I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Sunday, October 28, 2007

"Schwarzenegger, the Fire-bug of California"

This one is just so hilarious that I have to share it.

Normally, I don't have much interest in the controversies over the rights of homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, and transvestites. My main concern is that Darwin doubters are stereotyped as fundies who are extremely intolerant of those people.

Schwarzenegger, the Fire-bug of California
By Elinor Montgomery
October 23, 2007

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has become, perhaps, one of the most hypocritical politicians in all of America . He presently is upfront and center, portraying himself as the inspector of law and order, seeing that the needs of the evacuees are met, as they escape the fires, which are raging throughout California . But the question we have to ask ourselves is whether or not he is the fire-bug, which sparked these fires in the first place.

Let us look at the government measures he has endorsed, which are at the root of this disaster. He has been signing laws supportive of the promotion of homosexual activity in the state. The latest law, which he signed, bars parents from the schoolrooms, while ordering the system to allow boys in girls’ restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa. This is nothing short of a blatant attack on the traditional values of America . He is declaring American values to be irrelevant in the new sexualized indoctrination centers of the schoolroom.

Children as young as five years of age will be mentally molested in these centers. One of the bills signed by him, SB 777, prohibits any instruction or school activity, promoting what is referred to as discriminatory bias against ‘gender’ – cross-dressing, sex changes and sexual orientation.
At the same time, a parent who speaks truth with respect to marriage being only for one man and one woman, in front of the sensitive ears of a lesbian teacher, would be convicted of harassment. Students, declaring before a male teacher, wearing women’s clothing, that people are born male or female, could be reported as being an harasser.

He also signed Bill AB14, which is another insensitive law that absolutely violates people’s moral boundaries.

Unfortunately, God and Schwarzenegger are on opposite sides of the fence and, for all his body-building prowess, Schwarzenegger has nowhere near the power of the Almighty Creator, Who endowed this fool with the muscles he flexes. We are speaking here of the heavy-weight champion of the light-weight Hollywood stars-cum-politicians, who has become the fire-bug of California .

Do not think that God does not mean what He says about nations, which are blessed by being in covenant with Him. But then, Schwarzenegger was not a native of this great nation and, perhaps, he gives us reason to reconsider foreigners, who have not been raised in this country under God, being allowed to assume high offices in the land. Is it possible to marry ‘the left’ with ‘the right’ without having the whole loaf fill up with the leaven of liberalism?

I would refer you to my commentary of July 23, 2007, Storm Clouds are Gathering; “You shall surely face the coming storm, ignited by the wrath of God. You will see many, many more signs of famine, floods, fires, hurricanes and earthquakes, so brace yourselves for the storm clouds are gathering.” And again, I refer to another commentary of June 28, 2007, Survival of America; “The judgment, which fell upon the twin towers of New York and upon New Orleans, the Sodom of America, was a mere warning of things to come. The fires, floods and earthquakes in diverse places are signs of the great judgment, which is right at hand.”

Wake up California , for you have a fire-bug at the helm of government. Blame your financial losses and the loss of your homes on him and those of the homosexual voting community who have him in their pockets. He is your fire-starter who has ignited God’s wrath. The laws of man, which come against His Law, will arouse Him to take His justice against evil, repaying evil with its just reward.

California has a long history of moral wickedness; it would seem that the natives are slow learners. How much destruction will it take before they wake up to discover, too late, that everything they covet, their homes, their cars, their affluent lifestyle and their liberty, will all be lost? Hollywood and the Californian lifestyle, so full of government-endorsed sexual perversion, will all become but a shadow of the past, when that state faces the coming judgment of a second, great earthquake and its ensuing fires.

God is not sleeping, but rather has given these nations of America time to repent of their wickedness against Him. He has mercifully granted 100 years of grace for Californians to change their ways after His last judgment of the great earthquake and fires of San Francisco in 1906, which preceded the great spiritual revival of Azusa Street .

California is the symbol in America of Satan’s attack on the westward move of God’s covenant with His covenanting people. He brought them to America , for the sole purpose of worshiping only Him and being a light of liberty in His Law to the world. Instead, Americans pushed westward under satanic spiritual guidance chasing after the Californian gold of this world in place of the gold of worship God wants to see, covering His chosen vessels.

Those who pushed westward, panning for gold, staked land claims for themselves, unlike the earlier explorers who, in their westward push, planted crosses and staked their land claims for God and His Son Jesus Christ. He blessed this nation long enough to demonstrate the power He wanted to bestow upon His people.

Californians cannot purge themselves quickly enough of both their governor and the perverted sexual strongholds he supports, at the expense of the well-being of the parents and their children. They have an inevitable choice to make between being washed clean and receiving the sure fire judgment, which will ultimately result in God wiping them from the face of the earth, if they do not repent and change their ways.

This state is like a lightning rod, planted and ready to conduct His wrath upon itself.

Wake up, Hollywood, and the rest of that Californian state of ‘star’ gazers. You have a fire-bug and a terminator in your midst, who is the leader of the pack. When all you have is gone, remember that you were warned, but you chose to endorse a terminator instead of God. He will see to it that your wickedness is finally carried away in a lake of fire.

.

16 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

You left something out of this post. It was supposed to be "hilarious". It is just partisan.

Monday, October 29, 2007 8:02:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

This post seems to have no relevance to the usual activities here, but its purpose is plain. It is to distract us from the previous thread where Larry (as is often the case) has no answers for the question that have come up.

Monday, October 29, 2007 1:05:00 PM  
Blogger Moulton said...

I call for the Question.

Monday, October 29, 2007 1:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

>I call for the Question<

The unanswered questions were:

1. If the number murdered were only a thousand, would it still not be a crime?

2. What is the "official" story?

Monday, October 29, 2007 2:55:00 PM  
Blogger Moulton said...

I am reminded of the classic story in the Old Testament where Abraham is trying to talk God out of destroying the world, as a function of the (small, but negotiable) number of decent people who don't deserve to be wiped out, notwithstanding the undeniable perfidy of the vast majority of the planet's population.

Monday, October 29, 2007 3:33:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

I have better things to do with my time than to answer comments that are stupid, rude, gossipy, and/or off-topic. On many other blogs, the bloggers rarely or never participate in the discussions, even when the discussions are intelligent.

Monday, October 29, 2007 5:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

> I have better things to do with my time than to answer comments that are stupid, rude, gossipy, and/or off-topic. <

These questions were on topic on the thread in which you dodged them. We know that you are unable to answer them. You are not fooling anyone but yourself.

Monday, October 29, 2007 5:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Hector said...

Larry's opening on this blog should be modified as such:

"My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to practice the arbitrary censorship that I believe I have been the victim of on other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be practiced in my blogs -- there will be deletion of comments when they embarrass me or when I am incapable of answering.

Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks will be my stock in trade. My non-response to a particular comment should be interpreted as inability to answer."

Monday, October 29, 2007 5:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in Suburbanness said...

> I have better things to do with my time than to answer comments that are stupid, rude, gossipy, and/or off-topic. <

< These questions were on topic on the thread in which you dodged them. >

I agree they were on topic (they also were not stupid, rude, nor gossipy).

Monday, October 29, 2007 10:16:00 PM  
Blogger Moulton said...

If you take another look at the Shreklisch Character Model for Agonistic Drama, you will see that the more deeply hidden aspects of a dramatic character include their undisclosed backstory and burning issues.

By participating in a protracted dialogue, a character unwittingly and ineluctably dribbles out clues to these aspects of his or her character.

Since analytical reasoning and theory construction are applicable to character analysis in a storied drama, it's unreasonable to impose a taboo on that process. But it's also to be expected that those with not-so-hidden character flaws will initially seek to minimize the extent to which their innermost psyche is unmasked for all to see.

Tuesday, October 30, 2007 5:31:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> By participating in a protracted dialogue, a character unwittingly and ineluctably dribbles out clues to these aspects of his or her character. <

How about your analysis of the characters involved here?

Tuesday, October 30, 2007 7:29:00 AM  
Anonymous Hector said...

Another question that Larry always ducks is how he can support ID without a designer.

Tuesday, October 30, 2007 8:18:00 AM  
Anonymous hector said...

As to Larry's sockpuppetry, it is always a problem that people who post irrational arguments are likely to be mistaken for him. Of course in most instances it is not a mistake.

Tuesday, October 30, 2007 8:24:00 AM  
Blogger Moulton said...

How about your analysis of the characters involved here?

Shreklisch.

Definitely shreklisch.

Tuesday, October 30, 2007 8:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in Suburbanness said...

A while back, Sherri D. posted as follows:

> Since you claim not to censor, why did you ban ViW? <

Has Larry ever answered this? I would have otherwise thought that ViW went away for his own reasons but it looks fairly clear from Larry's silence that he was banned.

Friday, September 28, 2007 9:42:00 AM


There are two separate questions here -- (1) What happened to ViW? and (2) Why hasn't Larry commented on it? I'll answer the second first; it's easier.

Larry has actually been quite happy to see ViW go away. ViW was tormenting him, deliberately. (It is also true that ViW was helping to "keep the blog alive", which Larry never acknowledged.) It remains quite mysterious that Larry has not figured out ViW's identity. But as for Larry's silence, that is really quite typical for matters he doesn't want to discuss.

What happened to ViW? Last night I went back through the archives to look for clues (e.g., a food fight with Larry, perhaps over allegedly censored posts). ViW's last "normal" post was on July 27, in the "X-rated orchid" thread (BTW, that thread was the #1 best ever IMO, memorable and worth revisiting, followed closely by "Wrangling over wrist of hominid fossil").

This was followed by his last two posts, which were very short (one line each) and had an air of resignation about them. Neither aspect much like ViW:

Voice in the Wilderness said...

And you wonder why you are banned all over the net!

Monday, July 30, 2007 (I hijacked "fairness doctrine" thread on Volokh Conspiracy)

> of course, as we know, the book wasn't really "banned," <

I'm glad to see that the truth has finally sunken in.

Wednesday, August 01, 2007 (Stopping the mad bookstore misshelver)


ViW's last post was actually kind of sloppy, maybe wishful thinking, as what he was responding to was just sarcasm. ViW may have thrown in the towel at that point and wanted to pretend that he had achieved closure.

I would guess (1) that something bad has happened to ViW, and (2) that he has not been back to the blog since Aug. 1. I have tried to phone him without success.

There was at least one later post by "ViW", on Sept. 8 in "Wikipedia's one sided discussion ... etc.", but I believe that was actually ViU who by then was obsessing over ViW's absence. It landed with a thud -- no one ever said, "Hey, ViW, welcome back; how've you been?"

Tuesday, October 30, 2007 10:46:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

>>> Since you claim not to censor, why did you ban ViW? <<<

> Has Larry ever answered this? <

Larry never answers difficult questions. In some cases he just casts insults but his silence on this issue is deafening.

> It remains quite mysterious that Larry has not figured out ViW's identity. <

I am not positive that you have yourself. You have been dead certain that it was at least three different people. It seems far more amazing that he hasn't figured out who I am. The clues have been overwhelming. He probably doesn't even know who you are.

[ViW's last posts] I wouldn't read much into those. ViW had a tendency to run hot and cold. I don't see a trend in those.

ViW:> I'm glad to see that the truth has finally sunken in.<

ViS: > ViW's last post was actually kind of sloppy, maybe wishful thinking, as what he was responding to was just sarcasm. <

It looks to me as if he was just being sarcastic himself.

> ViW may have thrown in the towel at that point and wanted to pretend that he had achieved closure. <

ViW was quite outspoken. I am sure that if he left of his own accord, he would have left a clear statement. (Of course Larry may have censored that.)

> I would guess (1) that something bad has happened to ViW <

Only if you consider Larry's banning him to be bad. I would bet that he is following these threads.

> I have tried to phone him without success. <

I am not as sure as you are that you really know who he is. I would suggest that you continue to try to phone him. A lot of people don't return, or even always listen to recorded messages. Try to get him when he is likely to be home.

> There was at least one later post by "ViW", on Sept. 8 in "Wikipedia's one sided discussion ... etc.", but I believe that was actually ViU who by then was obsessing over ViW's absence. <

I was indeed the one who did that. A few days ago Anonymous referred to a post by ViW which was actually mine. I think that many on this blog aren't clear as to the difference between me and ViW.

I never considered myself to be obsessing. In the past when ViW disappeared, usually on weekends, I filled in for him. He showed no disagreement with that practice and occasionally even thanked me.

Tuesday, October 30, 2007 1:21:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home