First, I think that new Doge Ball movie looks dang funny, but I'll probably wait to see it on video\dvd...

With that in mind, I wanted to share this article a friend pointed me to. Did you ever play dodge ball? Did you love it or hate it?

==============================

There is a slight tremor in liberal America this morning. An institution that has been loved by millions in the past and had been systematically destroyed by the types who would believe that such institutions are mean is back. No, I'm not talking about marriage between a man and a woman. I'm talking about dodge-ball.

Recently, intellectual "know-betters" have been telling kids they can't play dodge-ball because it's immoral. This from a bunch of people who think Jim and Bob should be allowed to fornicate on the steps of the Massachusetts court house steps.

The "We are smarter than you" crowd has told the rest of us that dodge-ball is violent. Funny how these types have had so little to say about Saddam Hussein et al. These are also the ones who thought Pat Tillman "got what was coming to him".

Liberals oppose dodge-ball, they tell us, because it isolates and terrorizes the weak. Of course, they have the right to kill children still in the womb who have no way of protecting themselves.

The "its not fair crowd" always yells and screams about dodge-ball because not everybody wins. This is the purpose of games right? Not to push yourself to be more alert, active, hard working and achieve success, but rather it should always be about giving "every kid a trophy" ... "Why can't we all be winners?"

The communist left wants to make a big deal about how in dodge-ball one team might hoard all the resources. I mean if a kid is fast enough, he may be able to, once the whistle is blown, sprint to mid-court and knock all the balls back in the direction of his teammates so they have all the "weapons" and the other team has none. I don't know if that's a military strategy or an economic one – though it sure sounds a lot like Ronald Reagan to me – and we all know how insulting that is.

The politically correct "speech sheriffs" will claim that dodge-ball allows one side to taunt the other. I mean, Heaven itself would fall if one kid ever said to another "Hey you – I'm gonna get you this time so ... take that!" (as the "weapon" is hurled at the "victim" on the other team).

We all know it's these kinds of kids who grow up to humiliate prisoners in our prisoner of war camps. And when the taunting does occur, it makes the "victim" of the taunting want to respond even more harshly.

What few people know about Al-Zarqawi is that he was a repeatedly victimized child in dodge-ball through out his early years. His teachers told him not to worry about childhood games. They never knew he would grow up to make such a fine terrorist and be so handy with blades.
They also say dodge-ball picks on fat kids ... er, I mean, "young persons who are slow of foot."

But since they usually get knocked out first – doesn't that mean they get to be first in line for the snacks? In my mind, it's kind of like an obese person's affirmative-action program!

They say it's insensitive to "Native Americans." I mean, how else can you explain the ball being the color red?

They say it's sexist. Why else do the guys try to knock out the girls right after they knock out all the fat kids ... er ... "young persons who are slow of foot"?

They say it's forced religion. After all, the act of "throwing the ball in the direction of an actual person" is quite similar to the act of "stoning" that was carried out in biblical times. But since we all know biblical times never occurred, then you are forcing me to see a demonstration of something I never believed happened.

They say it's not religiously inclusive. For instance, why can't we call a time-out, face east and recite our Muslim prayers?

They say it's complete racism. Some of the teams – especially in these new leagues – are actually all white people. (All black, Latino or Asian teams, though, are not racist because they aren't white.) And on the teams that are mixed, well we all know the reason the non-whites are on the team is because the whites just want to appear as though they aren't racists. We all can see that all whites are racists, right?

And the critics would probably also say that, in the end, dodge-ball is most offensive because – well – President Bush once played it when he was a kid, and that means that ultimately "big oil" must be getting a cut of the take off the production of the red-rubber balls. It's also true that John F. Kerry played it once, but then he saw the light and threw his big red-rubber ball over the fence. Actually it was just the box that his big red-rubber ball came in and not the actual red-rubber ball itself.

Finally, we can be assured of one other thing. If there are injuries to either the players of the newly revived dodge-ball leagues or the facilities they play in, Dick Cheney will secretly agree to a deal that allows Halliburton to do all the reconstruction work – whether they submit the lowest bid or not.

Yep, it's dodge-ball ... and it's the end of the world as we know it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin McCullough

LOL. Do you ever read anything that isn't news? Believe it or not, there are actually articles and stories to be read that are just for fun. I suppose I could try to dig up more prison abuse photos or suicide bomber stories if that will make you happy. Sheesh...

No need to 'dig up' the photos...

...there are plenty more to come.

God only knows what we'd find if any actual digging took place.

Looks like Sanchez was the first "head" to roll.

As far as the dodge-ball thing, I think it was written to pander to the neocons. Sure there's some humor in it, but it trys to paint all those from the middle to left with a wide swath.

All it really does is continue to keep America divided. The neocons are terrified of having a re-united America. They seem to want to keep driving the wedge deeper and deeper and continue with their social engineering wars. What is it about their own countrymen that they hate so much? Why are they more concerned with dumping billions of dollars into a country that wants us dead, rather than helping out their own neighbor? I'll never understand the radical right, and I fear what it's doing to my country.

"What is it about their own countrymen that they hate so much? "

The hate you are sensing is for goverment programs and interventions that seem to be over taxing the people of the country (not just the white males) and serving no one expect the lawers and polititions. The point of most of this article is a knock against the PC movemnet and how so totally over the top it has become. That is what is deepening the divide in this country. Why can't we all just be Americans?


"Why are they more concerned with dumping billions of dollars into a country that wants us dead, rather than helping out their own neighbor?"

So they ALL want us dead? I thought you libs were insisting it was only a few radical muslims groups?

Helping "your own neighbor"? In todays increasingly global society, aren't we all neighbors? Isn't this what the left is striving for? I thought the idea of putting your own country first was a right wing (nationalist) way of thinking...

Well, we actually do have more, but not the kind the media really wants to use....


==================================

Friday, May 21, 2004 9:58 a.m. EDT
Media Sitting on Saddam's Torture Videos

The U.S. backed Arab-language news network Al Hurra broadcast video on Wednesday depicting grisly acts of torture on Iraqi citizens ordered by Saddam Hussein. But so far at least, the shocking new video remains embargoed by U.S. media outlets.

The Washington Post admitted on Friday that it was in possession of some of the gruesome torture images - but did not publish them in a report on the video buried on Page A21. Instead, Post editors decided to front-page stale images of U.S. abuse of suspected terrorists held at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison.

"The [Hussein torture] video reached news outlets," the paper explained, "as senior spokesmen for the Bush administration began to express frustration that the treatment of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. troops had overshadowed well-documented human rights horrors of the Hussein era."

In video yet to be broadcast by any U.S. outlet, Hussein torture victims are shown being flogged and having fingers chopped off. One detainee is filmed as he is thrown from a roof, another beheaded by a sword-weilding member of Saddam's elite Fedayeen unit.

According to the Post, video of the beheading shows a man placing the severed head on the victim's prone body. Another scene shows a man's tongue being cut out.

As NewsMax.com reported on Sunday, other gruesome images from the embargoed video include scenes of Kurdish detainees being castrated and babies being gassed to death.

During the beheading, the executioner reportedly sings "Happy Birthday, Saddam."

Al Hurra news director Mouafac Harb told the Post that he obtained the new torture video on Monday and deemed the images both authentic and newsworthy.

"I was approached with a tape, which I had not seen before," he explained. "I had not seen on the popular Arabic satellite channels any program like this."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/21/100312.shtml

Oh my....

Where to start. LOL.

"Nice attempt at changing the subject PP. Start a thread with a little hate and introduce something that is yet to be shown or proven."

First - I didn't change the subject. I was responding directly to comments made in the subsequent posts. How foolish of me...

Second - there was no hate in the first post. Just some shots taken at specific and general politcal views and social programs that the author felt were actually causing the problems to be worse and not better.... His remarks that you seem to think are racist are actually called 'irony'.

"How PC and funny would it be if a group of black kids playing dodge ball hit your white daughter in the face and broke her nose? "

Wow. So now who is the racist? Does it matter to you what color of skin the kid had who hurt my kid? Or do you think I should respond differently based on the race or religion of the kid who hurt her?

What would matter to me would be - did the person intend to hurt her? Or was it just an accident that happens in contact sports? If they intended to gang up and hurt her, I wouldn't care what color their skin was, I would be just as mad. You seem to be the one focusing on racial issues....

"What if they used "extra" force? Then what? Would that be funny to you? If you got upset, could we then assume you're a white racist, or a father who's angry because his daughter got hurt?"

See my comments above. Why are you bringing race into this? How does one use 'extra' force in dodge ball? A big catapult? Maybe a converted potatoe launcher? I don't get your point\question I guess...
The author simply implied that the liberals would call the game racist for no other reason than white people were involved...

"Purely propaganda full of hate messages."

Show me a hate message. Pick your best example. Don't just give me a quote, give me your explanation as well.

"Every single post you make reminds me just how "UNCHRISTIAN" you are and how Jesus himself would be ashamed of you."

So now you are the self appointed judge and official finger pointer for Jesus. Good job on the promotion.

Is this the best you can do? When challenged, call names, insult my faith, and hope you can lower me to your level of arguing? LOL - good luck...

Again, you just quoted and labeled it all 'words of hate'. The only thing different this time is you questioned my manhood instead of my faith. What's next?

I asked you to just pick one and we could discuss it in a focused way. But for some reason that was too hard...

So I'll try:

The native american vs the color red of the ball comment.

Was there any hateful aspect to that comment? Or, can you not see that it is a poke at those who are so overly concerned with being "PC", that they'll seek out any thing they possibly can that might look, smell, sound, or otherwise even hint at racism? If the author has anything against Indians\Native americans, in what way did he voice his hatred?

Again you are failing to recognize the tool of irony. The authors is not attacking any of these groups - but the system and those who are pushing it that is in effect dividing this country and practically forcing racism down our throats.

Seriously, if you think that I am a racist in any way, you are greatly mistaken. I have seen REAL racism in action and I hate all that it stands for. I hate the KKK, islamic radical terrorists, neo-nazi punks, abortion clinic bombers and snipers, and others like them. I think the world would be a better place if we hunted them all down and gave them a dose of their own medicine. Uh oh, that isn't a PC way to think though, is it...

"I think the world would be a better place if we hunted them all down and gave them a dose of their own medicine. Uh oh, that isn't a PC way to think though, is it..."


Two ways to look at it PP. Pick whichever one fits most conveniently within your conscience and your religious beliefs:

1 - Old testament: "An eye for an eye."

2 - New Testament: "Turn the other cheek."

What's that saying everyone's so fond of... Oh yeah... What would Jesus do?

So you are saying what? That people are either Jewish or Christian? Not sure that makes any sense.

Pick something based on convienience?? I don't try to make the Bible fit my personal agenda...

The 2 quotes are about the most mis-used and mis-understood verses in the bible.

Turning the other cheek and loving your enemies is about having a different mindset when someone personally offends you than what people were used to in the OT days (before Jesus). But it has nothing to do with not holding people accountable for crimes and punishing them according to the law of your government.

Seriously, what in the heck are you trying to say???

The problem is that sometimes you run out of cheeks.

LOL. Actually the problem is, some people interpret the "other" cheek as being the butt cheek and then things just get worse... LOL

Here's what I was saying PP. If you want to respond to violence with violence, you could justify it using the "eye for an eye" passage in the OT. If you wanted to take a passive approach you could "turn the other cheek."

...that's all.

Is that how you would do it?

Again, I don't find parts of the bible that might justify my actions.

My comments about hunting down the KKK and terrorists were intended to illustrate my sincere passion I feel against such people and their actions. In reality, I would prefer to let the justice system handle them and I don't condone vigilante action. But I would defend myself, my family, or anyone I feel is being threatened or attacked unjustly. For example, if I saw the KKK preparing to lynch someone, I wouldn't decide to be 'passive', but I would do something about it....

Again, I'm not sure if you are just being funny or trying to be serious or just trying to show that I'm being a hypocrit? ??

"1 - Old testament: "An eye for an eye."

2 - New Testament: "Turn the other cheek."

The haters always take a piece of the bible and use it without context and out of context to try and make a point. They know nothing of how to use the books. I could sugget some reading on the subject you brought up 4 salt but i doubt you would be interested in understanding what your quote means. It's serves your purpose in an audience equally hateful and makes your small world somehow seem valid. You need that I know because there is not much elese.

"They know nothing of how to use the books."

Words open for the readers interpretation. Of course the fanatics...hint...hint....tell you how you should interpret the words.

"Words open for the readers interpretation"

Wrong again. There a 3 well known rules used in bible interpretation. rules apply in alomost any text we study the bible is no exception.

But please continue to use it to your own means without regard to correct interpretation. There are too many people out there willing to swallow what you will say to stop and do it right.

LOL. OK stlhead, you read the Bible and tell us your interpretation. It's not rocket science. Sure, there are times when it helps to study different traslations, and often an understanding of jewish\herbrew history, tradition, and culture is helpful. Same with Greek and Roman history, culture and tradation when looking at the New Testament.

But sure, if you think you can pick a random verse and just decide what you want it to mean, then feel free. But most of the time you have to dig a little deeper.

So again, please give us your interpretation and let us know how you came to that. For example, most Biblical Scholars (or even just regular folks like you and me) try to find several places in the Bible that support the idea being covered and also look for places that may be contrary before making an informed decision.

So I'm all ears - let's have it...

"The haters always take a piece of the bible and use it without context and out of context to try and make a point."

What's a "Hater" king? Do you mean that you think that I hate the Bible? God? Christianity? Organized religion? You? If so... Why?

Spill the beans...

4salt,

You would be a hater if you used the bible to your own end out of context to show your contempt for Christian people. How is that?

otherwise you would not go there and try and make your point with something you knew something about which is clearly not the bible in your case.

I wish I had never looked at this, I though it was an interesting commentary on the political correctness movement, intended to be a satirical.
This board is a brutal commentary and why internet boards need moderation.

Aunty M,
You play nice on all of the other boards and put yourself off as a nice motherly/aunt friendly person.. When in reality you can be pretty mean and vindicative.
What you see is whay you get with me, i don't sugar coat anything and frankly get labeled as an a$$hole alot of the time, but atleast everyone knows I am. :rolleyes:

My intrepetation of the bible is just that....my interpretation...it's not open for debate. I don't discuss my religious views because they are mine not anyone elses. I do, however, despise those whom try to force their religious views onto others. So there are "official" ways of interpreting the bible. In your mind only. Not mine.

Shthd

You brought up religion and then when challenged on it claim it to be personal ant not open to discussion. Bible scholars of all walks of life use 3 rules for interpreting passages in the bible. You may not but those who study it require their application.

What exactly are those rules? I'm no biblical scholar, so maybe that's why I've never heard of them.

But I did ask a life-long staunch Catholic and a Fundamental Ultra-Conservative Christian (check out that acronym ) and neither of them had heard of the rules. So I'm pretty curious.

Harley,

There are really four when you include common sense or literal which I will.

1) When the scripture makes common or literal sense. All passages should be treated this way unless there is something in the text that shows otherwise. Also called the golden rule.

2) The law of double reference. This law observes that a passage or block of scripture is speaking of two different persons or two different events separated by long periods of time, but in the passage they are blended ino one picture and the gap is not represented in the passage. A good example is the old testament prophecies of the first and second coming of Christ.

3) The Law of Recurrence. This law describes the fact that some passages of scripture there exisits the recording of an event followed by a second recording of the same event giving more detail of the first.

4) A text apart from its context is a pretext. A text only means what it means in its context and cannot be pulled out of its context.

These rules were formulated by Dr. David l. Cooper the late director of the biblical research society.

Harley,

I should aslo note no suprise in people not kowing thses rules. Most churches have a bias in thier doctrine that is why we see 2000 different Christian denominations. It is also why you see one group bashing gays and another railing on another topic. They choose to bend the works to their needs . IMHO the number one reason so many have issues with religion. At least it is why I did for so many years until I came across these rules and it opened up things a bit.

Again, it's not rocket science stlhead.

Sure, historians, theoligins, biblical scholars, etc have generally accepted prinicples they follow to study translations in order to get to not just the meaning of each word, but the ideas being presented in light of historical and cultural contexts.

But all that aside, the average guy like you and me has plenty of tools to study and interpret the Bible. It doesn't take long to realize you can't just pick a few verses and think you know what's being said. That's why they call it 'studying' the Bible and why Christians are involved in self lead Bible studies as well as group Bible studies.

You can usually spot the 'church leaders' or 'denominations' that have some kind of agenda - they are the ones who don't encourage their congregation to actually study the Bible on their own and who just preach their own message down their throats and pick and choose a few verses to 'support' their ideas.

The dangerous people are those that have an agenda and use the Bible as a way to manipulate people (as has been done
throughout history including today. Just watch those idiots on TBN with their 'Crystal Palace' or whatever...). The other dangerous group are those lone individuals who casually pick up a Bible, find a few verses, and think they suddenly understand everything...

As Christians, we have learned to study on our own, compare and discuss studies with others in our church, compare our findings with various respected scholars and church leaders around the world, and I know this sounds hokey, but we are also guided by the Holy Spirit. We don't just rely on any one of the above - but we combine all our resources and in the end it is our own logic and reason that takes the data given and 'interprets' the Bible. Some take this much more lightly that others, but for most, it is a serious matter.

I don't just blindly follow what someone tells me since I know that there are those with agendas - whether that be power, prestige, money, are simply to deceive as many as they can to keep them from actually understanding the word of God.

Anyway, all that just to say that I give about as much credit to those who say 'my interpretation is all that matters' about the same credit I would give to the guy who wets his finger, holds it in the air, and tells you what the weather will be like tomorrow. He may be right, but there is much more to studying, gathering, and interpreting weather data than that kind of shoot from the hip approach.