This is Lands’nGrooves's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Lands’nGrooves's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Lands’nGrooves
Recent Activity
I guess I'm #3. I've been coming here for @10 yrs. if not longer. If memory serves me correct the first post I read was link by Blackfive which was about, of all things, Britney Spears. Man, we use to have some serious debates back in the day. First there was Zosima, or whatever his nickname was. Then that idiot Salvage, what a knucklehead. With Mommynator, Locutisprime, BroKen, Morgan and Chuck, aka xtnyoda all making things interesting and which I fondly miss. Anyways...13 years is a good run, Rick. Not too many blogs stay around that long. Appreciate the opportunity to guest post what little I did. And of course to run my mouth in the comment section. I'll say good bye now, even though, as you stated, BH will be around for awhile as will I. It was truly a pleaser, my cyber friend, Rick. tim, The Godless Heathen
1 reply
And the comments continue, see - (...) "Lastly, there seems to be this idea that the President is like electing a Pope. Like I said, the candidate's religious beliefs are less important that what they will do to protect Christians and to maintain the American culture. I don't see anything that tells me Trump is incapable of that. As others have mentioned, his children are exceptional. Yes, he has stumbled and ruined his first marriage. The current one seems very stable. Would you prefer the Clinton's idea of marriage?" (...) Posted by Teri Pittman at July 27, 2016 12:25 PM tim aka The Godless Heathen
Toggle Commented Jul 27, 2016 on Something of Which to be Proud? at Brutally Honest
1 reply
"Your mindset suggests that we need to defend ourselves against all of Islam when the evidence suggests that there are only a minority within Islam that are actually out to kill us." Oh I wish that was true, I really do. http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/243220/ben-shapiro-myth-tiny-radical-muslim-minority-truthrevoltorg "It's far easier to act as if critics of Islam have a problem with Muslims as people than it is to accept the uncomfortable truth that Islam is different." http://thereligionofpeace.com/ tim aka The Godless Heathen
1 reply
No, identify the dead according to what they are – Muslims, etc. I was responding to “…yet it is difficult to characterize these attacks as primarily religious…” Somehow the writer, Scalia, doesn’t think the murderers aren’t religious because of the religious affiliation of the victims. Which is absurd. Whether this, or any attack are religious in nature (of course the overwhelming majority involves Islam) is not dependent on the victims but obviously, at least it should be, on the perpetrators. The Shi’a and Sunni divide explains how the terrorists justify the killing of their fellow Muslims. Though, as explained, the Sunni terrorists do not recognize the Shi’a as anything other than infidels like the rest of us. (It also explains much of the everyday and historical divide and violence in the Middle East.) In order to win against your enemy, you must first understand them. Excusing their behavior, ignoring their motivations, not taking them for their words is foolish. Especially in this case with Muslim Terrorists, egotistically telling them that they are not Muslims while they justify everything they do comes straight from the Koran. Which is the words of Muhammad and therefore cannot be questioned, especially by infidels. Which explains why we’ve been fighting them since the inception of this country, the Barbary Pirates, and we will continue to fight them until we acknowledge who and what they are. tim aka The Godless Heathen
1 reply
"Some reports indicate that death became a condition of whether or not a hostage could quote from the Koran, and yet it is difficult to characterize these attacks as primarily religious when today — a day later — ISIS has unleashed hell in a Shiite neighborhood of Baghdad, with multiple bombs murdering over 100 and injuring nearly double that. As with last week’s attack in Istanbul, many among the dead, perhaps most, are Muslims." Easily explainable, for those who which to learn - "After Dhaka, it was bombs away in Baghdad, set off in the mainly Shi’a Karada neighborhood, killing nearly 200 people. Was this an “attack on Islam,” as some Western apologists for Islam have claimed? (Sunni Muslims are noticeably silent on the attacks aimed at Shi’a, and are careful not to claim that such attacks are an “attack on Islam itself.”) No, those bombs were targeted at Karada precisely because the Shi’a, in the view of the energetic takfiris of ISIS, are not real Muslims at all. And it is not just the Sunnis of ISIS, but other Sunnis, too, who share that view. We must not forget that according to these Sunnis, the Shi’a are “Rafidite dogs” (from “rafida” – “rejectionists”), so called because they reject the legitimacy of three of the caliphs — Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman — who followed Muhammad, insisting instead that the only legitimate successor to Muhammad was Ali. This is the main, but not the only difference between Shi’a and Sunnis. The most extreme Sunnis regard the Shi’a as even worse than Christians and Jews. An ISIS spokesman put it this way in 2015: “The greatest answer to this question [are the Shi’a worse than Christians and Jews] is in the Qur’an, where Allah speaks about the nearby enemy – those Muslims who have become infidels – as they are more dangerous than those which were already infidels.” ISIS has been ferocious in its nonstop denunciation of the Shi’a. In the 13th edition of the ISIS magazine Dabiq, for example, the main article is entitled The Rafidah: From Ibn Saba’ to the Dajjal; this article contains “pages of violent rhetoric directed against Shiites,” who it claims are “more severely dangerous and more murderous…than the Americans.” The article justifies the killing of Shia Muslims, whom ISIS insists are not Muslims at all but apostates, and apostasy in Islam is punishable by death. What about the three simultaneous attacks in Saudi Arabia? Surely these were, as the egregious Haroon Moghul assures us, “attacks on Islam itself”? Let’s take those attacks one by one." https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/07/hugh-fitzgerald-was-the-medina-attack-an-assault-on-islam-itself tim aka The Godless Heathen
1 reply
We don’t need a pure religious litmus test, we can base it upon a reasonable criteria of assimilation, which any of us with an ounce of common sense would agree is reasonable, we merely deny entry to those that originate from countries that exclude “us” from enjoying first class status in their home countries. Unless they themselves are religious minorities such as Middle East Christians who are being persecuted – the very definition of “refugee”. Also, we should exclude folks who wish “us” death based upon whatever reasoning for that belief, not excluding religion. There, done. If Muslims are denied entry because of those two examples, so be it. But we’ll all feel better about ourselves knowing we didn’t discriminate because solely because of religious intolerance. But I’m still left to ask, as you allude to, what predominately Muslim country would welcome me, or you, if the tables were flipped? And more importantly, why is that? And also I’m supposed to just ignore that reality for moral superiority sake? Then let us prepare for more San Bernardino’s and Boston bombings and etc., etc. We’ll be able to tell the victim’s families - “Sorry, but that we had to let them in.” Not to forget the rapes, robberies and other crimes that follows Muslim immigration like the plague. tim, aka The Godless Heathen
1 reply
“…we do what we need to do to clamp down on allowing radicals into the country…” And the problem being, what is a radical and what isn’t. Muslims have a vastly different idea what that means than you and I. Many Muslims, including “non-radicals” who live in the west, believe in polygamy, female subjugation including but not limited to - genitalia mutilation, wearing of burkas, arranged marriages (often to first cousins), honor killings, and limited education. Muslims also believe that Islam encapsulates all aspects of society, its laws and politics. That there is no separation between Islam and any aspects of daily life. Hence their Sharia Law, which many Muslims would like to have here, and Europe, even though they completely understand that it is not compatible with our Constitution. Also, most dangerously, and where many Christians/Jews, etc. are completely ignorant, Muslims believe that Islam is the only true religion and those who are not Muslims are Infidels. (Think about that for a while). Muslims believe that Islam is dominate over any and all other religions, and its believers, and that Islam cannot be questioned, ever, and apostates must die. (What other religion believes such things?) One only has to look at the Middle East, or any other predominantly Muslim country, to see the vast differences between their way of life and ours. They are not “misunderstood” or merely have some minor dissimilar societal mores than our traditional Western values. Islam is completely incompatible with our country. That’s not me being hyperbolic, that’s what THEY believe. As your linked post concluded – “In so doing, they will continue to create, however inadvertently, their own highly toxic climate, which threatens a clash of civilizations on our own soil.” Now tell me again why we should let them come here. (BTW, Rick, I’m not some Right Wing lunatic bigot who hates on everyone who is different than me. I once was of the mindset like many Americans have - that Islam is “just another religion”, that it’s just a “few” radicals who believe in terrorism, etc. I’ve come to know and understand what Islam truly is through years of reading and educating myself. Islam is nothing but a death cult. Maybe not all Muslims are dangerous, but all follow a dangerous belief system http://www.christianpost.com/news/ex-muslim-proposal-that-islam-is-tolerant-is-fallacious-dangerous-47349/ tim, aka The Godless Heathen
1 reply
"But this won’t stop our secularized elite from celebrating equality and diversity on the one hand while increasing Muslim immigration, which has doubled since 1992, on the other.[3] In so doing, they will continue to create, however inadvertently, their own highly toxic climate, which threatens a clash of civilizations on our own soil." Does this mean, Rick, you've rethought your position on Muslim immigration? BTW, that statement is just another way to say "I think we should hold off of allowing Muslims to come to this country. At least until we get a handle on it" which was said by Donald Trump. tim aka The Godless Heathen
1 reply
I must have been absent the day everything was fine in America and that we can now tackle the common sense issues like grown men using the same bathroom as little girls. We’ve passed Weirdsville, flew right by Crazytown and are coming up on Nuckingfuts. Somebody stop this bus, I wann’a get off at the next exit and walk back home. tim aka The Godless Heathen
1 reply
For the sake of debate…OK, all true, now what? It’ll most likely be Clinton against Trump. Clinton’s un-favorability has nosedived and is at 53% also according to Real Clear Politics. What to do? Vote for Shillary!?! Oh hells no! Not vote? That’s basically a vote for Hillary. So…hold your nose and vote for Trump is really the only choice. tim aka The Godless Heathen
1 reply
EL, Writing “Fact” after a comment does not make it so.(I don’t think that word means what you think it does.) Conservatives have a historic record of anti-bigotry and anti-racism. You’d know this if you’d bother to educate yourself instead of regurgitating the same ole Liberal lies that you’ve been taught by your clown professors. Also, you cannot accuse someone of not being “intellectually honest” because you’ve simply shared an opinion. (If I have to explain that to you…you’ll never understand.) Especially one that is majorly flawed - Trump has all but wrapped up the primary delegates. But maybe that’s “crash(ing) and burn(ing)” to someone obviously lacking in any seriousness. But, you are correct, it must be hard holding the moral high ground when you have to toughest of choices between an old, haggard Socialist…and Bernie Sanders. Talk about your Shining City Upon a Hill… tim aka The Godless Heathen
1 reply
Rick, this piece is more enlightening - "The New York Times published a profile of a Donald Trump campaign office in Florida, expressing astonishment at the number of non-white people and immigrants working in it." Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/14/nyt-visits-trump-campaign-office-amazed-by-presence-of-non-whites/#ixzz435JjSPsk tim aka The Godless Heathen
1 reply
I would say to Cruz, whom I’ll be voting for come April, and you, Rick, there is no but… “But in any campaign responsibility…” there is only responsibility. He should have stopped while he was ahead. The responsibility for what happened at the Trump’s rally Friday night falls squarely on those who chose to crash the rally, looking for trouble and finding it. Full stop. This is exactly what these thugs who were directed and encouraged by MoveOn.org and Black Lives Matter, etc. want – to divide us. It would seem they are accomplish it with embarrassing ease. Bernie Sanders and Hillary have had rallies interrupted by these same affiliated jackwagons. Nobody chose to blame them for those incidents’, and rightfully so. Trump, should be able to hold a rally anywhere he wants to without be forced by miscreants to shut it down because of some minor fisticuffs. Of course Chicago is a Democratic stronghold. There are not that many major cities in the country that aren’t. Should Trump, or the other Republican candidates for that matter, not hold a rally in any of them? tim aka The Godless Heathen
1 reply
Thanks for commenting, PB. One thing on as far as your last Trump quote, while I’m certainly not able to debate or defend Trumps comments on a theology basis (notice my moniker) I do wonder if forgiving and trusting are two separate issues. Forgiving is good, no doubt, but trusting someone, especially if they’ve done you wrong already…seems rather foolish. And of course I’m referring to apples to apples situation. tim aka The Godless Heathen
Toggle Commented Mar 11, 2016 on Trump in His Own Words at Brutally Honest
1 reply
We here in NY have to what till April, but yes I'll be voting for Cruz. tim aka The Godless Heathen
Toggle Commented Mar 2, 2016 on Have you? at Brutally Honest
1 reply
I guess the indecency of the “establishment GOP” and overall hatred of the status quo, not to mention what the other side is presenting as candidates (seriously, Hillary and a socialist!?!. But I repeat myself) is trumping, no pun intended, the lack of decency on Trump’s part and his legion of followers and voters. Cruz 2016!!! tim aka The Godless Heathen
1 reply
"...what is more sacred to men than their ability to have sexual intercourse?" Obviously controlling our womenfolk is more important, Mary Lou. "how wrong it is, for any type of government, whether it's state legislature, whether it's Donald Trump, inserting themselves into personal, private medical decisions." So evidentially two wrongs make a right to this brain dead government hack. tim aka The Godless Heathen
Toggle Commented Feb 16, 2016 on Typical Woman? at Brutally Honest
1 reply
So she doesn’t like it when people open carry? Let me try to put this as delicately as possible – so what. There are plenty of things people do and say that I don’t like practically on a daily basis and guess what – who cares. Get over it. More importantly, get over yourself. This reeks of the “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces” so prevalent on our college campuses of late. Poor little snow flake is uncomfortable with such and such so they ban such talk and or they have a have place to go to and presumably curl up in a ball and rock themselves till they’ve recovered enough to go face the horrible mean world again. I particularly enjoyed this paragraph – “But worse, it doesn't make anyone feel safer when they wave their giant guns around. It makes the world feel crazier and more out of control. It adds tension and fear to a situation that ought to be peaceful and mundane. It makes it harder for me to pursue happiness as I shop for dog food and laundry detergent.” Somehow people who open carry gets turned into “they wave their giant guns around”. Nothing like some hyperbole to make your weak point. Got it. And if seeing a gun on someone’s hip makes you think “the world feel crazier and more out of control” I really do feel sorry for you. Sorry that you live in such an insular little world, safeguarded from the real life tragedies that are truly crazy and out of control that makes seeing a gun, in a holster, on someone’s hip makes you feel that way. That’s just sad. You want to FEEL better, simply don’t look at the pistol. And if it makes you feel that “(i)t adds tension and fear to a situation” who fault is that? The person carrying or you? I’m so tired of people getting all worked up about something they don’t like and somehow it’s now the other person’s fault for making that person FEEL that way. WRONG!!! Deal with it. Or at least shut up. And how exactly does it make “it harder for me to pursue happiness as I shop for dog food and laundry detergent”. Because…your tender little, delicate feelings are disturbed and you can’t concentrate on shopping? C’mon,seriously… Open carry is not “flaunting” or “without regard for the people around you” any more than speaking once mind, or wearing nice clothes, living in a nice house or driving a nice car. Or wearing a cross around your neck. But I do agree, though not for the same reasons, with her when she writes “One of the most disheartening maladies plaguing 21st-century America, both left and right, is that people no longer feel the need to think about why we do things. We think only about whether or not we have the right to do something, and forget to ever ask ourselves why.” But obviously it’s for us to ponder, and practice, not her. So I ask, WHY did you feel the need to write this? It bothers me, my feelings are hurt. Please stop. Not sure I’ll be able to go to the grocery store tonight and pursue my happiness. To my safe space now. tim aka The Godless Heathen
1 reply
“…my poll asked a set of four simple survey questions that political scientists have employed since 1992 to measure inclination toward authoritarianism. These questions pertain to child-rearing: whether it is more important for the voter to have a child who is respectful or independent; obedient or self-reliant; well-behaved or considerate; and well-mannered or curious. Respondents who pick the first option in each of these questions are strongly authoritarian.” All scientific and sh*t…four questions on child rearing and bingo, you’re a lover of “strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.” Yup, the only logical conclusion for folks who want their children to be “respectful, obedient, well-behaved, and well-mannered” certainly must be that they are lovers of authority. Sorry, Rick, but that just dumbassery defined. And nothing says Right Wing like obedience to the government. As noted in the article – “Since the rise of Nazi Germany, it has been one of the most widely studied ideas in social science.” The Nazis were…wait for it…National Socialist!!! Which is what on the political spectrum? Here’s a hint, neither SHillery nor the DNC chairperson, LittleDebbie, couldn’t give an answer when asked ‘what the difference is between Democrats and Socialists’. Talk about overanalyzing, Trump support is nothing more than HATE of the politics of today. And more specifically, the absolute, to the core HATE of the status quo, the back stabbing of our elected representatives who supposedly are “on our side”. It’s why people are willing to ignore Trump’s faults and lack of true Conservative values (spare me the “evidence” that folks on the Left support him). They want someone who is an outsider, someone who isn’t afraid to tell the truth, someone who doesn’t bow to the corrupt Republican Establishment. It’s not complicated (why people need to make it so is laughable) and it’s certainly not a love of authority, in fact it’s the complete opposite. tim aka The Godless Heathen
1 reply
...and then many years down the road you'll look forward to a good nap. Happy New Year, Rick. tim aka The Godless Heathen
1 reply
"In the 11 nations Pew surveyed alone, the ISIS supporting population would represent 63,399,660 people. That would be a country approximately the size of England, making it the 22nd largest nation in the world." Read more: http://www.hannity.com/articles/hanpr-war-on-terror-487284/if-isis-supporters-were-a-nation-14148982/#ixzz3sQnDhcgt tim aka The Godless Heathen
Toggle Commented Nov 24, 2015 on "Fear is easy. Hope is hard." at Brutally Honest
1 reply
So the people come down in a parachute and land roughly on the ground and the booster rocket comes down nice and softly. Just an observation… tim aka The Godless Heathen
Toggle Commented Nov 24, 2015 on "We made history today!" at Brutally Honest
1 reply
While the article is no doubt highly informative and educational, it doesn’t say what exactly anyone is lying about or the supposed bad information. It only covers what actual the immigration process is but doesn’t address anything else. While the article goes into great detail, to a degree of overkill on the subject, it is irrelevant insofar as whether or not we should allow certain people, such as Syrians, to immigrate here While I, or anyone else who reads the article, now has a better understanding of the immigration process, not once was it explained that “this is what is being said” versus this is “actually how it works”. Not once. So the actual ‘how everyone who doesn’t believe Syrians should be allowed in at this time is wrong’ is never addressed. What is covered is - “The refugee screening process is multi-layered”, “you do not get to choose what country you might be resettled into”, “(r)esettlement in the U.S. is a long process and takes many steps”, “(t)he Immigration laws require that the individuals prove that they have a ‘well-founded fear”, “(e)very person accepted as a refugee for planned admission to the United States is conditional upon passing a medical examination and passing all security checks”, “refugees sign a promissory note to repay the United States for their travel costs”, “this process from start to finish averages 18 to 24 months”, all with a lengthy list of immigration agencies. While the article does state that “each refugee must undergo an extensive interviewing, screening, and security clearance process” it’s of no comfort considering the FBI Director James Comey said “We can only query against that which we have collected, and so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interests reflected in our database, we can query our database til the cows come home, but … there’ll be nothing show up, because we have no record on that person. And DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson said “We’ve gotten better at that over the last couple of years, but it is a time-consuming process and one of the challenges that we’ll have is that we’re not going to know a whole lot about the individual refugees that come forward.” The most disingenuous point regarding “Many people are not interested in resettlement as they hope to return to their country” is just insulting. How many refugees who come here actually go back home? I doubt very many. It’s curious why that is intentionally left unanswered? Rick, we just had the congress, by an overwhelming majority, of not only Republicans but Democrats also, vote to halt allowing Syrian refugees from coming here. Does that in the least give you pause? Can we at least agree that we should delay in allowing Syrians to come here? Just to talk, just to figure some things out, and to maybe implement some more security measures? That’s what many us want, and it shouldn’t be too much to consider. tim aka The Godless Heathen
1 reply
Fear is real. Hope is useless against terrorists. Here’s why we should not allow anymore Syrian refugees after Paris. 1.The Paris attackers were not refugees. So what. But what they Muslims, and the overwhelming majority of Syrian refugees are Muslims also. Muslims equal terrorism. Don’t care if it’s PC, the truth has no agenda. 2.U.S. refugees don’t become terrorists. Completely false. Proof -http://michellemalkin.com/2015/11/16/a-reminder-of-the-refujihadis-who-have-already-waged-war-on-american-soil/ 3.Other migration channels are easier to exploit than the U.S. refugee process. Who cares whose migration channels are easier or who’s are tougher. This isn’t a contest to see whose better at keeping refugees out of their country. It’s about keeping us all safe. (My post of yesterday addresses the whole vetting, or rather the lack there of, problem.) 4.[Daesh] sees Syrian refugees as traitors. I could care less what ISIS feels, that doesn’t play any role whatsoever in our policy dealing with ISIS nor refugees. ISIS fighters also look forward to being martyrs so we shouldn’t kill them? That’s childish reasoning. 5.Turning away allies will make us less safe. What allies, Syria? Confused by that statement. 6. America should demonstrate moral courage. Moral courage for the sake of demonstrating it while neglecting to keep Americans safe is completely insane. “If we refuse refugees fleeing this kind of terror and war in their home countries, they are both more likely to die in that violence and, if they survive, more likely to be recruited by Daesh itself.” That statement alone makes the point, albeit inadvertently, that some of the refugees will be terrorist. And we should bring in Syrian refugees because that way they won’t be killed in bombing raids? So with that logic we should bring in the whole population of Syria, less the ISIS fighters, who don’t claim they are ISI fighters, so no innocent Syrians civilians are killed? And then of course is the same ole BS lie that been used since the evil George Bush -if we do “this” and “that” it will “create more terrorists”. So logically only people who have experienced war/conflict/”death form above” become terrorists? Freakin’ hogwash, there too many examples to site of people who never experienced nothing of the sort and yet they become terrorists. Just look at Bin Laden and his henchmen, most came from relatively wealthy and educated backgrounds. Look at those that are leaving Europe and going to join ISIS, they certainly haven’t experienced being bombed or the like. That doesn’t explain the terrorists who killed Marines in Beirut in 1983, who almost sunk the African embassies bombings, USS Cole, the 9/11 attacks, Fort Hood…the countless plots by first generation Americans that have been thwarted…the countless terrorist attacks worldwide by homegrown terrorists…and on and on and on…those Muslims who have arrested in my hometown and yours for sending ISIS money. That’s nothing but a great sound bite made to influence people’s emotions but has absolutely no bases in reality. Like when our president speaks. “In fact the current drone war in Afghanistan has killed 90% civilians and only 10% suspected terrorists.” Based on what? I notice there is no link to back up such a claim. But hey, he wrote it so it must be true. tim aka The Godless Heathen
Toggle Commented Nov 19, 2015 on "Fear is easy. Hope is hard." at Brutally Honest
1 reply