Indexes
February 8th, 2010
February 6th, 2010
February 5th, 2010
February 4th, 2010
February 3rd, 2010
February 2nd, 2010
February 1st, 2010
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- Will terrorists be given Miranda warnings? (75)
- President Obama's first year (67)
- Lodi Unified School District president issues warning to speakers over cuts (64)
- Local business leaders say tourism, Costco, Home Depot may play roles in city's future (60)
- Islamic symbol in mosaic — what is all the fuss? (49)
- Many reject the politics of 'no' (45)
- Writer comments on Neely column (42)
- The Home Depot hopes to join Costco at Reynolds Ranch (41)
- Police: Train victim was a Lodi teen (31)
- Time to shed the convenient sham of 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy (31)
ADVERTISEMENT
The Treaty of Tripoli hoax
Friday, October 30, 2009 11:46 PM PDT
It's time liberals experienced ridicule and shame for using the Treaty of Tripoli hoax to attack America's foundational premise of "one nation under God" — not a theocracy as Arne Aasen (Sept. 30), Billy Rubin (online) and others falsely accuse, but a government founded upon the Christian principles contained in the Bible as Audrey Boyd noted in her Sept. 28 letter which quoted a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court.
Aasen and David (commenting online to Boyd) believe they can expunge the Christian foundation of American history with the erroneous conclusion they love to draw from one sentence in Article 11 of that treaty (quoted below). That sentence simply means our government isn't a theocracy — not that the Christian principles of the Bible aren't its foundation.
That treaty, written in Arabic, was translated for the Senate and President Adams by Joel Barlow. The following from the Yale Law School Web site may enlighten our liberal friends:
"... the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic ... Most extraordinary ... is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, 'the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,' does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written ... as Article 11 ... is a mystery and seemingly must remain so."
(Found under "Note regarding the Barlow translation" (avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ bar1796n.asp#n3).)
"Progressives" using the Treaty of Tripoli are revising history and perpetuating an anti-American hoax.
If Aasen, Davidd, Lodian, Leonard and Billy Rubin deem themselves open-minded (as all liberals must), they'll not only read or reread Boyd's Sept. 28 letter, the case she quotes, my Sept. 26 and Oct. 8 letters, but especially "The Book That Made America: How the Bible Formed Our Nation," by Jerry Newcombe, and report back. Will they?
Mike Nedderman
Sacramento
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
voter wrote on Nov 15, 2009 8:27 AM:
" I hope you appreciated my poetry. Today's at 5:42 AM is my first. I stayed up all night writing it just for you. "
No healthy person stays up all night writing threatening poetry to strangers on the internet. The anger and hate are eating you alive. Reach out to a real, living, breathing human and make a connection. Seek help, and find some peace for your troubled mind and wounded heart. "
Leonard wrote on Nov 14, 2009 10:53 AM:
-Thomas Paine, Biblical Blasphemy
Mike, does that make things a little clearer for you? It should be obvious that Paine was using the royal "we", not the personal "we" in the quote you cited. "
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 13, 2009 11:25 PM:
"He roared like a lion when no one was around, but when a challenger confronted, he became a clown."
It's been fun Billy, voter, Leonard, Lodian, Ivan, Bob, Davidd, Sam. Too bad y'all couldn't keep up. 8 to 1 "and all they could muster was jesting, whining, and complaining."
Pitiful performance partners.
Now, off "to archival oblivion you go." (I love quoting my poetry).
I hope you appreciated my poetry. Today's at 5:42 AM is my first. I stayed up all night writing it just for you.
Parting on an "up note," is one of the most cheerful songs, performed by Roy Rogers and Dale Evans (who wrote it):
"Happy trails to you, until we meet again.
Happy trails to you, keep smilin' until then.
Who cares about the clouds when we're together?
Just sing a song and bring the sunny weather.
Happy trails to you, 'till we meet again." "
mike wrote on Nov 13, 2009 10:10 PM:
For myself, I fully and conscientiously believe that it is the will of the Almighty that there should be a diversity of religious opinions among us. It affords a larger field for our Christian kindness; were we all of one way of thinking, our religious dispositions would want matter for probation; and on this liberal principle I look on the various denominations among us to be like children of the same family, differing only in what is called their Christian names.
Here Tommy showed us Common Sense. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Nov 13, 2009 6:24 PM:
Leonard wrote on Nov 13, 2009 9:14 AM:
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 13, 2009 5:42 AM:
(continued)
Finally, to their eternal chagrin, there was the burning question each held within. . .: Who was that masked man? Who indeed?
He’d ruined their fun, they all agreed.
Was he Nedderman, Bardon, or Boyd?
But alas, they will never fill that factual void!
For he is a phantom who shall forever haunt their dreams, that Lodi50,
whatever “50” means.
With despair they realize, their nemesis they shall never know,
and now into archival oblivion each of them must go… "
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 13, 2009 5:42 AM:
As dawn broke on the TRIAL’s final day,
to everyone’s amazement, all the DEFENDANTS did was prattle away.
But Billy’s Bullies had their chance for explaining,
and all they could muster was jesting, whining, and complaining.
No need to guess why they disdained their defense.
Read the CHARGES, the EVIDENCE, and comprehend their offense
(TRIAL instructions below @ 11-12-09 at 5:59 AM).
Their behavior, was abusive, derisive, and mocking,
that they would decline to defend it should not be shocking.
However, the victims and jury were compassionate,
they would have forgiven.
But Billy Bullies were cold-hearted, contemptuous, callous, and driven.
Their hubris and haughtiness was matched only by their naughtiness,
and thus they sealed their fate.
Now the sentence for their conviction they must await.
From this day forward, whenever they appear,
others will remind them of their shameful behavior here.
But will those others who remind, mock them as they deserve,
and thus shatter the egos they’d hoped to preserve? "
mike wrote on Nov 13, 2009 4:57 AM:
mike wrote on Nov 13, 2009 4:55 AM:
Not so hidden in them are Thomas Paine's obvious belief in Divine intervention and a purported belief in the Bible.
If he wasn't a Christian before and at the time of the signing of the Constitution, he was sure trying to sell himself as one. "
Leonard wrote on Nov 13, 2009 3:40 AM:
In truth, you cannot find one single person invovled in the founding of the United States that was a "Diest" or at least a professed Diest...
This is, plainly put, wrong. To take the easiest example, just look at Thomas Paine.
Case closed. "
mike wrote on Nov 12, 2009 10:40 PM:
Benjamin Franklin certainly wasn't, and in his epitaph referred to God as his author.
George Washington was the leader of a Parish of the Episcopalian faith.
In truth, you cannot find one single person invovled in the founding of the United States that was a "Diest" or at least a professed Diest...you can certainly find people opposed to various aspects of Christianity but that doesn't mean they are Diests or even non-Christian, many Christians are famous for criticizing aspects of Christianity.
No one would argue that Calvin was not a Christian or Martin Luther.
So bottom line...the Founding Fathers were Christians. This only makes sense considering the fact that the United States was extremely religious during the Revoultionary war...the fact that the first act of establishing the Continental Army by the Congress was to establish the pay for Chaplains in the military should be evidence of that. "
mike wrote on Nov 12, 2009 9:06 PM:
Bravo!
That was an excellent summarization of those resident bloggers. "
BF Tofflenuts wrote on Nov 12, 2009 5:34 PM:
Gator wrote on Nov 12, 2009 9:14 AM:
want to believe so be it. The same goes if you don’t. As for me I don’t want
either group to try and tell me what to do or how to think as I will tell you
where to go…The non believers say there is no god, fine but you have no
more proof than the believers Till some one goes and comes back and says
hey check it out. We could use a little spiritual guidance as the morals of
the country make an alley cat look like a saint…They say you make your
own luck. Well the things and close calls I’ve had over the past 50 some odd
Years are beyond the reach of luck. I’ve been shot, 2 near fatal accidents on
the Job and the last 5 have gone my way when they shouldn’t have. I believe
But in my own way and I don’t need anyone telling me how to think…. "
voter wrote on Nov 12, 2009 6:46 AM:
Seek help. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Nov 12, 2009 6:05 AM:
And now just look at the poor thing.
What. A. Mess.
Tsk, tsk.
Will the last one leaving please mop up Lodi50's head explosion? Or throw something over it? Or...something. "
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 12, 2009 5:29 AM:
After reading back to this post from the beginning of THE TRIAL (Nov. 11th post at 9:45 AM), then go all the way to the beginning, Oct. 31st at 7:48 AM, which is at the bottom of this page.
It’s a lot to read, but you will find the evidence overwhelmingly in support of a “guilty” verdict on each and every charge of the Indictment, and that the proposed SENTENCE is fair and probably the only practical solution. Please be certain to note my November 11th post at 5:36 PM, because that is where the DEFENDANTS are given notice as to the seriousness of THEIR FAILURE to present a substantive response after they took a “court jester’s” attitude toward THE CHARGES. "
Lodian wrote on Nov 11, 2009 11:57 PM:
"Bob, its just needy G. Thats it. Thats all."
That's really very sad. I guess Leonard is right... don't feed the troll. "
sam wrote on Nov 11, 2009 6:04 PM:
Leonard wrote on Nov 11, 2009 5:58 PM:
to your Ignore list.
Don't feed the troll. "
sam wrote on Nov 11, 2009 5:47 PM:
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 5:37 PM:
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 5:36 PM:
However, keep in mind that this page is dated 10-30-09, and will probably go into the archives on Friday, a mere 2.5 days from now. Understand the seriousness of the charges against you and that the consequences of not offering a meaningful defense are as follows:
In the future, whenever any one of you, individually or collectively, plays the games you've been accused of here, this page and the Bardon letter will be cited and quoted, as will the apparent fact that you chose buffoonery as your defense. In other words, you will serve a “life sentence” of being reminded of what you did here, of the charges made, and of your failure to reply even though you were given adequate time.
Speak now, and to the substance of the charges, or forever be reminded of your failure to do so. "
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Nov 11, 2009 5:26 PM:
cue Vader's music....
Yes, he must be the reincarnation of He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. The prose-to-nowhere style, the endless rumbling and rambling like the midnight freight train through Lodi. It's gotta be HIM.
How sweet would that be? RF is infinitely more fun to play with than Spanky, Bryan, et al. "
voter wrote on Nov 11, 2009 4:12 PM:
Vance Buckler wrote on Nov 11, 2009 3:43 PM:
Billy Rubin wrote on Nov 11, 2009 12:55 PM:
Hearing opinions you don't like is the cost of living in a free country"
This would seem to be his *second* favorite hoax. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Nov 11, 2009 12:53 PM:
Lodian wrote on Nov 11, 2009 11:26 AM:
Lodian wrote on Nov 11, 2009 11:26 AM:
Leonard wrote on Nov 11, 2009 11:15 AM:
Leonard wrote on Nov 11, 2009 11:10 AM:
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 9:52 AM:
THE SENTENCE: The prosecution asks the court for a sentence of censure, that each and every defendant be reminded each time he or she blogs that he or she has no credibility due to being found guilty of the CRIMES AGAINST BLOGGING charged on this page. "
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 9:51 AM:
A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE (continued): On this page, I pointed out the ABUSIVE BLOGGING of Billy and his cohorts (Lodian, voter, Ivan, Bob Hussein Loblaw, et al.) to bully other writers by mocking, deriding, and cheering each other in doing said abuse.
CLOSING ARGUMENT: The picture drawn above is of bloggers whose position is so weak they must resort to the dishonest and abusive methods described herein, which can be summarized as “CRIMES AGAINST BLOGGING”, intended to preserve their self-image of being right when they clearly are not. If they had valid arguments, they would make them rather than resort to what has been described above. They have done what people like them have been doing for thousands of years, as noted by the famous Roman Senator, Marcus Tullius Cicero, “If you have no argument, abuse the witness.”
A PLEA TO THE JURY FOR A VERDICT OF CONDEMNATION: The prosecution asks the jury reading these charges, and reviewing this evidence, for a verdict of guilty as charged. "
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 9:49 AM:
A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE: Gary Bardon accused Billy Rubin and Lodian of using dishonest debate tactics (see Bardon’s archived 10-27 letter). Bardon provided a detailed exposition which supported that accusation. If it is false, they would have at least denied it. If it really was false on its face, as Billy weakly asserts in his post on 11-9 at 12:50 PM below the 11-2 Krueg letter, LNS wouldn’t have published Bardon’s letter. However, it is detailed, supported by facts, therefore credible, and uncontroverted by either Billy or Lodian.
Nedderman accused Billy, Lodian, Davidd, and Leonard of “perpetuating an anti-American hoax” by their repeated use of a single sentence from the Treaty of Tripoli.
I caught Billy using that same sentence from the Treaty of Tripoli on the Krueg page, except he attributed it to none other than Thomas Jefferson (see his Kreug post on Nov. 2nd, at 6:41 PM). Maybe Billy made a simple mistake, but he’s already had more than enough time to have corrected it, and he didn’t do that. "
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 9:47 AM:
COUNT 4: the defendants, collectively and individually, are charged with ABUSIVE GANG BLOGGING, meaning that they literally ganged up on individual writers (letter writer, Nedderman, and blogger, Lodi50), mocked and demeaned them in various ways.
COUNT 5: Slandering Jesus Christ. Leonard and his #1 cheerleader, voter, admitted they were in fact retaliating against Nedderman. Leonard justified that abusive act by citing Jesus Christ’s teaching on the Golden Rule. Jesus teaching was intended to motivate respect, not mocking, derision, and retaliation. See my 11-9-09 post at 8:41 AM on this page.
Also, VOTER IS GUILTY OF Slandering Jesus Christ by alleging that He advocated slavery in Luke 12:47. Slavery is a crime against humanity. See voter's posts on the Krueg page on 11-4 at 8:07 PM (see also his posts on 11-3 at 5:00 PM; on 11-4 at 6:07 PM, and at 7:56 PM). In that verse, Jesus told a parable intended to teach that responsibility will be rewarded and irresponsibility especially that which abused others would be punished. "
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 9:45 AM:
THE JURY WILL BE those who read this page and the Krueg page.
THE DEFENDANTS ARE: Billy’s Bully Bunch, consisting of “ring leader” Billy Rubin, his #1 and #2 cheerleaders, voter and Lodian, also Leonard, Ivan Dixon, Bob Hussein Loblaw, Sam, and Davidd.
THE CHARGES ARE:
COUNT 1: that Billy’s Bully Bunch, individually and/or as a gang, employ DISHONEST DEBATE TACTICS (Bardon’s archived 10-27 accusation);
COUNT 2: That the defendants regularly use an INVALID REFERENCE TO REVISE AMERICAN HISTORY, PERPETUATING AN ANTI-AMERICAN HOAX ON READERS (Nedderman’s 10-30 accusation above);
COUNT 3: that Billy Rubin also used that same reference on the Krueg page, on 11-2 at 6:41 PM, for the same purpose but FALSELY ATTRIBUTED it to none other than Thomas Jefferson, clearly conceding Nedderman’s point that it must be an invalid reference. "
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 9:42 AM:
If I had used “LodiNavy,” and voter discovered that Nedderman had served in the US Navy, voter's super sleuthing ability would have lead him to conclude the same thing. Voter guesses and well as he reasons. That’s why confusion and paranoid acerbity is the best he can offer. Interesting how all the others just follow him unthinkingly. "
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 9:41 AM:
I wonder if voter has ever considered, in addition to “Lodi” being a common preface here, that I might be 50 years old, or own a classic car of 1950 vintage, or maybe 50 is simply my lucky number? Yea, voter is Magnum P.I., except without the script writer to insure that he’s the hero of every scene. I think the “P.I.” in voter's title must mean “Paranoid Individual”. Did you like that one Billy, Ivan, Leonard, Lodian, or is your humor only reserved for those you despise? "
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 9:40 AM:
rantraves wrote on Nov 10, 2009 5:53 PM:
sam wrote on Nov 10, 2009 3:50 PM:
Leonard wrote on Nov 10, 2009 2:33 PM:
sam wrote on Nov 10, 2009 1:32 PM:
My comment was addressed to G.
Funny you would feel it necessary to respond to that. "
Lodian wrote on Nov 10, 2009 1:03 PM:
Aimee wrote on Nov 10, 2009 12:16 PM:
Lodian wrote on Nov 10, 2009 11:13 AM:
"Aimee wrote "Lodian: (resident cheerleader) "Yeah! Good idea!"
I knew it! Aimee took my pom poms! "
Then thinks better of it as she realizes it wasn't a complement..ire builds and explodes onto the screen:
Lodian wrote on Nov 10, 2009 11:35 AM:
"Well, Aimee doesn't like it when I am positive and she doesn't like it when I disagree. I guess she just wants us all to agree with her and be exactly like her, a bore... a serious, controlling, whiny bore. Yawn.
Maybe Aimee needs a long weekend with her significant other." "
Aimee wrote on Nov 10, 2009 12:14 PM:
By day, mild mannered Mike Nedderman roams the streets of Sacramento, shaming and ridiculing liberals, but at night he becomes LODI 50, champion of civility and restraint! "
LOL!!!!! Glad we can all see the humor in it. :) "
Lodian wrote on Nov 10, 2009 11:35 AM:
Maybe Aimee needs a long weekend with her significant other. "
Lodian wrote on Nov 10, 2009 11:13 AM:
I knew it! Aimee took my pom poms! "
Leonard wrote on Nov 10, 2009 10:50 AM:
Voter: "Hey, let's try the internet and do a search-there must be a way to expose his weaknesses! Kryponite only works on Superman"
The comparison to Superman is apt, what with his secret identity and the whole thing about killing the grizzly with his bare hands.
By day, mild mannered Mike Nedderman roams the streets of Sacramento, shaming and ridiculing liberals, but at night he becomes LODI 50, champion of civility and restraint! "
sparky595 wrote on Nov 10, 2009 10:41 AM:
Aimee wrote on Nov 10, 2009 10:33 AM:
The LNS "Liberalisms" - A Portrait in Silliness
All: "Who is this guy? - we've never heard of him before"
Voter: "Hey, let's try the internet and do a search-there must be a way to expose his weaknesses! Kryponite only works on Superman"
Lodian: (resident cheerleader) "Yeah! Good idea!" (falls silent - nothing else comes to mind)
Billy: "He might be a threat to our liberal-ness, maybe some competition here on the blogs where few dare to oppose our great collective-ness" (pats self on back for being so witty and entertaining to the group - voter and Lodian LOVE me!)
Leonard: "Aw, heck, we think we've found him and he's crazy...we can all breathe easy now and dismiss him and his comments; no worries!". (wipes brow with hand to remove the sweat that had been collecting on his brow)
LOL! "
Aimee wrote on Nov 10, 2009 10:15 AM:
"Lodi50 is Nedderman. He was born in Lodi in 1950. Google is a wonderful thing."
Wow..he really riled you guys, didn't he? How funny! And you have no shame admitting some faceless person got your goat.
Voter, you may be spending too much time on this site if you are now conducting detective work to discover the true identity of the people posting on this site.
Google away! "
Lodian wrote on Nov 10, 2009 9:17 AM:
Brian wrote on Nov 10, 2009 6:58 AM:
" LOL!!!
1,029 words and every one of them a personal attack on another poster.
-Chuckle,
You have him beat with AT LEAST 10,000 words used as personal attacks on Jerome alone. I stopped counting at 20K
in regards to your attacks on me. "
sparky595 wrote on Nov 9, 2009 8:08 PM:
'sparky, where is your contribution to the topic?'
I didn't have much to say here so I have just been reading.
From what I see of your contributions here, you are acting like Magnum P.I. tracking down the personal lives of writers and posters here with google searches.
When you do my background searches, it's Mr. Sparky595. "
Lodian wrote on Nov 9, 2009 7:45 PM:
voter wrote on Nov 9, 2009 7:18 PM:
sparky595 wrote on Nov 9, 2009 6:22 PM:
Leonard wrote on Nov 9, 2009 5:18 PM:
" Leonard, by no means am I defending lodi50 or claiming he did or didn't do this or that. However, Lodian is famous here for doing exactly what she accused lodi50 of doing. Even her allies here must recognize that, so I called her on it.
What, specifically, are you talking about? "
sparky595 wrote on Nov 9, 2009 4:54 PM:
Leonard wrote on Nov 9, 2009 4:15 PM:
Leonard wrote on Nov 9, 2009 4:12 PM:
I think that, by the time Lodi 50 started babbling, all of the pertinent points regarding his letter had been made. What else was there to do other than take him to task for his absurd behavior? "
sparky595 wrote on Nov 9, 2009 3:47 PM:
' ....did he ever post anything pertaining to the topic? Did he even pretend to add to the topic?'
What a hypocrite. You have posted on this blog 15 times and only 2 pertained to the topic. Did you even pretend to add to the topic?
It is not as if anyone should be surprised, since that is about your ratio for contribution to just about all blogs. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Nov 9, 2009 3:20 PM:
Darn you, Bob Loblaw - I hate when you come up with the best lines. That *was* good.
As so Lodi5150 it is.
Did anyone have any insight into the humping of the bear paw in this G-string? And all that crazy "Sawed-Off Shogun" martial arts stuff? Why all the hate and desire to hurt others out of him? What's with that? And the "Badass of the Month"?
Yikes. That whole website was like looking directly into his mind of mental illness. "
Lodian wrote on Nov 9, 2009 1:44 PM:
Lodian wrote on Nov 9, 2009 1:41 PM:
voter wrote on Nov 9, 2009 12:45 PM:
Leonard wrote on Nov 9, 2009 9:41 AM:
Leonard wrote on Nov 9, 2009 9:40 AM:
I want you to understand why I'm going to leave you
No, no, there's no need for that. Just don't let the screen door hit you on the but on the way out. "
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Nov 9, 2009 9:19 AM:
Lodi5150!!! Cuz he is certifiably c.r.a.z.y.
Gotta love the whacky troll. "
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 9, 2009 8:50 AM:
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 9, 2009 8:47 AM:
I have been “casting my pearls” before you on this page and you “trample them under [your] feet…[and have] turned and…” attacked me. I am going to leave you to feed off each others negativity, and you will, you can't help yourselves.
You will create a vortex of vitrol wherever you gather. You will identify yourselves as those to whom Jesus was referring when you continue to mock and deride me after I leave. Everyone who read this page will know that. So enjoy yourselves in your way, and look forward to my book featuring this exchange. Maybe others can learn from your example. "
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 9, 2009 8:46 AM:
I want you to understand why I'm going to leave you to feed on yourselves, so I'm going to try to communicate one last time.
It is truly unfortunate that you can’t understand the teachings of Jesus and feel that you must twist His words to support your propensity for hostility toward others. I was blessed not to be cursed with the confusion that each of you seem to be condemned to carry.
Because each of you seem to love to twist the words and motives of others, please understand that I quote the following from Jesus not to call you the names He uses in His analogy. And remember, it's just an analogy, and it's not a personal attack by either me or Jesus. I quote the following for the principle Jesus taught with the hope that you will comprehend why I can no longer play with you children. "
Leonard wrote on Nov 9, 2009 8:44 AM:
I only mentioned Nedderman’s letter for two reasons: first, to observe that if anyone had offered a meaningful response, it got lost in the vitriol, ergo my recommendation to tone down the incivility
Heaven forbid you actually discuss the topic on hand.
BTW, I notice that you continue to avoid the question of your own faith in Christ.
How much longer will you continue to deny that Christ is the Lord? "
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 9, 2009 8:44 AM:
" When John Krueg of Lodi writes, "Obama is the first American president to deny America is a Christian nation..." his score pegs dangerously in the red of the Jerome Kinderman "Dishonest or Ignorant Blogging Scale" because not only is Mr. Krueg wrong in his accusation, it was no less a personage than Thomas Jefferson himself who stated, "...the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."
Perhaps John Krueg of Lodi is ignorant of the fact that Thomas Jefferson was president before President Obama. Or perhaps John Krueg is dishonest in his portrayal of what he wishes to be taken as "fact."
In any case John Krueg of Lodi has no credibility. "
Billy, Billy, Billy. As your credibility falls, your hypocracy rises. "
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 9, 2009 8:43 AM:
And Billy, not to nit pick you, but you are accused on this page of using the Treaty of Tripoli sentence noted in Nedderman's letter above, attributing it to that Treaty. However, you attributed it to Thomas Jefferson on the page of the Krueg letter—what's up with that? "
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 9, 2009 8:42 AM:
Leonard wrote on Nov 9, 2009 8:42 AM:
1,029 words and every one of them a personal attack on another poster.
Oh, but Lodi 50 is so aggrieved and put upon.
Sound familiar? "
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 9, 2009 8:41 AM:
These guys accuse me of taking sides, presumably in their disagreement with Nedderman over the Treaty of Tripoli. Did you read what they wrote below my first post here on November 6th at 5:32 AM, and can you discern their position regarding Nedderman’s letter other than that they despise him, and delight in mocking him, for taking a position contrary to theirs? If I could find their position in all the “smoke”, who knows, I might even agree with them. "
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 9, 2009 8:38 AM:
"At the 1st sight of blood, they all took a bite; I tried not to watch, but it went on all night. By dawn it was clear that the end would be found; they were all beaten-up, they were all on the ground. So what did we learn, about blogging my friend? It might look like they killed you, but that's not the end. Blog on! "
Thanks for the encouragement rantraves, and for the poetry. They’ve got me surrounded. However, on the positive side, “it’s a target rich environment”, and “I’ve got them right where I want ‘em.”
Little do they know, and less do they care, but do they have the sense to beware? The answer is “NO” because they truly are obsessive/compulsive and can’t help themselves—hey, where’s Billy. I miss Billy.
This exchange wasn’t a total waste of time. I will always treasure, and cite to others, Leonard’s and voter’s incredible use of Jesus’s teachings. "
Leonard wrote on Nov 9, 2009 8:37 AM:
And all I’ve done since reading Billy, voter, Lodian, Davidd, and Leonard, is plea for civility.
No, all you have done here is personally attack the posting styles of individuals who were actually discussing the topic at hand.
You know, there is a term for posters who behave as you do and it rhymes with the word "roll". "
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 9, 2009 8:36 AM:
Be specific, Lodian, exactly which rules do you claim I’ve broken? The one that says 7 or 8 of you can gang up on me. Or is it the one about personal attacks. I am confident that any objective observer will see you and your buddies as the preditors, not me. "
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 9, 2009 8:34 AM:
Please accept my apology Lodian, for assuming y’all were a bunch of heathen, but it was inferred from my perception of your (all of you) behavior and my distinct impression that anyone who believed that Jesus advocated slavery (voter on the Krueg page) or used Jesus’ teaching about the “Golden Rule” to justify his (Leonard) and his buddy’s acts of retaliation can’t really be Christians or have read much of the Bible. I guess there’s a chance I’m wrong. If I am, I’m sorry. It just looked to me like voter and Leonard just read the Bible to find verses to take out of context and to twist 180 degrees so they could defame the Lord of Heaven. I truly believed they had identified themselves quite clearly, albeit inferentially. The “you guys” was a generalization because you are so much alike. "
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 9, 2009 8:33 AM:
Is my accusation false? If you truly believe it is, let your mother read what you’ve written, or your priest or minister if you have one (Leonard and voter: you guys might want to edit out the parts where you claim Jesus recommended retaliation and slavery).
Ivan: read the entire page and you will see that my posts have nothing to do with “free speech”, and that my comments regarding the Magnificent Seven’s “rudeness” wasn’t because y’all disagreed with me, but because your friends literally flipped out here and behaved so rudely that that word is insufficient for the purpose. "
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 9, 2009 8:32 AM:
Of course, he supports Free Speech but only for people who believe exactly the same things he does. "
And then there were 7, the “Magnificent Seven”? We shall see, won’t we? So vying for the title of being the “Magnificent Seven” are voter, Billy, Leonard, Lodian, Bob Hussein Loblaw, and now Sam and Ivan. And Leonard, Bob, and Ivan can’t figure out why my word count is so high? I’m up against the Magnificent Seven, that’s why! Straightening out confusion takes some doin’. "
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 9, 2009 8:31 AM:
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 9, 2009 8:31 AM:
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 9, 2009 8:30 AM:
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 9, 2009 8:29 AM:
Finally Leo, you got something right! My involvement here is not because I want to debate the T of T. I came to this page because voter was literally bragging on Billy’s greatness. I came to this page to see what Billy was saying that so impressed voter. And all I’ve done since reading Billy, voter, Lodian, Davidd, and Leonard, is plea for civility. "
sam wrote on Nov 8, 2009 7:44 PM:
" However, I have to say that the mocking in which so many of you seem to revel is really offensive"
Oh G, are you kidiing me? too funny. "
Leonard wrote on Nov 8, 2009 7:00 PM:
Brian wrote on Nov 8, 2009 10:59 AM:
Do not post:
Personal attacks, insults or threats.
Lodian Wrote:
IMO, this is a blog for adults. Most adults, maybe not yourself, can handle it here. Stop trying to tell us all what to say and how to say it. And for your information you are breaking the rules of the blog. lol! "
-Pot, Kettle, Black "
Leonard wrote on Nov 8, 2009 10:58 AM:
rantraves wrote on Nov 7, 2009 4:20 PM:
Lodian wrote on Nov 7, 2009 3:38 PM:
IMO, this is a blog for adults. Most adults, maybe not yourself, can handle it here. Stop trying to tell us all what to say and how to say it. And for your information you are breaking the rules of the blog. lol! "
Lodian wrote on Nov 7, 2009 3:24 PM:
You are assuming a lot about people you do not know. "
Lodian wrote on Nov 7, 2009 3:21 PM:
Lodian wrote on Nov 7, 2009 3:21 PM:
Lodian wrote on Nov 7, 2009 3:08 PM:
Leonard wrote on Nov 7, 2009 9:39 AM:
After Brian's years of violent threats, it appears that we finally have a conservative who really could kick my bass. "
Leonard wrote on Nov 7, 2009 9:37 AM:
Leonard wrote on Nov 7, 2009 9:31 AM:
That really is just TOO FUNNY! "
Ivan Dixon wrote on Nov 7, 2009 8:19 AM:
Of course, he supports Free Speech but only for people who believe exactly the same things he does. "
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Nov 7, 2009 8:01 AM:
That would be zero Mike. "
voter wrote on Nov 7, 2009 7:27 AM:
Leonard wrote on Nov 7, 2009 6:19 AM:
Leonard wrote on Nov 7, 2009 6:15 AM:
Well, I'll have to wait until later to find out. "
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 7, 2009 5:13 AM:
Please know that I've really spent way, way more time here that I can afford (can't imagine I'll wake up before 10 or 11 AM). I've got to attend to some projects, and help a friend pour a slab of concrete this weekend, so I'll pop in again and see “what's up”, but it probably won't be soon. "
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 7, 2009 5:13 AM:
The important thing to understand is that anger is a blame-shifting emotion. People use it to make themsleves feel right when they are not, and they like to “infect” others with it. Since no one likes to admit being wrong, if you can get someone to agree to that point (that he who gets angry first looses), there's hope of obviating the anger that can spoil a good debate. At the very least you have had a nice discussion, and furthered a better understanding of the most destructive emotion we inflict upon ourselves and one another. "
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 7, 2009 5:11 AM:
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 7, 2009 5:11 AM:
Back to “the subject”. I have a debate rule that you may like. It actually works too. Obviously, “debate” implies a face-to-face discussion which this isn't. However, some elements are similar. In any debate there is the issue which always gets confused by the personalities and their opinions and biases. "
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 7, 2009 5:10 AM:
I observed that you and your friends have a habit of misreading, jumping to conclusions, and distracting yourselves from the substance of a debate, and then literally attacking by mocking and deriding which, as I said before, bespeaks an underlying anger. I am inferring your anger from the inherent nature of mocking and name-calling. Please correct me if I am wrong because I am trying to be factual and ultimately helpful, and do not intend to “blast” anyone. "
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 7, 2009 5:09 AM:
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 7, 2009 5:08 AM:
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 7, 2009 5:07 AM:
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 7, 2009 5:06 AM:
Obviously, Nedderman reads these posts, but maybe he's not motivate to register. Maybe his only access is at work and he can read but is prohibited from registering on such sites. Who knows. Maybe he doesn't want to “roll in it” with you, or maybe he gets a sick pleasure watching you guys flip out as he spurns your “advances”.
Voter: if you and the others only accept just one thing from me, start from the bottom and simply read what everyone has written. Let someone you respect read it without any preparation from you to prejudice their opinion. I think you will find my evaluation of what has happened on this page to be valid. "
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 7, 2009 5:05 AM:
However, please understand that the only reason I mentioned a lack of response was to highlight what I found, which is the most incredible series of mocking and derisive posts that you, voter, were bragging about on another page. That's why I came here in the first place, to see what you were so proud of. All I'm asking of you is to read everything and see if you are still proud of your work or if maybe you want to reconsider your debate style. What can it hurt? "
Lodian wrote on Nov 6, 2009 8:08 PM:
"Google him."
voter: Wow! Pictures and all! Isn't the internet amazing? "
Leonard wrote on Nov 6, 2009 7:58 PM:
Leonard wrote on Nov 6, 2009 7:05 PM:
" Leonard: Besides, I believe you are taking offense where the author above didn't intend it
Since you seem to know the author's intentions, let me just come right out and ask you.
Are you Mike Nedderman? "
Leonard wrote on Nov 6, 2009 7:04 PM:
" Leonard: I've never hear of anyone cite “The Golden Rule,” which Jesus Christ taught in order to promote good will, as a rationalization for retaliation.
I know you guys aren't Christians
I am a Christian. As for the Golden Rule, I was not advocating retaliation I was just pointing out that one should not be surprised when one reaps what one has sown. "
voter wrote on Nov 6, 2009 6:39 PM:
Lodian wrote on Nov 6, 2009 6:33 PM:
Billy Rubin wrote on Nov 6, 2009 6:28 PM:
Well said, Voter - but to sum up, we have the apparently already forgotten, "Hearing opinions you don't like is the cost of living in a free country", a line of which I am still fond - although it looks like it was intended only for others. "
Lodian wrote on Nov 6, 2009 6:27 PM:
Lodian wrote on Nov 6, 2009 6:25 PM:
voter wrote on Nov 6, 2009 5:57 PM:
voter wrote on Nov 6, 2009 5:51 PM:
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 6, 2009 5:45 PM:
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 6, 2009 5:44 PM:
I know you guys aren't Christians, but I'm sure you can see the benefit of rethinking your interpretation of Jesus' intention for offering the Golden Rule, and that retaliation is just really bad form. I'm sure everyone reading this has thought through the standards you've adopted that determine the things you won't do no matter what the other person does. All I'm asking is that you reconsider the act of mocking and name-calling to retaliation even if the other party has actually insulted you. "
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 6, 2009 5:42 PM:
I read the letter above in the paper when it published last Saturday and didn't see what has been posted here until this morning, actually upon your recommendation from another page. Therefore my suprise and attempt at levity with the crowd that had gathered.
If you read my posts below, I have tried to point out my perception of what is happening here without using the unflatering characterization that first came to mind. I hesitate to state that perception because you and the gang you have brought with you seem to take offense easily, often where none is intended. You seem to look for any reason to justify “gang banging” others. My 5:35 post below addresses that issue explicitly. Please don't take offense before you reread it, and if you disagree, tell me why. Gotta go shopping for dinner now. "
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 6, 2009 5:39 PM:
voter wrote on Nov 6, 2009 3:28 PM:
Lodian wrote on Nov 6, 2009 2:53 PM:
Lodian wrote on Nov 6, 2009 2:52 PM:
Gee, Lodi50, are we to all be open to what this guy has to say when he starts a letter in this insulting manner? And the letter only gets worse from there. Is there some reason you are vehemently defending this "Mike Nedderman" and his hateful letter? Are we to sit here and take whatever nonsense is dished out by this person just because you say so? I think not, and so does everyone else here. "
Leonard wrote on Nov 6, 2009 10:43 AM:
" Please reread some of the stuff below and ask your wife or children, or better yet, ask your mother to read it. I have worked with some really foul mouthed people, and that kind of language didn't stun me as much as what I've read here and on other pages.
Well thought out rebuttals of unsupportable conclusions, made with wit and good grammar? I would hope that my children would use it as a model! "
Leonard wrote on Nov 6, 2009 10:39 AM:
" Expressing the opinion that they should be ashamed and ridiculed for misusing a reference isn't "an insulting or abusive expression."
So you say, but fortunately for us we have dictionaries to record the ACTUAL meaning of words.
Main Entry: ridicule
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): ridiculed; ridicul·ing
Date: circa 1700
: to make fun of
— rid·i·cul·er noun
synonyms ridicule, deride, mock, taunt mean to make an object of laughter of. ridicule implies a deliberate often malicious belittling
-Merriam Webster
Personally, I think the author's meaning was abundantly clear.
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. Matthew 7:12" which is to say that, if Mr Nedderman starts off his letter by stating his intent to ridicule, he ought not to be surprised if some ridicule blows back on him. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Nov 6, 2009 10:18 AM:
Hearing opinions you don't like is the cost of living in a free country"
Excellent statement.
Let's let that be our "Quote of the Day", shall we? "
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Nov 6, 2009 9:57 AM:
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 6, 2009 8:58 AM:
Some are insulted by that which is not insulting. It is easy to let someone get to you. There is an old Chinese or Irish, or Polish proverb that goes something like, "do not see the insult", which sounds a lot like Jesus', "turn the other cheek."
Reread the letter above that that which is below, and reflect on what I'm trying to say. "
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 6, 2009 8:51 AM:
Hearing opinions you don't like is the cost of living in a free country, but such opinions don't come under the definition of "insulting or abusive" unless they are expressed as such ("jerk", "idiot", etc). I don't see that in Nedderman's opening paragraph nor in the entire letter.
Nedderman certainly expressed his opinion strongly, but even if he crossed that line, the appropriate response would have been to chastise him for doing so, not to mock him with the truly incredible things I've read on this page. Not directly answering his criticisms, and mocking him, looks like a concession.
He makes two points that nobody has countered: that the sentence merely means our government is not a theocracy, and that it is invalid in any case. I would like to know if a treaty that can't be valid anymore, if it ever was, can out weigh all the rest of American history? "
Leonard wrote on Nov 6, 2009 8:01 AM:
"Invective" means an insulting or abusive expression. Do you find such an expression in that opening paragraph or in some other letter that has appeared here that I should know about
Ummm... did you read the letter? The author's stated goal is to "ridicule and shame" liberals. "
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 6, 2009 7:48 AM:
"Invective" means an insulting or abusive expression. Do you find such an expression in that opening paragraph or in some other letter that has appeared here that I should know about? Maybe I missed something and you can elaborate so that I can better understand what has offended you so much that you feel justified in actually mocking someone who seems to merely be expressing his opinion that you are wrong in your use of a reference employed to support your position.
He obviously disagrees with you, but why don't you address his arguments rather than mock him which actually gives the impression that you are conceding his point by avoiding a response, and that you are trying to distract other readers from realizing that you have not responded. As I read these posts, I was interested in your reply, but didn't find it. Just mocking which led to my comments. "
sparky595 wrote on Nov 6, 2009 6:57 AM:
'I don’t think it would be inaccurate to say that your mocking, not to mention the name-calling, is in fact the act of bullying.'
I will agree. There are a few people on these blogs that do not care to discuss the content of the articles/letters written here. Their only intentions are to demean and denigrate other posters simply because they have opposing views. I'm not going to say that mud doesn't fling to both sides of the fence, however, some just post here simply to fling it at others. "
Leonard wrote on Nov 6, 2009 6:54 AM:
It's time liberals experienced ridicule and shame for using the Treaty of Tripoli hoax to attack America's foundational premise of "one nation under God" — not a theocracy as Arne Aasen (Sept. 30), Billy Rubin (online) and others falsely accuse, but a government founded upon the Christian principles contained in the Bible as Audrey Boyd noted in her Sept. 28 letter which quoted a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court.
AND THEN
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 6, 2009 5:34 AM:
Since anger is socially unacceptable, people often employ techniques that permit them to vent their anger.....I usually like to provide an appropriate Bible verse at a time like this
I would think the appropriate verse would be Matthew 7:3
Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
:) "
Billy Rubin wrote on Nov 6, 2009 6:34 AM:
While I was unable to find a reference as to whom your comments were directed, I would invite you to read the beginning paragraph of Mike Nedderman's letter and consider the religious invective that is normally submitted and published here before pronouncing your judgments. "
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 6, 2009 5:35 AM:
I know voter believes Jesus advocated crimes against humanity, like slavery (yea, right), but I’m certain even voter would agree that Jesus would want us to treat one another with respect. Can I get an amen from everyone? (sorry guys, it’s what we do here). "
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 6, 2009 5:34 AM:
Whatever your motive for mocking others, please know that the use of that technique to demean doesn’t go unnoticed and is understood for what it in fact is. Using that technique is unbecoming for anyone who believes respect of others is a virtue, and it truly detracts from what could otherwise be mutually beneficial discussions in these forums. "
Lodi50 wrote on Nov 6, 2009 5:32 AM:
I usually like to provide an appropriate Bible verse at a time like this, but my mind can only picture Dana Carvy's “Church Lady” character from ancient Saturday Night Live saying, “Isn't that Special!”
Seriously though, welcome to each one of you. We who are fans of the Religion Section love and welcome atheists, agnostics, and believers of all variations. I hope all those of good will who enjoy the Religion Section can have a mutually beneficial, civil, and enjoyable dialogue. "
Lodian wrote on Nov 5, 2009 10:45 PM:
Mark Noodleman...
Sacred Kanji Garment...
Great stuff, Billy! "
Leonard wrote on Nov 5, 2009 4:57 PM:
Chuckle...
Well, at least we know that we are not just talking to ourselves. "
voter wrote on Nov 5, 2009 3:26 PM:
You're killin' me, Billy!
Nedderman, are you out there? "
Billy Rubin wrote on Nov 5, 2009 6:15 AM:
You were right, Voter and I was wrong. I thought he would at least lie some more to cover his tracks and you said no, he's a coward. I owe you a beer (I still think I'm right about frustrations being taken out on students in the dojo). "
davidd wrote on Nov 5, 2009 1:02 AM:
It doesn't matter what the original Arabic text even said.
The document, in English, which was read aloud upon the Senate floor and unanimously voted upon, included Article 11 and the words you can't bare to admit.
Want more proof? Re-read the Constitution. Reference Article 6 and the Oath.
If you feel so inclined to reference Supreme Court cases, then ask yourself why the S.C. ordered the removal of a 10 Commandments monument in a Federal court in Alabama.
Shame on you for trying to misinform others. The irony here is that Jesus would not approve of your actions. "
voter wrote on Nov 4, 2009 6:39 AM:
You, sir, are a coward. "
voter wrote on Nov 4, 2009 6:35 AM:
Billy Rubin wrote on Nov 4, 2009 5:58 AM:
How can this be?
How can Mike Nedderman of Sacramento start so boldly, making such claims and then - and then... nothing. Poof. Gone.
Mr. Nedderman, are things alright in Sacramento? I mean, are you OK? Do you need help? "
Billy Rubin wrote on Nov 3, 2009 6:27 AM:
It would seem an easy matter for someone like Mike Nedderman of Sacramento to provide the missing ingredient in his Chrisitian Nation - that being, of course, "The" Christ.
Mr. Nedderman has made his claim and, faced with the apparent lack of quotable text in the United States Constitution, appears to have given this cause up as a bad job and has instead decided to campaign for better writing skills. Maybe he'll succeed there. "
voter wrote on Nov 2, 2009 6:45 AM:
Billy Rubin wrote on Nov 2, 2009 4:59 AM:
The crowd is getting anxious, waiting to see if Mike Nedderman is going for a spectacular showboat play - or if he's simply having trouble getting his legs under him.
The tension is palpable... you could hear a pin drop... "
voter wrote on Nov 1, 2009 10:29 AM:
voter wrote on Nov 1, 2009 10:14 AM:
Billy Rubin wrote on Nov 1, 2009 9:49 AM:
One would think that it would be a simple matter, but perhaps he needs just a bit more time.
We'll check later on his progress. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Oct 31, 2009 1:29 PM:
You present, in their original context, the words "Jesus Christ", or "Christian" from the United States Constitution thereby proving your claim and I will publicly agree with you that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and I'll never again deny it on these blogs.
However, lacking such a presentation, you must retract your claim that it was and never again make the claim.
Is that fair? Sounds fair to me.
Do we have a deal? "
voter wrote on Oct 31, 2009 7:48 AM:
Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Monroe, Ethan Allen, Thomas Paine, and other founders were not Christian in any sense of the word. They were Deists. Deism was widely accepted/practiced among the educated classes in colonial America. Deists rejected the supposed divine inspiration of the Bible, the virgin birth, miracles, the efficacy of prayer, the resurrection of Jesus--almost all of the dogma central to the Christian religion.
I will agree with you that the majority religion of the United States is Christian, but any notion that it was founded on Biblical principals is just beyond ignorant.
I will make you a deal, Mr. Nedderman. If you will agree to read Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason", I will read the book you have suggested. What do you say? "
Comments on this story are now closed.