Comments on: Interview with Greg Evensen http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/03/29/interview-with-greg-evensen/ Fri, 16 May 2008 20:03:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3 by: Famous Inventors http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/03/29/interview-with-greg-evensen/#comment-260422 Wed, 08 Aug 2007 22:13:58 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/03/29/interview-with-greg-evensen/#comment-260422 <strong>Famous Inventors</strong> Famous Inventors Famous Inventors

Famous Inventors

]]> by: tedbohne http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/03/29/interview-with-greg-evensen/#comment-252271 Sun, 29 Jul 2007 18:13:27 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/03/29/interview-with-greg-evensen/#comment-252271 Greg's rules for reform? I'm hardly surprised to see a stupid fucking cop come up with this sort of extremist bilge. You can't go back to 1776, and wouldn't want to. I think the most frightening aspect of this article is that it represents an aspect of society totally under the hypnosis of ideology, and entirely bereft of the irrefutable, inalterable fact that the US cannot live alone in the world and grow beans and corn. Frankly people with such simple forms of mentation as this should be considered in any action to depopulate the world. The two most common things in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. Clearly we can live without the latter, not the former. It is the fault of anencephalic such as yourself that the US finds itself in the condition it's in now. It isn't that some of your points aren't a bullseye. The dissolution of the Fed is one of these. Isolationism, and state rule with governors like George Bush, Arnold Schwarzenegger, George Wallace, and Jesse Ventura clearly obviate that the states cannot be trusted to pick even a mentally balanced person, much less a statesman and lawmaker. No, Greg, it should be back to a beat for you. No gun though. tedbohne Greg’s rules for reform?

I’m hardly surprised to see a stupid fucking cop come up with this sort of extremist bilge. You can’t go back to 1776, and wouldn’t want to. I think the most frightening aspect of this article is that it represents an aspect of society totally under the hypnosis of ideology, and entirely bereft of the irrefutable, inalterable fact that the US cannot live alone in the world and grow beans and corn. Frankly people with such simple forms of mentation as this should be considered in any action to depopulate the world. The two most common things in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. Clearly we can live without the latter, not the former. It is the fault of anencephalic such as yourself that the US finds itself in the condition it’s in now. It isn’t that some of your points aren’t a bullseye. The dissolution of the Fed is one of these. Isolationism, and state rule with governors like George Bush, Arnold Schwarzenegger, George Wallace, and Jesse Ventura clearly obviate that the states cannot be trusted to pick even a mentally balanced person, much less a statesman and lawmaker. No, Greg, it should be back to a beat for you. No gun though.

tedbohne

]]> by: Trent Hill http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/03/29/interview-with-greg-evensen/#comment-158068 Sun, 08 Apr 2007 03:52:07 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/03/29/interview-with-greg-evensen/#comment-158068 Ohk. Let's reform the arguement and say "Last 70 years". Nonetheless, those people who beat their wives, obstructed their opinions, and abused their spouses were not IN marriages, they were seeking control. A marriage can't be born out of such hatred, control, violence, or arrogance. Doesn't matter, point being - while all those things ARE NOT, and NEVER WERE part of the definition of marriage, a male being with a male is ALSO not part of that definition. Ohk. Let’s reform the arguement and say “Last 70 years”.
Nonetheless, those people who beat their wives, obstructed their opinions, and abused their spouses were not IN marriages, they were seeking control.
A marriage can’t be born out of such hatred, control, violence, or arrogance.
Doesn’t matter, point being – while all those things ARE NOT, and NEVER WERE part of the definition of marriage, a male being with a male is ALSO not part of that definition.

]]> by: globalist_elitist http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/03/29/interview-with-greg-evensen/#comment-157622 Sat, 07 Apr 2007 12:46:22 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/03/29/interview-with-greg-evensen/#comment-157622 Oh really? Polygamy was an accepted aspect of marriage in most cultures up until recently. Ownership of women was an aspect of marriage in most cultures. Legal rape and abuse of your wife was a part of marriage in most cultures. In fact, I think it's that classic hate text to which you declare your partial obedience that gives men the right to beat their wives so long as the instrument they use to inflict punishment is no wider than their thumb, am I correct? Oh really? Polygamy was an accepted aspect of marriage in most cultures up until recently. Ownership of women was an aspect of marriage in most cultures. Legal rape and abuse of your wife was a part of marriage in most cultures. In fact, I think it’s that classic hate text to which you declare your partial obedience that gives men the right to beat their wives so long as the instrument they use to inflict punishment is no wider than their thumb, am I correct?

]]> by: Trent Hill http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/03/29/interview-with-greg-evensen/#comment-157321 Sat, 07 Apr 2007 03:36:13 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/03/29/interview-with-greg-evensen/#comment-157321 GE, I am not capable of defining the relationship between you and your wife. I'm simply citing the definition of marriage (which has been basically unchanged since...forever?). If you are married,you already fit that definition. I had nothing to do with it. Joe, dont care about politicallly motivated revisionists. GE,

I am not capable of defining the relationship between you and your wife. I’m simply citing the definition of marriage (which has been basically unchanged since…forever?). If you are married,you already fit that definition. I had nothing to do with it.

Joe, dont care about politicallly motivated revisionists.

]]> by: Joe http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/03/29/interview-with-greg-evensen/#comment-157239 Sat, 07 Apr 2007 01:44:27 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/03/29/interview-with-greg-evensen/#comment-157239 The latest edition of M-W gives the definition as I have related. I cut and pasted it directly from http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/marriage I do not doubt it is politically motivated, but not on my part. The latest edition of M-W gives the definition as I have related. I cut and pasted it directly from http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/marriage I do not doubt it is politically motivated, but not on my part.

]]> by: globalist_elitist http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/03/29/interview-with-greg-evensen/#comment-157077 Fri, 06 Apr 2007 18:59:06 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/03/29/interview-with-greg-evensen/#comment-157077 Sorry, Trent. I don't want you defining the relationship between me and my wife. You are an authoritarian control-freak. My marriage does not infringe upon your rights as murder would. I'll leave the bestiality to your people, since you take so much pride in its normalcy. What I have learned from debating you is: 1) You want to control other people's lives; 2) You want to insulate yourself from competition and deny others the right to buy and sell the products and services that they want; and 3) You pick and choose the pieces you like from the Bible and reject those that don't conform to your world-view. Hey, you should be for Barack Obama! Sorry, Trent. I don’t want you defining the relationship between me and my wife.

You are an authoritarian control-freak. My marriage does not infringe upon your rights as murder would. I’ll leave the bestiality to your people, since you take so much pride in its normalcy.

What I have learned from debating you is: 1) You want to control other people’s lives; 2) You want to insulate yourself from competition and deny others the right to buy and sell the products and services that they want; and 3) You pick and choose the pieces you like from the Bible and reject those that don’t conform to your world-view.

Hey, you should be for Barack Obama!

]]> by: Trent Hill http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/03/29/interview-with-greg-evensen/#comment-157051 Fri, 06 Apr 2007 17:36:30 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/03/29/interview-with-greg-evensen/#comment-157051 "Hey, here’s an idea – How about everyone defines marriage their own way." Hey, here's an idea - How about everyone defines *murder* their own way? Hey, here’s an idea – How about everyone defines *milk* their own way? Hey, here’s an idea – How about everyone defines *beastiality* their own way? Understand how lusicrous you sound? “Hey, here’s an idea – How about everyone defines marriage their own way.”

Hey, here’s an idea – How about everyone defines murder their own way?
Hey, here’s an idea – How about everyone defines milk their own way?
Hey, here’s an idea – How about everyone defines beastiality their own way?

Understand how lusicrous you sound?

]]> by: globalist_elitist http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/03/29/interview-with-greg-evensen/#comment-156607 Fri, 06 Apr 2007 07:01:56 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/03/29/interview-with-greg-evensen/#comment-156607 The Eric Dondero Dictionary states that "Marriage is a relationship between two or more people of the same race and/or gender, in which the participants therein engage in Swinging and take strong stands for Swingers' rights, against left-wing Islamisists, and in favor of Mainstream Libertarianism." Hey, here's an idea - How about everyone defines marriage their own way. The Eric Dondero Dictionary states that “Marriage is a relationship between two or more people of the same race and/or gender, in which the participants therein engage in Swinging and take strong stands for Swingers’ rights, against left-wing Islamisists, and in favor of Mainstream Libertarianism.”

Hey, here’s an idea – How about everyone defines marriage their own way.

]]> by: Trent Hill http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/03/29/interview-with-greg-evensen/#comment-156586 Fri, 06 Apr 2007 05:06:53 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/03/29/interview-with-greg-evensen/#comment-156586 WTF kind of dictionary is that? No real dictionary says that marriage is ONLY between two people of the same sex,that's not only retarded but a bold faced lie. Now, it could say marriage was the Union of two PEOPLE,and not specify their gender, but your definition is either concocted,or politically motivated, or both. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source Main Entry: mar·riage Pronunciation: 'mar-ij Function: noun 1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law —see also DIVORCE 2 : the ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc. My 2004 one says the same things. WTF kind of dictionary is that? No real dictionary says that marriage is ONLY between two people of the same sex,that’s not only retarded but a bold faced lie. Now, it could say marriage was the Union of two PEOPLE,and not specify their gender, but your definition is either concocted,or politically motivated, or both.

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law – Cite This Source
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: ‘mar-ij
Function: noun
1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law —see also DIVORCE
2 : the ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

My 2004 one says the same things.

]]> by: Joe http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/03/29/interview-with-greg-evensen/#comment-156303 Thu, 05 Apr 2007 20:56:33 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/03/29/interview-with-greg-evensen/#comment-156303 But Trent you have ignored the definition of marriage that I cited from the most recent edition of Merriam-Webster which DOES define marriage as "the state of being united to a person of the same sex." Without Scripture, on what basis is one to decide which definition is correct, the modern Webster's or the 1828 Webster's? Earlier you also cited something you called "the nature of man" but I'm not sure what that is either, other than fallen. But Trent you have ignored the definition of marriage that I cited from the most recent edition of Merriam-Webster which DOES define marriage as “the state of being united to a person of the same sex.” Without Scripture, on what basis is one to decide which definition is correct, the modern Webster’s or the 1828 Webster’s? Earlier you also cited something you called “the nature of man” but I’m not sure what that is either, other than fallen.

]]> by: Trent Hill http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/03/29/interview-with-greg-evensen/#comment-156283 Thu, 05 Apr 2007 20:40:02 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/03/29/interview-with-greg-evensen/#comment-156283 Random House says - the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. American Heritage says - The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. Kenerman English Multilingual says - the ceremony by which a man and woman become husband and wife. Mirriam-Webster says - the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law There are four for you Joe. The DEFINITION doesn't leave room for a man and man to commit themselves in marriage. Only a man and a woman. I said [through Christ] because that is how I feel about marriage. But the literal,secular meaning of the word leaves no room for misinterpretation. I don't use the Bible in this arguement, because not all people follow the Bible. This arguement makes a more profound statement, and one which anyone of any religion can agree to. It is a wider attack on the issue, rather than your fundamentalist-Calvinist worldview. Random House says – the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

American Heritage says – The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

Kenerman English Multilingual says – the ceremony by which a man and woman become husband and wife.

Mirriam-Webster says – the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law

There are four for you Joe. The DEFINITION doesn’t leave room for a man and man to commit themselves in marriage. Only a man and a woman.
I said [through Christ] because that is how I feel about marriage. But the literal,secular meaning of the word leaves no room for misinterpretation.
I don’t use the Bible in this arguement, because not all people follow the Bible. This arguement makes a more profound statement, and one which anyone of any religion can agree to. It is a wider attack on the issue, rather than your fundamentalist-Calvinist worldview.

]]> by: Joe http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/03/29/interview-with-greg-evensen/#comment-156279 Thu, 05 Apr 2007 20:35:17 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/03/29/interview-with-greg-evensen/#comment-156279 My "personal opinion" is my understanding of the Biblical position. Exodus 21, Leviticus 25. Deut. 23:15-16. Slavery is regulated, not abolished, for God's glory and for our good. (Rom. 8:28). Covenant members are to be released at Sabbath year or Jubilee, depending on whether it was voluntary (Jubilee) or for a debt (Sabbath). Foreigners could lawfully be kept forever, in my read, but men of distinct renown disagree with me (Rutherford, Gillespie, Knox, Calvin) on the basis that a father cannot lawfully resign away the unalienable right of liberty of his child, which is very persuasive to me, but (at present) I cannot square with Leviticus 25:46. The most important regulation, in my opinion, is that manstealing (as was common in Africa to get the slaves) was a death-penalty offence. Exodus 21:16. The Christian Commonwealth of Virginia was the first nation on the face of the earth to prohibit slave-trafficing (1777). My “personal opinion” is my understanding of the Biblical position. Exodus 21, Leviticus 25. Deut. 23:15-16. Slavery is regulated, not abolished, for God’s glory and for our good. (Rom. 8:28). Covenant members are to be released at Sabbath year or Jubilee, depending on whether it was voluntary (Jubilee) or for a debt (Sabbath). Foreigners could lawfully be kept forever, in my read, but men of distinct renown disagree with me (Rutherford, Gillespie, Knox, Calvin) on the basis that a father cannot lawfully resign away the unalienable right of liberty of his child, which is very persuasive to me, but (at present) I cannot square with Leviticus 25:46.

The most important regulation, in my opinion, is that manstealing (as was common in Africa to get the slaves) was a death-penalty offence. Exodus 21:16. The Christian Commonwealth of Virginia was the first nation on the face of the earth to prohibit slave-trafficing (1777).

]]> by: globalist_elitist http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/03/29/interview-with-greg-evensen/#comment-156146 Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:43:56 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/03/29/interview-with-greg-evensen/#comment-156146 So you're pro-slavery, Joe? Should slaves obey their masters like they obey the Lord? So you’re pro-slavery, Joe? Should slaves obey their masters like they obey the Lord?

]]> by: Joe http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/03/29/interview-with-greg-evensen/#comment-156112 Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:03:17 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/03/29/interview-with-greg-evensen/#comment-156112 But the New Testament itself says that "All the Scripture … is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and instruction in righteousness." It does not say "all scripture except the Old Testament." As to your definition of marriage, I agree with you, but that is a biblical definition of marriage, not a dictionary definition. I was wondering what you meant by "I define it by the definition of marriage" which sounds to me like circular reasoning. Whose definition? Yours is certainly not the Webster's definition. I don't understand how you in one breath can say that marriage is a relationship of commitment through Chist while at the same time saying that you do not justify your "anti-homosexual marriage stance with the Bible." It sounds me like that is exactly what you are doing: using the bible's definition of marriage! But the New Testament itself says that “All the Scripture … is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and instruction in righteousness.” It does not say “all scripture except the Old Testament.”

As to your definition of marriage, I agree with you, but that is a biblical definition of marriage, not a dictionary definition. I was wondering what you meant by “I define it by the definition of marriage” which sounds to me like circular reasoning. Whose definition? Yours is certainly not the Webster’s definition. I don’t understand how you in one breath can say that marriage is a relationship of commitment through Chist while at the same time saying that you do not justify your “anti-homosexual marriage stance with the Bible.” It sounds me like that is exactly what you are doing: using the bible’s definition of marriage!

]]>