have to be “easy” or it won’t get done, because society as a whole is a long way from tough, hence need those leaders who are really “tough,” as it correctly wishes.

Iranian Rape Laws:

Fox News tells how the law in Iran says its okay for a man to rape a woman; and, that the woman, the victim of the rape, will be sentenced to death.  I don’t think any of you are insane for thinking I’m making this up, but that is the way it came across (around noon [CT], 1-11-07).  They even had a recording of an Iranian rape victim crying out because she was getting the death penalty.  Knowing that Fox News wants us to invade Iran, without researching it, I think it’s either a good example of a spin or a flat out lie.  If I’m right, then the American people are receiving false impressions about important realities, which do influence our decisions.  If I’m right, who is the real (or worst) evil in the eyes of God?  I think our children will have a better future if Elmer Fudd was in charge of giving us the facts – wight?  (At least Elmer admits he’s a murderer when he kills da wabbit.)  If I’m wong, then we need to begin air strikes against Iran’s facilities and citizens at once, because of their ludicrous rape laws.  That way, instead of them becoming Adolf Hitler and taking over the world and allowing men to rape all women, the logic is that we become Adolf Hitler and conquer their government first and change their system of ludicrous laws, and spread our laws where half of all surgeries are unnecessary (when people ask “What’s up doc?”).  Whether it’s from the News or advertisements, America is the land of constant false impressions.  Sure, I can live in the Taj Mahal, but if I’m in constant pain because it makes my doctor more money, and/or work two shifts to pay the child support for pursuing that happiness, am I really happier?  Scwoowy Fox!

Bush spends more of America’s money sending more troops to Iraq, even though the majority doesn’t want it, because of the importance that the majority [sic] in Iraq rules:

I think George is doing everything he can to make it so liberals don’t get the last laugh.  We’re all born evil (dumb and selfish), so it’s easy to figure why most adults think the way they do.  I’m already reading books in the Presidential libraries that summarize the events of all Presidents, where the basic truth about this Iraq situation makes George W. look like a real moron.  So, future updated facts will surely make him look worse.  Plus, no one in a hundred years will have to ignore truth, as none of them will need to save face concerning the 2003 Iraq decision.  But, since there are degrees of how much one can look like a moron, I think we oughta pull out (because we are the real / most evil), then when “they” establish a new government, we should spend billions of U.S. dollars making restitution to them, and just being nice overall.  Why do we get along with Japan so well, after WWII?  Whatever’s the reason, I suggest we do the same concerning Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, etc.  I know that’s impossible in our constant false impression society, but I say it anyway.  However, when this Iraq thing ends (if it ever does), terrorists will be out to get us as long as we continue to be unfair; but, won’t (eventually) if we start being fair.  (But then I’m talking to an audience that thinks we have been fair, so… just go back to sleep.) (I am also talking to an audience that would “prove me wrong” by telling about “one” real instance of American fairness, and people would “just” accept it as proof.)  I think we have two choices for a win in Iraq: (1) Do a mass geographic genocide, making sure you get every person.  That’s the only way to stop the kind of problems we face today.  That’s where you have to kill lots of innocent people to make sure you’ve gotten the enemy individuals.  However, that could lead to having to basically genocide the entire world outside of the United States, when others express dismay.  And, if people in U.S. towns and states start protesting violently, we will have to genocide entire U.S. cities and/or states.  Eventually, we may end up with just one family alive (the Bush family).  Or, (2) pull out of Iraq and let them pick / fight for their next leader (It won’t be who we presently want it to be. Or, if it is, it won’t stay that way for long, even under its own authority).  Then, with hundreds of times more reason why Iraqis would seek revenge, we will wish that we could go back to early 2003 where we had open weapons inspections of the entire country allowed by… Saddam Hussein.  But, the solution to that, would be paying them billions in restitution (e.g., goods, supplies, etc.), and attain a profitable exchange of some kind, and treat them fair.  But, pride won’t let us do that, so the genocide method will probably prevail, which offers lots of initial pride.  And with no fear of God, what’s to stop it?  Winning the game is priority to George.  The Germans had to have liked the U.S. when Truman implemented Operation Vittles (airlifted over 2.3 million tons of food, supplies and medicine) in 1948, while hating the Russians, who planned to starve them out.  Of course, Harry did it just to spite the Russians, but German appreciation had to result.  That was also the same year Truman recognized that state of Israel, so Truman wasn’t the smartest cookie.  If we could find the same motivation as we did to spite the Russians, and some how have the willingness to spend the money to produce the same good-will in Iraq, then that would be incredible.  If we could go back in time to Feb. 1998 and do it then, that would be recognizing the much higher intelligence of “a nobody” (me).  Democrats say they want to support our troops, but they don’t want to escalate the war.  But, Mr. Critical says the best way to “support” our troops is to send them home, dummies!  When Hannity says he wants to supports our troops, he’s actually saying to place them in harms way, just so he and other bigots can save face.  If somehow we could just make people like Hannity pay the restitution bill, instead of guys like me and Ted Kennedy, then that would be true justice.  Again, humans are too stupid (and bias) to know how to do that; therefore, Christ has to “assure” us of fair afterlife punishment (Matt. 5:23-26).  Bush said “there are too many restrictions on the troops that are in place” and has an “aggressive plan” for his “new course.”  Sounds like he plans to allow more killing of innocent people in efforts to get the insurgents; which would be the first step leading to the genocide.  Not only does Jesus say that George will suffer equally (for each innocent) in his afterlife, but it will surely justify more insurgency.  So I think I’ll wait a little longer before I really gloat.  Trial and error is the only way we can further learn and achieve, so I guess these things must come to pass.

With the media ignoring things like slant drilling, al-Saa restaurant, Amiriyah civilian shelter, all the farmers we killed (just as a precaution) on our concealed route to Bahgdad, etc. statements like “We report; you decide” is really already decided, eh?

Why is it that bullets ricochet off of Superman's chest, but he ducks when the gun is thrown at him?

By the way, in 1948, concerning a State of Israel: “Secretary of State George Marshall advised against recognition, warning Truman that Arab countries would cut off oil and unite to destroy the Jews.”  Well… was he right?  And, how much longer is he going to be right?  Obviously the Jews want to be there, instead of somewhere else, because the “holy” [sic] land is a place to feel a good cop-out.  And with that, fittingly, they don’t care how many Arabs they have to hurt to stay there.

“Innocent” people in Israel:

Actually I can talk a little about Israel, with respect to who’s “innocent” there.  It’s like our presence in Iraq:  We forcefully kill and maim innocent people unfairly (for our one-sided WMD interests), overrule their government with ours, and say we are doing it for the benefit of the Iraqi people, which we actually believe in our own minds, even though it’s not true.  However, I am cautious with criticizing talk about helping others, because in like maybe 50 years from now, the fad talk may become a real craving.  But suffice it to say, if we really cared about the people of Iraq, we would have not implemented economic sanctions against them years ago and murdered many of them on our way in.  And changing their government is just a show that we have conquered and won (to daily remind the people of Iraq that).  But, when Israel took over Palestine, they did it with (in the era of) absolutely no regard for the Palestinian residences.  And, today, because of our self-interest violent presence in Iraq, no American is totally innocent by just being there.  So, if I was there just as a missionary or construction worker, how can I ask God to revenge an Iraqi (in his afterlife) for killing me considering what we’ve done to them? -- Any American is “just asking for it” by being there – in the unrighteously conquered lands.  I term this as “semi-innocent,” which leaves no wrong for your adversary in harming you, because you have agreed to your location and position (even when drafted).   So if you live in Israel, a (still) recently conquered land, and you have reached the age of reason (somewhere 7 to 14 years old), and choose to stay in your land, a land which still justly provocative to the Arabs, etc., then how can you ask God to recompense someone who kills you for your chosen occupation of blatantly conquered land (of totally self-centered reasons: the “holy” land / city)?  That would be like if my dad stole our neighbor’s car (and say the police couldn’t prove it or something), and when I grew up, I would drive it knowing that it was stolen, how can I truly ask God to help me if the victim of the theft hurt me?  By the way, answers.com for “age of reason” states “as the child grew older, he or she learned to differentiate between right and wrong.”  Knowing the true scruples of today’s religious, government and media leaders, my question is, at what age does it start to go back down?

So where’s the line for squatter’s right?

I reckon it’s after the entire generation has passed.  If you are Palestinian and never had that land to your own, then you’ve not really had anything stolen from you.  Inheritance?  Well, your elders didn’t have it at the time to give.  Otherwise, everyone could claim rights to lands going back to any time in history and just about everywhere.  But, if I’m out mowing my lawn, and an American Indian swoops off my roof, hootin’and a-hollerin’ war gibberish in my face, splits my head open with a tomahawk, I will religiously assure him before I drop in half, left and right, that… “Sure, you can finish mowing the lawn?”  (Lots of Leno and Letterman jokes bomb too.)

I’m just glad I live in Kansas:

For the rest of you, George needs to make-believe that Kim Jong-il once risked his own life to save him from drowning, but is ready to start a war with South Korea or Japan.  “Think” how you would handle it then?  Think harder.  Take some Advil if need be.  Remember, the day I see it raining wheat, the rest of the world will be gone.

For those who are geographically challenged:

I could be the last person in the world to live.  Time for me to celebrate in song: “Iran… Iran so far away” –A Flock of Seagulls, 1982. “A cloud appears above your head; a beam of light comes shining down on you: shining down on you. The cloud is moving nearer still….”  But, all good things have to come to an end:  “Reached out a hand to touch your face; you’re slowly disappearing from my view: disappearing from my view. Reached out a hand to try again; I’m floating in a beam of light with you: A beam of light with you.”

If I get killed by a terrorist, I’ll know it was caused by people like Bush, O’Reilly, Hannity, and anyone who supported the Iraq war, especially those who still do.  Those make others in the world think violence is the only thing America can understand concerning fairness.  Then after the violence, nobody’s smart enough to know why.  It’s a continuous / never ending vicious circle.  Unless I become the recognized leader of intelligence, it will never end.  Punishing wrongdoers for doing the same basic thing that we do, isn’t going to sell.  It never has and never will.

Matthew 25:43:

I’m trying to let you people know who are against immigration, that Jesus clearly stated you will definitely not go to heaven!  I think me and Jesus’ teachings just aren’t making it through.  Too bad for me or you?  And, women have informed me there are other reasons why a single woman can’t take in one of those homeless people.  Very good rebuttal: I’m impressed – people are on top of things!  But, I’m sure there are lots of prostitutes and female druggies you can find the true Lord in.  Especially if you’re a stranger to the needy woman.  I’d be so moved I’d probably fall down.  Instead I’ll keep a strong stance while I listen to fair, balanced and unafraid Fox News.  By the way, just because the make-believe world of Fox News allows liberals to talk, doesn’t mean they are saying anything about that slant drilling justification: probably the biggest decisive issue for the last 17 years; which is still extremely relevant concerning today’s biggest issue / problem.  The fact no one wants to talk about it (in-depth and in correct fairness), makes me think the terrorist are right about what they say about us.  (You think I’d be alright if I was just smart enough to feel and “sustain” that Godly “comfort” emotion.)  Again, only “one” man needs to admit that he was wrong, treat other countries fair (I know nobody knows what I’m talking about), then maybe in ten years or so, Arabs, etc. will quit wanting to kill us.  Well, that’s only if we start paying just restitution now.  Logically, Americans who think it’s okay for us to be able to defend ourselves with nuclear weapons, but other countries can’t, is not “fair,” and just proves we are all just a bunch of selfish cowards (and bullies to boot).  First we have to be strong enough to admit that, before any real foreign policy improvements can be made.  So, I’ll fall over when I see someone (of high credentials) admit how unfair we are on Fox News.  Don’t change to fairness, just “admit” we are unfair.  Again, that’s “first” base.  Again, the rules are you can’t get to second or third base or a home run, until you first touch first.

Bill O’Reilly told the President he mailed him his book Culture Warrior.  I should also send the President a book: The Bible for Dummies.  Though, what do you bet it doesn’t refer to Matthew 25?

Concerning President Bush and Fox News, our American soldiers should hear: “Here's to the strong, thanks to the brave, don't give up hope: some people change; against all odds, against the grain, love finds a way: some people change.” –Kenny Chesney, 2004.

In addition to admitting fault, American leaders will still show how much “smarter” they are than me by attacking / threatening countries who conclusively build WMDs (opposed to Iraq which was inconclusive).  They’ll still think I’m dumb for warning that there will always be major insurgency after-problems in any country we conquer just for building WMDs.  The true “fairness” is just not in our favor.  You’ll never convince anyone that it’s okay for us to have WMDs but not them; especially when we threaten them or treat them unfair.  There’s a tremendous amount of people in this world that would be willing to die for “fairness.”  Of course, I’m talking to an audience that doesn’t even realize we aren’t fair; so, who may be the real idiot? – Probably me.  So, what is the answer Mr. know it all?  The answer should be me just keeping my mouth shut, and pointing to your Bible.  Yeah, but we’re not going to do that Mr. Smarty-Ass Nobody, because we have our cop-outs and God has to abide by what our preacher says!  If God wanted us to listen to you, he’d make you into somebody…especially somebody we’d want to give our money to!

A second-base home run:

And Jesus said, “First, thou shalt love God who made thee; secondly, thy neighbor as thyself; and all things whatsoever thou wouldst not have done to thee, neither do thou to another.”  If one doesn’t first believe and mostly fear God, they aren’t going to do the second.  The only problem is, the Protestants say the first instruction is all you need.  Plus, since it takes a two-step thinking process, few are going to get it.  Jesus’ job was to condense the Ten Commandments, and my job is to condense Jesus.  So, today, if you believe in God, the “Goldenrule” is your one-word / one-step / first-base home run. 

We know we want people to treat us that way, Mr. Critical: you’re not telling us anything we don’t already know!

And Jesus said, “What thou doeth to the least of these, thou doeth to me.”

We already know all about it, Mr. Critical! You see, we do allow and actually want people to help the poor, because it saves on welfare taxes, even though we found the Christians in the Book of Acts to be such a small “primitive” group, so no one today feels obligated by their unsophisticated examples.  Plus, Jesus was only one man!  Do you expect me to let that overrule the inspiration and intelligence of over 2 billion sophisticated people? No sir, we are a good church: we tell the God favored, successful people who come to our church want they want to hear!

Mr. Critical – “I don’t get frustrated, I get determined” (like Rumsfeld)

-- Home (Index) --