doublegunshop.com - home Forums Morality and the Right to Choose

It's the family: mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, children, grandchildren, great grand-children (as in my situation) and relatives. As the years wind down, principal concerns are of family, not careers. I keep an active interest but don't sweat the other stuff. I've seen that picture show!

Here I thought he was the reincarnation of Chet Huntley. Good night Burger. Good night David and good night from all of us at NBC news.

Awe man... don't draw a line between Burger King and Chet Huntley.

They both have/had liberal ideas, but Burger is more like that guy from the 1940s...

What was his name? Joseph, Joseph.... well, something.

C'mon, you guys, get with it. Those guys were readers, not reporters. They didn't get their hands dirty.

I had reason to go look up Roger Ebert today who I'm sure many of you will remember used to be a movie reviewer who is now deceased.
I had been wondering for some time just why he apparently disliked just about every movie I enjoyed over the last 30 years. Dirty Harry or The Avenger would be examples of movies he gave low ratings.
Come to find out this guy was a Libtard extraordinaire and of course panned everything that didn't fit in with his self styled view of the United States. So this guy used his position as a movie reviewer to extoll his liberal political format.
Well God rest his soul even though he was a self professed agnostic. Of course the Catholic Church being the Catholic Church conveniently ignored his agnosticism and gave him a full Catholic religious burial. The priests later stated "Well he didn't really mean what he said".
Enough miscellaneous ramblings I guess.
Jim

"Well he didn't really mean what he said". As an afterthought this would probably be an appropriate epitaph for the Kenyan!

Can I connect a line between Burger King and say...ummmm Katie Couric? Oprah Windbag?

Boy, you're really finding your voice on this matter "Burger King". And you're also showing us that you're a pathetic one-trick pony. But your sleight of hand has been exposed and you're sure not liking it... are you?

Anyone who has been following our little "discussion" knows damn well that I fully acknowledged that you were indeed employed by the CBC, and that you began your short journalistic career as a newspaper reporter after high school. But it's also true that you have tried to put yourself on the same plain as major CBC personalities when in truth, you were a very small fish in a medium size pond. You used that illusion to try to give your typically inanely leftist liberal, or totally dishonest posts, some gravitas or credence.

Get over yourself. The cat's out of the bag and you're not going to stuff it back in.

So the CBC did a 5 minute interview of your civil rights coverage on it's 24 hr. new channel? Golly gee whiz! We have commercial breaks on bowel cleansing that are longer than that. You might be interested in trying some since you're so full of it.

We know you covered some Civil Rights stories both here and in Canada. We also know that's one of your favorite subjects and that you have a certain bias that is in complete denial of many of the abject failures of the Civil Rights struggle, and of the actors who have made cries of racism a very profitable (for them) occupation. I still believe that it was your father who was responsible for the racial reforms around Antigonish, and that you wrote about it and possibly made a documentary film. I believe you have taken credit for work your father did. The only reference I can find to said film is in a letter to the editor of the Halifax Chronicle Herald. Could be more bullshit. When you spread so much, credibility goes down the pooper.

Hey, when you interviewed that nut-bar who was attempting to fire a projectile into outer space from a large cannon, did you or he really think it could attain escape velocity of 11100 meters per second, or about 36,419 feet per second, neglecting the effects of atmospheric friction? Holy crap King, were you smoking crack when you took that effort seriously enough to cover it? Did you volunteer to ride that projectile to the moon? I'm surprised you haven't claimed to have beat Neil Armstrong to the lunar surface by several years.

Oh, you did some stories on forestry and woodlot management. Wow! There's some Pulitzer Prize winning material. No wonder Morely Safer fled to CBS in the U.S. He was probably pissed that you were getting to cover all of the big stories.

Now you're telling us that "prejudice isn't racism", which is sometimes true. And you're also saying that "They can't distinguish between racism and advocacy of traditional values."

Aren't those statements convenient excuses for your own racism and prejudices against the Muslims who are over-running Canada? I guess it's OK when the hypocritical "Burger King" does it, but evil when some white guys in the rural south of the 1960's wished to practice their own "advocacy of traditional values." The only thing you need now King is a white sheet and a hood.

You can say that I'm a little person who's been nowhere and seen nothing. You're welcome to persist in that fantasy. One thing you can take to the bank... I've been enough places and seen enough things to know bullshit, lies, and hypocrisy when I see it.

Oh, hey King, now that you're on a roll, why don't you also answer the question I have asked dozens of times about how your father could have converted to Catholicism as an adult without belief in the Ressurection.

That's just not possible, and you know it. But you went and said it anyway. Now you look dumb for running away from the question for so long instead of just admitting that you were lying... again.

Then after you explain that bold-faced lie... which you told to cover a previous lie... I'll move on to ask for explanations of other statements you have recently made that I believe are nothing but lies.

Just what was it you did with ol' Martin Luther King that got your hands dirty?

It seems hardly a week goes by that some theologian doesn't have a different interpretation of dogma. I heard two different ones of "body" in resurrection in the last month while attending Anglican and Catholic funerals. A Muslim reporter yesterday told me of varying views within her mosque. My guess is churches have one declarative, don't-argue-with-me, no hands-up-in-the-pew prescription for regulars and another for those who can argue convincingly as theologians do. Infallibility would seem an easy one.

Which circles back to your morality and the right or freedom to choose mentioned in Prager's article. I can't imagine any church putting us below the salt because of doubt or disbelief in some aspects of faith. Using your own example as a videographer, I turned down an outdoor TV series as host and producer because its sponsor was a cigaret maker. "You would only have to hold the cigaret, not smoke it," said the ad agency. My buddies argued to go for it, saying they'd shoot "shit coming out of a cow" if they were paid.

We have a responsibility to choose.