Maybe we should just let our religions fight it out: WWW Link

~Zoo

That's how I feel too MM and the reason why I've said very little here. While I haven't read every response by all I get the same feeling as Lula does.

I think for pro-life Christians we're in a quandry here. Both candidates mentioned here do not represent us. Yet, as MM, I think is saying is we should get behind the "lesser" of two evils. If we don't vote for Rudy...if he is the candidate to go against Hillary, then we might as well give her the vote. And while he's bad enough, she's pure evil (in many minds) so we should vote for the one who will do the least damage.

I would like to believe that Rudy, and perhaps Hillary, won't even be there and am hoping that we won't have to choose between these two at all and that this whole conversation is a moot one. Who knows?

Maybe this conversation will be renewed again only this time we'll be talking about Obama and Huckabee!! I've already gone on record tho that It's going to be Hillary and Huckabee. We'll know soon enough

i am not so sure that he ever called himself a Jew. not sure but don't think so.


he was however a Jew. that encouraged others to worship god through himself.

Yes, MM, I have been pushing hard on this but always to the substance of what you wrote in your initial article.

I've only held your own words up for scrutiny to either make or rebut your point. I took it in stride after you explained your wanting to slap the smug faces of the religious right.

It's kinda ironic that you say here that you can get downright mean, but refuse to admit that your article was downright mean.



I think your writing, your use of language here in this case is mean spirited. From what little I can tell, I wouldn't describe you as a mean person, stubborn, probably set in your ways...yes, mean no.

i discovered ju about 6 months prior to moderateman's arrival. for nearly 3 full years i've read and responsed to his articles as he has read and responded to mine. i've interacted with him frequently and even more frequently observed him interacting with myriad registered members & visitors to ju.

notta doubt in my mind that while moderateman is a whole lotta things--very passionate and outspoken, a man of definite convictions who naturally manifests an imposing presence, a powerul personality who occasionally reacts just a lil too quickly--but mean ain't even on the list. he's not blinded by ideology nor unable to speak out against his own initial position should he discover flaws there.

he's also genuinely generous, cordial, empathetic and possessed of an excellent sense of humor.

he an i disagree on a wide range of issues. neither of us pull punches (although shortly after he joined ju he surprised me by not even attempting to hide his amusement when i suggested 'angry radical man' might be a more accurate nick and he's returned the favor on several subsequent occasions)

all of which leads me to this:



although i don't always join in threads in which you participate,i regularly search them out for a number of reasons. i've yet to see you agree to consider conceding even the slightest possibility any opinion you offer might be ever the tiniest bit flawed--including those which rely totally on faith because they cannot be proven or observed.

as far a mean-spirited goes, i gotta admit i'm still waiting for your unequivocal assertion california's firest were ignited by barbarous fetus-snacking humanists basely defiling the miraculous photo of former pope john paul's recent surprise appearance in the center of a bonfire in poland.

you poor old fuddy duddy

I would like a front seat to that!!!!!!

daniel do us both a favor and stay the fuck outta my blogs, I don't like you or anything you have to say. From now on anything you write will be deleted.