http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a827a683719.htm

To: not_my_real_fake_name

Words to that effect are to be found in Deuteronomy 10:18-19, and Leviticus 19:33-34. To wit: Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt (Deut. 10:19). The passage in Exodus 22 to which you allude contains the more reserved injunction: Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt (v. 21).

As for your query ("where does he think Judaism says this?"), I do not know where Talmudism ("Judaism") expresses similar sentiments towards the so-called "goyim"; perhaps someone familiar with Talmudic/Qabbalistic arcana shall deign reply. Incidentally, one might also note that Exodus 22 also contains the noted injunction: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live (v. 18). This would seem to be cause for concern, to those attempting to cast vexation upon others (no doubt ineffectually) through the use of esoteric incantations, or to revive Babylonian mystery under some other guise.

6 Posted on 02/08/2001 05:15:06 PST by The Hyperbolic Observer (GLB) ([email protected])
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | Top | Last ]

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ab33a860530.htm

To: riley1992

Some of my relatives used it from time to time...usually as an epithet to describe what we might now call "racist white trash."

Tony Snow is a CFR member. As such, he is a part (albeit a relatively less obnoxious part) of the cabal dedicated to the ultimate unraveling of the Old Republic.

My old mom told me, 'Robert, you can't go to heaven if you hate anybody.'

Does it not behoove the devot� to loathe those who the Master himself loathes: the seedline of Satan, the tares among the wheat?

Fox may or may not take exception to Tony Snow's editorializations; whichever that may be, I would still find it necessary to take anything Snow says with a grain of salt. His analytical paradigm is dangerously similar to that of a contemporary "liberal."

10 Posted on 03/17/2001 04:48:34 PST by The Hyperbolic Observer (GLB) ([email protected])
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | Top | Last ]

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ab60abb1567.htm

To: otterpond, AdLines, AAABEST

The report noted that one commissioner had put her dentist on the payroll as an AIDS researcher.

This certainly sounds like the doings of Edith Cressson, who served as the first female Premier of France (May 1991 - April 1992). A Mitterrand client, she was part of the left wing of the Socialist Party. At first popular as Premier, she quickly attained notriety with her gaffe that "about one-third of the Anglo-Saxons are gay." Whether factual or not, this remark was not considered to be diplomatic on the part of a Premier.

For this and for similar gaffes, her popularity soon plummetted. She was replaced in April 1992 by Pierre B�r�govoy, following a Socialist disaster in the regional elections. (B�r�govoy was himself replaced in March 1993, following a subsequent Socialist disaster in the legislative elections; he committed suicide shortly thereafter.)

Perhaps, by mentioning these things, I have jogged your memory of these Socialist embarrassments of nearly a decade ago, so that you might be able to say "Aha! So, this is the same bird that did those things back then!" It's unusual to say of a woman, but Cresson seems to be a buffoon who just keeps presenting new opportunities for derision. But do bear in mind that the French Socialist Party of that era was sterling in comparison with its sister, the Italian Socialist Party. The PSI was shamed into nonexistence, once its extensive Mafia connections came to light. Previous PSI Premiers (Bettino Craxi, Giuliano Amato) were found guilty of virtually every form of seaminess that one can imagine, up to and including complicity in the 1978 kidnapping/assassination of the Christian Democratic former-Premier Aldo Moro.

This short history raises several salient issues, concerning: (1) the mutual gravitation between the Mafia (and organized corruption in general), and parties situated on the Center-Left of the political spectrum; (2) that Left-wing extremists (e.g. the Red Brigades) often happen to be doing the dirty work that the bourgeois-Left leaders (e.g. the PSI) would want to be done, but cannot themselves do, without loss of bourgeois respectability; (3) that Center-Left activities evade critical media scrutiny, to a greater than do the activities of parties lying elsewhere on the political spectrum. With regard to the above issues, witness (point-by-point): (1) the strong undercurrents of criminality characterizing the Clinton Administration, (2) the career path of Joschka Fischer, in Germany, and (3) the easily-inferred collusion between the "Liberals" and the mass media in the US (due in part to Jewish control of those media).

Simply put, I must concur, that I see no reason to credit any moral imperative claimed prima facie by Center-Left or Socialist (i.e. American "Liberal") politicians, despite their mendaciously pseudo-populist rhetoric. Nor do I see the EU as beneign simply because "democratic" socialists have given it their moral imprimateur.

(Note: l'Express, 11/17 mars 1999: 88-94, l'affaire Cresson.)

12 Posted on 03/19/2001 09:43:58 PST by The Hyperbolic Observer (GLB) ([email protected])
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | Top | Last ]

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a914e60544d.htm

To: Theodore R.

"...Thus we have the role of established educational institutions as impediments to learning. This is in turn connected to the phenomenon of the transformation of institutions into their dialectical opposites. That is, an institution originally dedicated to a given purpose becomes over time attached to the dialectical opposite purpose, given the absence of the most rigorous institutional self-criticism. Parallel to the inversion of purpose by academic institutions one also has...the mass media acting in collusion to stifle individual freedom of thought and expression. ...Yet all of this is merely supplemental to the most glaring example of institutional inversion of purpose: the State and its officeholders, and the age-old problem of public servant arrogating unto himself the role of public master. ..."

The Hyperbolic Observer, "Page of Opinion," No. 3.

6 Posted on 02/19/2001 11:22:19 PST by The Hyperbolic Observer (GLB) ([email protected])
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | Top | Last ]

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a1cb3526363.htm

To: Askel5

The Federal Reserve Bank is not a branch of the U.S. Government, nor even an agency of the U.S. Government; it is a corporation. The Government has farmed-out to this corporation (incrementally) that which is Congress' own constitutional responsibility: to determine the value of U.S. monies.

In that way, the Federal Reserve Bank and its Chairman take the heat, in lieu of elected politicians taking the heat themselves, for devaluations (or revaluations) of the dollar. Our ersatz central bank is supposedly depoliticized, thus more objective, than elected politicians would be. In reality, however, our elected politicians deserve to be taking some heat for having abdicated a constitutional responsibility.

Bear in mind that the term "depoliticized" simply means that common citizens such as you and I are deprived of the opportunity to make inputs (via Congress), and that a closed cabal handles the matter (and does our thinking) for us. This potential for cabalism is the same "monster" which Andrew Jackson saw in the National Bank of his day, which he felt compelled to destroy. Chairman Greenspan is one of the captains of this banksters' cabal.

43 Posted on 11/23/2000 06:49:51 PST by The Hyperbolic Observer (GLB) ([email protected])
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | Top | Last ]

To: nicollo

In defence of "exit82":

(1) By mentioning the Federal Reserve System in addition to the IRS, in conjunction with the year 1913 ("a bad year for Americans"), "exit82" was probably also referring to the surreptitious and fateful birth of the former, also known as "the Creature of Jekyll Island."

(2) You blithely assume that tarriffs are a greater evil than the income tax. A tarriff is a form of tax just as the income tax is, no more no less. Tarriffs are similar to a differential sales taxes, and to value-added taxes (VATs), the only difference being the obvious one: they are levied against imported commodities. (I regard the distinction between "progressive" and "regressive" taxation as being arbitrary.) You must realize that your preferences in taxation are far from being universal. I for one would be glad to see somewhat higher tarriffs, if they were accompanied by lower income taxes. I cannot share your (subjective) choice in the lesser of the two "evils."

50 Posted on 11/23/2000 07:27:55 PST by The Hyperbolic Observer (GLB) ([email protected])
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | Top | Last ]

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a90d3be0639.htm

To: JohnHuang2

Oh! So there was a quid pro quo! I am so shocked. Oh me, oh my! Do you mean...that our former President lied? I have been decieved. Now, at this late date, I finally see the light. (I used to be a liberal, y' know.) Whatever shall I do?

Now, "I can see for miles and miles and miles and miles and miles." Indeed, I can see all the way to Zug, Switzerland, that fabulous financial center for drug kingpins, kleptocrats, Democratic Party operatives, and other slimeballs of various stripe.

20 Posted on 02/19/2001 00:53:31 PST by The Hyperbolic Observer (GLB) ([email protected])
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a32457252c4.htm

To: crazykatz

"...only an idiot like maddie warhag likes war!!"

Sir, I must take exception to your derogatory remarks concerning Secretary Albright's notorious pulchritude and disposition, as I regard those remarks as being greatly understated. {/facetiousness}

The Hyperbolic Observer, No. 15, and Homepage on AOL.

38 Posted on 12/09/2000 10:55:21 PST by The Hyperbolic Observer (GLB) ([email protected])
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | Top | Last ]

http://members.aol.com/glecompteb/MaggotAlbright.gif
http://hometown.aol.com/glecompteb/hyperobs15.html
http://hometown.aol.com/glecompteb/myhomepage/index.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a30e8041a66.htm

To: Risky Schemer, truthandlife

"...>b>Meanwhile, the establishment media, particularly CNN, have behaved like Bolshevik Party organs. Far from being �the tribune of the people� (cough, cough), or an autonomous �fourth estate,� the media are the first and foremost lackeys / jackals / hyenas / running dogs of Clinton�s criminal regime. ..."

The Hyperbolic Observer, No. 16

20 Posted on 12/08/2000 06:39:12 PST by The Hyperbolic Observer (GLB) ([email protected])
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | Top | Last ]

http://hometown.aol.com/glecompteb/hyperobs16.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3af4bdde4479.htm

To: sola gracia; Merovingian

Someone once said, "God has no grandchildren."

Then I would suggest that you no longer heed the words of this not-quite-quotable "Someone." There are a great many who would take issue with your simplistic homily, concerning this extremely complex, admittedly esoteric topic.

Truer words were never spoken.

How do you know that? Have you any new information, beyond that which is public knowledge? If so, send me an e-mail at once. If not, then please refrain from applying human moral equivalencies to the god(s). The repertoire of analogistic imagery possessed by most humans can be stretched only so far.

31 Posted on 05/06/2001 17:10:48 PDT by The Hyperbolic Observer (GLB) ([email protected])
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | Top | Last ]

http://www.dagobertsrevenge.com/incontrovertable.html
http://www.dagobertsrevenge.com/desposyni.html
http://www.dagobertsrevenge.com/dag.html
http://www.dagobertsrevenge.com/decoded.html
http://www.dagobertsrevenge.com/merosymbols.html
http://members.aol.com/hyperbolicobs/FReep/Fleur.gif

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aa387524524.htm

To: ex-Texan, Godfollow, Guerito, Lent, constitutiongirl

...that God may protect his chosen people.

No offense, but I am beginning to wonder, on what planet some people were raised, and to which God and which people they refer, when they make such allusions. I can search the Bible (KJV) from stem to stern, and find no passage in which God made any promise of anything, to the Talmud-reading Khazars. True, there was the covenant established between the Lord and Abraham, though the relationship of modern Jews to the genetic stock of Abraham, or of modern Judaism to the ancient Israelite religious tradition, is extremely problematic, to say the least. The assimilation of Edomite and Khazar seedlines into the ancient Hebrew stock was sufficiently extensive, as to dilute the latter into being more-or-less a trace. Concurrently, various oral traditions which did not attain to canonical stature in Ancient Israelite times, were later codified as the Talmud, which is the primary scripture of Judaism. It should also be noted that, during that interim period between the compilations of the Old Testament (Septuagint, 300s B.C.) and those of the Talmud (c.200-600 A.D.), there lived a fellow named Jesus who was notably hostile to those oral traditions which were later codified as the Talmud.

The cultural evolutions from the Hebrews to the Jews, and from the ancient Israelite religion to Judaism, are certainly far from being clearly linear, let alone conclusive. They certainly constitute an insufficient connection, to oblige Christians to sacrifice for the existence of the modern Jewish state known as "Israel." I, for example, consider myself Christian, and I feel no particular cultural affinity for modern state of "Israel." Statements to the effect of "...that God may protect his chosen people," imply a simplistic comprehension of that which was actually a complex evolution.

23 Posted on 03/05/2001 11:19:04 PST by The Hyperbolic Observer (GLB) ([email protected])
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | Top | Last ]

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a7e2003548a.htm

To: In veno, veritas

Your acclamation of mathematics as the only science proffering truly proven propositions is commendable, though you then proceed to sell mathematics short, through your denial of the ability of mathematics to "get something out of nothing." Mathematics is not bound by physical-world restraints against "creation ex nihilo," which would be analogous to the derivation of non-zero real values from zero. This bold claim is attested by a couple of familiar examples:

(Please note that in the second example, unity ("1") represents a limit.)

The mathematical principles themselves are effectively real, even though their materiality is problematic or (perceptually) merely latent. They may be regarded as existing in a sort of Platonic Ideal space. They are supra-material, in that while not being discrete material things themselves, they dictate what matter and energy can and cannot do.

To seize upon a rather earthy simile: let Universal Reality be symbolized by the body of an insect. "Mathematics" would be analogous to the chitinous exoskeleton, which dictates ("from above") the possible configuration for the internal, material gut. This gut would be analogous matter, energy, and their attaching phenomena. Mathematical principles dictate the parameters of physical phenomena; physical phenomena do not subtend dependent mathematical principles -- though those phenomena do illustrate mathematical principles in action.

It is therefore hardly surprising that a mathematician, or a mathematically-minded person (which I do not claim to be), might develop a world-view (Weltanschauung) based upon Idealist premises, rather than the Materialist premises more commonly associated with "modern" philosophical considerations. A revival of mathematical thinking, moreover, abetted by a competent pedagogical establishment, would be conducive to a revival of philosophical Idealism. That revived Idealism may be galvanized around either (an) impersonal, or (a) highly personalized Ideal(s).

45 Posted on 02/05/2001 09:14:36 PST by The Hyperbolic Observer (GLB) ([email protected])
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | Top | Last ]

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a7643883603.htm

To: Patriotic Teen, et alli

including �intelligent design� long-agers, progressive creationists, and the like.

Such intermediate positions best approximate my own position on the matter (in lieu of terms of my own coin), and I would be loath to be bullied into a more doctrinaire position by the author's use of aspersion and reductio ad absurdum. Rather than to hijack your thread in order to expostulate my own complex views, I should instead take this opportunity to address several questions to the experts here assembled, which have been plaguing me for quite some time.

1. Was the mule a part of the repertoire of creatures which the Lord put in the Garden of Eden? And, was there a mule on the Ark? If not, why not? And if so, so what?

2. Hasn't man been "playing God" ever since the beginning of the agricultural revolution (that is, since the beginning of civilization), since virtually every vegetable, fruit, and domestic animal is a sort of freak, compared to its wild ancestor? Aren't certain species, such as Zea mays, so different from their wild ancestors that they are tantamount to being different species?

2a. Even given the "Man's dominion" argument, doesn't the very existence of artificial species compromise the claim of an exclusively, directly divine creation, made by the more doctrinaire creationists?

As question No. 1 must be categorized as a conundrum, I realize that there can be no universally-satisfying answer. I should instead be happy to add your reasonable responses to my own cumulative list of possible answers to that most pernicious conundrum.

25 Posted on 01/30/2001 03:24:40 PST by The Hyperbolic Observer (GLB) ([email protected])
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]