Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

BravoBevo, kindly change your top post.

Recs

14

November 16, 2009 – Comments (120)

How would you feel I put up: God doesn't exist, I see Darwin at work every single day.

I wouldn't ever put that up, because I don't want to impose my beliefs on you. Kindly do the same for me (and others like me).

120 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On November 16, 2009 at 2:01 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

I suppose when you're top Fool you can kindly put whatever the f-to-the-k you wanna put up. Until then, don't read it. Solves that problem.

David is Tipsy in Qatar

Report this comment
#2) On November 16, 2009 at 2:06 PM, freunddoggy (93.03) wrote:

If Motley Fool condones this, that's fine. I just don't like having an "advertisement" for God on the right side of my screen at all times.

Report this comment
#3) On November 16, 2009 at 2:06 PM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

# 1 - Ditto.

Cato wishes he were tipsy in Atlanta.

Report this comment
#4) On November 16, 2009 at 2:10 PM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

# 2 - Well I don't like feeling pressured to buy a funny hat with bells on it. Thankfully I am mostly in control of my thoughts and actions and am capable of ignoring the Motley Fool logo.

Report this comment
#5) On November 16, 2009 at 2:14 PM, freunddoggy (93.03) wrote:

It's not that I can't ignore it. I just think it's annoying in the sense that someone is trying to force their beliefs on others. Especially on an investing site.

Report this comment
#6) On November 16, 2009 at 2:16 PM, kdakota630 (29.73) wrote:

Just be thankful that DownWithInfidels isn't the Top Fool!

Report this comment
#7) On November 16, 2009 at 2:17 PM, FreeMarkets (91.66) wrote:

Advertisement for GOD!  Where can I buy?

Report this comment
#8) On November 16, 2009 at 2:17 PM, jstegma (29.44) wrote:

No one is trying to force their beliefs on others.  It's called free speech. 

Report this comment
#9) On November 16, 2009 at 2:18 PM, freunddoggy (93.03) wrote:

Your local church. I hear they installed ATM's recently.

Report this comment
#10) On November 16, 2009 at 2:20 PM, freunddoggy (93.03) wrote:

JSTEGMA

I'm not saying he did anything wrong per se, just asking him if he'd voluntarily change it. Like I said, if Motley Fool condones it then fine. It's a matter of respect for others, really, not a legal matter. 

Report this comment
#11) On November 16, 2009 at 2:21 PM, miteycasey (30.24) wrote:

He's not pushing his beliefs on you. He's stating his.

If he was pushing them on you then you would have to be his captive, which you aren't.

If you don't like what he writes don't read it, just like a blog.

Report this comment
#12) On November 16, 2009 at 2:24 PM, brickcityman (< 20) wrote:

A dogmatic approach to confronting dogmatism (real or perceived) does not an effective approach make.  If anything it offends those who might otherwise be interested in hearing your point of view.

 

 

Report this comment
#13) On November 16, 2009 at 2:24 PM, pastordisaster (< 20) wrote:

God huh? And this whole time I assumed you needed some smarts to be the top fool. Maybe he's just lucky. Amazing.

Report this comment
#14) On November 16, 2009 at 2:25 PM, freunddoggy (93.03) wrote:

"If he was pushing them on you then you would have to be his captive, which you aren't."

Not true. You should study up on psychology.

Report this comment
#15) On November 16, 2009 at 2:26 PM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

# 9 - To say that BB is selling God is a strech. He is expressing a belief that is close to his heart. He is not saying "Your redemption comes through your belief in the XYZ diety...and can be purchased for only $19.99 by the first 500 converts!"

Report this comment
#16) On November 16, 2009 at 2:26 PM, DaretothREdux (36.37) wrote:

freunddoggy,

I just think it's annoying in the sense that someone is trying to force their beliefs on others.

....

Well...it's his belief that he should share his religion every chance he gets, so how come you are allowed to force your belief (of keeping beliefs to yourself) upon him by telling him not to preach?

It's ok. You are allowed to be a hypocrite. Just keep preaching tolerance while maintaining your own intolerance.

Dare

P.S. I see Darwin at work everyday...but that's not a proof for the non-existance of God.

Report this comment
#17) On November 16, 2009 at 2:30 PM, ChrisGraley (29.71) wrote:

Pick up a pot and a kettle and see if either of them calls you black.

Are you fragile enough to think that someone stating his beliefs is forcing them upon you at the same time you are trying to force him to stop stating them?

If you don't want to see the post, just become the top fool.

Report this comment
#18) On November 16, 2009 at 2:32 PM, freunddoggy (93.03) wrote:

Dare, I'm just saying I wouldn't ever use the platform of motley fool #1 to preach. I don't think that a Muslim, atheist, or agnostic should use it to preach either. I dont understand how that's hypocritical. I was using an example.

Of course Darwin isn't proof that God doesn't exist. But it creates a large hole in the majority of reglious doctrine.

Report this comment
#19) On November 16, 2009 at 2:33 PM, freunddoggy (93.03) wrote:

I'm not trying to force him to do anything. I'm asking him to see it from another person's point of view.

Report this comment
#20) On November 16, 2009 at 2:33 PM, motleyanimal (48.86) wrote:

"In God We Trust" is on all my money and yours too. Yet I have never known an Atheist to reject it.

Faith can motivate and propel an investor as much as anything else out there.

Report this comment
#21) On November 16, 2009 at 2:35 PM, miteycasey (30.24) wrote:

Not true. You should study up on psychology.

 

Why would I waste my time when there are much more lucrative things to study?

Report this comment
#22) On November 16, 2009 at 2:35 PM, kdakota630 (29.73) wrote:

Actually, I prefer UltraLong's Top Fool messages, just because I appreciate his humour.

Even still, just be thankful that DownWithInfidels isn't the Top Fool.

Report this comment
#23) On November 16, 2009 at 2:35 PM, miteycasey (30.24) wrote:

I'm not trying to force him to do anything. I'm asking him to see it from another person's point of view.

 

He sees it and is ignoring you.

Report this comment
#24) On November 16, 2009 at 2:37 PM, AbstractMotion (53.34) wrote:

How does this force you do anything?  I'm going to be frank here people like you really annoy the hell out of me, you come on here of all things saying you wouldn't impose your view upon on others but that's exactly what your'e requesting.  I'm pretty much an atheist/agnostic myself, but I support people's right to free expression and to practice a religion of their choice.

 

Getting offended by someone using the word God is just as bad as someone getting offended when they see a gay couple in 'their town'.  I'm getting tired of living in a country where a kid can't hand a candy cane out in school because it somehow offends someone.  That's not cultural appreciation, it's cultural oppression.

 

Report this comment
#25) On November 16, 2009 at 2:39 PM, freunddoggy (93.03) wrote:

Psychology is quite possibly the most important field of study (top 3 probably) for almost any profession.

Report this comment
#26) On November 16, 2009 at 2:45 PM, freunddoggy (93.03) wrote:

"How does this force you do anything?  I'm going to be frank here people like you really annoy the hell out of me, you come on here of all things saying you wouldn't impose your view upon on others but that's exactly what your'e requesting.  I'm pretty much an atheist/agnostic myself, but I support people's right to free expression and to practice a religion of their choice."

I'm sorry, but what? I'm not requesting my view to be imposed on anyone. If I was, I'd say "please change your message to xyz". And I'm also not saying kids can't hand out candy canes. I honestly have no idea what you're trying to get across.

Just one last question -- am I also not allowed to question rhetoric or propaganda as well?

Report this comment
#27) On November 16, 2009 at 2:45 PM, DaretothREdux (36.37) wrote:

freunddoggy,

I don't think that a Muslim, atheist, or agnostic should use it to preach either.

Let me ask you this...is the above statement an opinion or a fact?

Opinion, you say? Did TMF condone that statement? What if I disagree with that statement, then should you not be allowed to write it on public forum? What if I feel like you are pushing your belief upon me? What if I think atheists should use the top fool position to preach?

The hypocricy was not in your Darwin example. The hypocricy was in the very fact that you "asked" him to take it down simply because someone might disagree.

I'm just saying I wouldn't ever use the platform of motley fool #1 to preach.

Except that's exactly what you are doing. You might not be preaching religion, but you are preaching. And despite your belief to opposite, you are attempting to force your belief on others....

At least his preaching isn't that of a hypocrite.

Dare

HYPOCRITE: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.

Report this comment
#28) On November 16, 2009 at 2:45 PM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

Get your drooling dogs away from my mom/wife or I'll unleash my super-ego all over you.

Report this comment
#29) On November 16, 2009 at 2:52 PM, freunddoggy (93.03) wrote:

"I'm just saying I wouldn't ever use the platform of motley fool #1 to preach.

Except that's exactly what you are doing. You might not be preaching religion, but you are preaching. And despite your belief to opposite, you are attempting to force your belief on others...."

I'm not #1. My text isn't being shown to all members who log in. His is. I'm not using Motley Fool #1 to preach. I guess I can agree that I'm preaching about respect of others, or about the fact that this site should be used for investing purposes. I don't see how any of this makes me a hypocrite though.

Report this comment
#30) On November 16, 2009 at 2:56 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Why is this idiot still talking? I can't drink Jack Daniels fast enough to make sense of this nonsense.

How do I tell people that I have lost my inner monologue?

David is Trashed in Qatar

Report this comment
#31) On November 16, 2009 at 2:58 PM, freunddoggy (93.03) wrote:

Why are you posting here if you have nothing useful to add? And if you really don't understand what I'm saying, then please stop drinking.

Report this comment
#32) On November 16, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Teacherman1 (26.73) wrote:

Sorry, but could not resist.

Way to go, Bravo Bevo!

I agree with everything you posted and enjoy seeing it on the right side of my screen.

Just stating my belief.

If you don't agree, that is fine with me. Just pass this by or feel free to state how you feel about it. It makes no difference to me.

Say hello to Darwin for me when you go to work.

That was unkind and I should not have posted it, but just felt the need to do so.

I guess it's the imperfect human side of my nature.

Have a nice day, and remember, The Sun Will Come Up Tomorrow, and I for one know who to thank. 

 

Report this comment
#33) On November 16, 2009 at 2:59 PM, outoffocus (22.35) wrote:

I agree with #24.  I would also add the people who go out of the way to state that their gay and then turn around and blame everything bad that happens to them on their completely unprovoked announcement.  I mean seriously people, get over yourselves.

In all fairness, BravoBevo's top fool message is a itty bitty little box on the top corner of the CAPS front page. I think anyone thats offended by that little blurb obvious isn't secure in their own beliefs or else it wouldn't bother them.  Heck I'm Christian and I ignore the Top Fool messages half the time.  Just like I ignore most of Alstry's blogs. 

If you don't like it, ignore it.  But Bravo has earned his right to post whatever he wants up there.

Report this comment
#34) On November 16, 2009 at 3:02 PM, DaretothREdux (36.37) wrote:

freunddoggy,

I guess I can agree that I'm preaching about respect of others, or about the fact that this site should be used for investing purposes.

First of all, you will have to show me how BB's comment is in anyway disrespectful....cause I just don't see it.

But at least you are willing to admit that you are doing exactly what you asked BB not to do, you seem to be hung up on the fact that he has a larger audience than you (so we can add envy to hypocrisy).

Clearly, your real intentions are know even if you don't see them. You have a problem with a religious message on an investing site, but what about UltraLong's messages?

Should he take down his Monty Python quote because it might offend someone? It certainly had nothing to do with investing.

If psychology is so important to you, why not examine your actions in this case and see what type of person they point to (hint: see the definition of HYPOCRITE from earlier).

Your arguement so far:
A. BB is forcing his religion upon people via the top fool spot, and that's "disrespectful."

B. The top fool spot should relate to investing.

C. BB should "kindly" remove his message.

Since B does not logically follow from A, C is by no means certain.

Dare

Report this comment
#35) On November 16, 2009 at 3:02 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

reunddoggy,

Even in my state of complete inebriation (did I spell that right?) I feel confident that ..... It..... Has...... Been ...... Broughten...

As if the Holy Lord has touched my soul himself.

In all his glorious Righteousness.

And asked me, David in Qatar, to reach out to My Foolish Brothers...

And Ask them

Nay, Ask You!

reunddoggy HAVE YOU SEEN THE LIGHT?

HAVE YOU SEEN THE LIGHT?

The path to all that is glorious and holy my brother!

Give me an Amen!

Amen!

Give me a Hallelujah!

Hallelujah!

Praise be to BravoBevo

David is Going to Sleep

Report this comment
#36) On November 16, 2009 at 3:02 PM, JaysRage (88.60) wrote:

If you really believed that the best investment that anyone could make was to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, then I think it makes perfect sense for that to be your Top Fool pitch.   As a believer, I'm refreshed by his willingness to share his faith so openly, because really, if you believe what he believes, you believe that obsessing over money, stocks and caps scores has zero eternal return.     

If you look at it in the eternal sector, I think BravoBevo has latched onto an out-performing stock.....the only one in that space that will guarantee your prosperity after your death.  

 

Report this comment
#37) On November 16, 2009 at 3:03 PM, freunddoggy (93.03) wrote:

"In all fairness, BravoBevo's top fool message is a itty bitty little box on the top corner of the CAPS front page. I think anyone thats offended by that little blurb obvious isn't secure in their own beliefs or else it wouldn't bother them.  Heck I'm Christian and I ignore the Top Fool messages half the time.  Just like I ignore most of Alstry's blogs"

It's pretty much the entire right side of my screen. I wish it was just an itty bitty little box.

Report this comment
#38) On November 16, 2009 at 3:13 PM, freunddoggy (93.03) wrote:

Let me help you out since you're obviously having trouble understanding this.

My argument thus far:

A.) Religion has nothing to do with investing. That much you got right. I don't like when the top spot has nothing to do with investing, but I don't really care unless it offends me.

B.) His post offends me. I'm certainly not the only one. Am I not allowed to be offended? When someone says "we should all stand in awe of God," it is offensive to me. Sorry it's not to you. We must be different people!

What is hypocritical about this? Nothing.

Report this comment
#39) On November 16, 2009 at 3:14 PM, AbstractMotion (53.34) wrote:

You're asking someone not to express their views because you're personally uncomfortable with them doing so.  Associating a taboo with publicly doing something is an indirect way to control or discourage it.  You can criticize anything you want, personally I haven't asked you not to post something or take this post down.  You're by all means free to, that's the whole point.  I just view what you're doing as intolerant and hypocritical given your purported motives.

Report this comment
#40) On November 16, 2009 at 3:18 PM, DaretothREdux (36.37) wrote:

freunddoggy,

Let me make this EVEN simpler for you:

Do you believe in FREEDOM?

[   ] YES       [   ]  NO

Check one.

Dare

Report this comment
#41) On November 16, 2009 at 3:19 PM, anticitrade (99.66) wrote:

Freunddoggy,

Give up and admit you made a stupid post.  (I say this hoping that it is as easy for me to impose my beliefs on you as you seem to believe it was for Bravo Bevo)

 

Report this comment
#42) On November 16, 2009 at 3:24 PM, prose976 (< 20) wrote:

Hear, Hear!  Bravo Bev!

Report this comment
#43) On November 16, 2009 at 3:25 PM, freunddoggy (93.03) wrote:

DARE,

Yes. Which is why I'm demanding nothing, and asking him politely. I used an example to hopefully shine some light on the fact that what he wrote could be construed as offensive, just as my example could be. I don't know why this is so hard to see (unless you're ultra-religious).

Anticitrade,

If someone wrote "Gays should be allowed to get married and adopt kids" and you were offended by that showing up on the right side of your screen, I'd hope you'd be as courteous as I've been in trying to get them to respect your beliefs. In no way does it mean they will, it just means you tried.

Report this comment
#44) On November 16, 2009 at 3:27 PM, kdakota630 (29.73) wrote:

outoffocus

I would also add the people who go out of the way to state that their gay and then turn around and blame everything bad that happens to them on their completely unprovoked announcement.  I mean seriously people, get over yourselves.

Kind of like when a busty girl wears a push-up bra and a super low-cut top and then gets upset when everyone stares at her boobs.

Report this comment
#45) On November 16, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Burt2004 (< 20) wrote:

I think you've tried enough. You failed. Kindly move on.

Report this comment
#46) On November 16, 2009 at 3:29 PM, freunddoggy (93.03) wrote:

"I think you've tried enough. You failed. Kindly move on."

Of course I failed. I dubbed this "mission impossible."

Report this comment
#47) On November 16, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Teacherman1 (26.73) wrote:

Freunddoggy, thanks for the post.

It sent me to Bravo Bevo's pick site to read his blogs.

Enjoyed them immensely, especially the Easter Parable.

Recommend them to anyone who has an interest and has not yet done so.

Have a nice day, and feel free to ignore this if it offends you. Your doing so won't offend me in the least.

A brother in Christ with Bravo Bevo. 

 

Report this comment
#48) On November 16, 2009 at 3:42 PM, DaretothREdux (36.37) wrote:

freunddoggy,

I am definitely not "ultra-religious." Are you ultra-anti-religious?

Ok. You admit to believing in freedom. You agree then that BB should have the right to post whatever he wants in a spot he rightly earned, but you think he should not post anything that might offend anyone else.

Does that pretty much sum up your argument in full?

Well, let me see if I can't change you stance with a very simple illustration.

A person has the right to believe and say anything they want as long as it does not endanger the life or property of another (can't yell fire in a building).

Unless, you can show that BB has damaged your person or property, then he may say ANYTHING he wants to say. That's called FREEDOM.

If you try to quash his freedom in any form either by "politely" asking him to not say certain things or attempting get a "mob" to join in your crusade to stop his speech, then you, my friend, are enemy of freedom.

You could have sent a private message to BB or at least more private than a blog for all of the CAPS community to see (could have commented on one his pitches), but instead you took the coward's path and choose to gather the intolerant masses, hoping that others shared your anti-religious views and that maybe he would be "forced" into removing his post either by way of mob rule or public humiliation.

Instead, you have humiliated yourself. You have proven yourself to be an enemy of freedom while claiming to support it. You are much like the flag waving politician who claims the Patriot Act is justified in taking our freedoms in order to protect us.

I WILL NOT SACRIFICE MY LIBERTY FOR YOUR SECURITY.

BB need only have one response to your "blog:"

"Don't tread on me."

I don't have to agree with a single word he says to fight for his right to say it. 

Dare

Report this comment
#49) On November 16, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Tastylunch (29.40) wrote:

Freund I'm not going to really roast you over this. You know I disagree with you, because we've been done this road before over a less evocative top fool message.

I do remember you having the same objection to one EverydayInvestor's top fool message. So I know when you say you'd rather the top fool message be about investing that's all you really mean. 

But I got to ask you, why make an issue of this? Is it really that big of a deal? Can't a person have a little leeway with their hard earned prize? Is it really that hard to ignore as you might a Gmail text ad?

Afterall what's the point of freedom of expression if people are only allowed to say things that please/don't bother others? Do you really want a Fool where anyone who is offended can make you change something you said? You can bet no one would ever be critical of a company again.

That's not a Fool I'd want to be on.

I just don't see what you get out of this or why you let it bother so much. I'm sure you have bigger problems to deal with this than this.

Report this comment
#50) On November 16, 2009 at 3:48 PM, freunddoggy (93.03) wrote:

Dare,

You're certifiably insane. I voted for Ron Paul and believe strongly in freedom of speech and the defense of our Constitution.

"Unless, you can show that BB has damaged your person or property, then he may say ANYTHING he wants to say. That's called FREEDOM."

I never ever ever ever said he can't say what he said. Never, not once. I said it offends me and that I think he should change it. Are you saying I don't have a right to say that? That, my friend, is hypocritical at it's finest.

Report this comment
#51) On November 16, 2009 at 3:53 PM, freunddoggy (93.03) wrote:

Tasty, yeah, I'll give it up now. But I do feel strongly that advertisements should not be allowed as a part of the top fool spot. I feel Bevo is advertising God. I'm sure he actually believes in it, but I'm also sure that Religion is a very good business. The same reasoning was behind my attack on EDI's top message. I thought (at the time, turns out it was a joke) that he was pumping something.

Report this comment
#52) On November 16, 2009 at 3:54 PM, TMFBabo (100.00) wrote:

Just be thankful that DownWithInfidels isn't the Top Fool!

kdakota630, can't believe nobody else acknowledged this.  I agree with you, although it would be very interesting to see the top fool quote.

Report this comment
#53) On November 16, 2009 at 3:57 PM, kdakota630 (29.73) wrote:

bullishbabo

I can't believe it took 52 replies before someone else caught or mentioned that.  LOL!

I'm all for free speech and all, but wow, I sure don't want him having the #1 position and the platform that comes with it.

Report this comment
#54) On November 16, 2009 at 3:59 PM, freunddoggy (93.03) wrote:

"I can't believe it took 52 replies before someone else caught or mentioned that.  LOL!

I'm all for free speech and all, but wow, I sure don't want him having the #1 position and the platform that comes with it. "

Sorry kdakota, I did see it but was a bit busy. I'm curious what he'd come up with nowadays as well. His comments were always very... colorful.

Report this comment
#55) On November 16, 2009 at 4:04 PM, DaretothREdux (36.37) wrote:

freunddoggy,

I'm glad you voted for a defender of freedom. Now maybe you should learn to defend it yourself.

What pray tell was the point of a blog asking someone to remove something if you don't actually believe they should remove it?

See the difference between you and I, is that I don't just pay lip-service to the ideas of freedom, and then abandon my principles when an idea comes in conflict with my own.

Being a true supporter of freedom means that you also support others right to speak even when it "offends" you.

Dare

Report this comment
#56) On November 16, 2009 at 4:12 PM, freunddoggy (93.03) wrote:

Dare

My principles guide me to respect others. Just because I agree that freedom of speech should be fought for, doesn't mean I agree that people should say anything they'd like. If I say something that offends people, and they tell me that such, I may hear them out and remove it. Not because I don't believe in free speech, but because I balance it with being respectful of others. That's the difference between us.

Let me ask you this, because maybe this is why we have such different views:

If a company was the top fool, and they pitched a product, would you be OK with it being in the top spot? Something like ShamWow or something? I wouldn't. I view God as a product, packaged and sold to the masses. That's the difference between us. And it's perfectly OK to disagree with me.

Report this comment
#57) On November 16, 2009 at 4:22 PM, DaretothREdux (36.37) wrote:

I view God as a product, packaged and sold to the masses.

I'm sorry but this is just nonsense, and shows your complete misunderstanding of religion and probably by proxy most religious people.

But let's assume that you are right and God IS a product. People are obviously buying, shouldn't they be free to do what they like with their time and money?

Dare

P.S. I support ShamWow's freedom to advertise anywhere they want. In fact, if ShamWow makes a CAPS profile and becomes Top Fool, I'll buy ten of them. 

Report this comment
#58) On November 16, 2009 at 4:24 PM, DaretothREdux (36.37) wrote:

freunddoggy,

And it's perfectly OK to disagree with me.

It's also perfectly ok for you to disagree with BB. It's NOT ok for you to ask him to remove something because of that disagreement.

Dare

Report this comment
#59) On November 16, 2009 at 4:30 PM, freunddoggy (93.03) wrote:

"It's NOT ok for you to ask him to remove something because of that disagreement."

Uhmm... I'm not allowed to ask a question? And like I said, we disagree about God, as I surmised, which we must agree to disagree about.

But as for advertising/propaganda, I believe that's where free speech stops. We can also agree to disagree with that.

But what we can't agree to disagree with is that I'm allowed to ask for BB to remove his post because it offends me. If he says no, fine! If he says yes, my guess is its because he's being respectful and is tempering his free speech with respect OF HIS OWN ACCORD, not of mine.

This ain't an assault on free speech. I'm sure you can find one out there to fight, though.

Report this comment
#60) On November 16, 2009 at 4:37 PM, chrisheck (77.12) wrote:

Yes. Which is why I'm demanding nothing, and asking him politely. I used an example to hopefully shine some light on the fact that what he wrote could be construed as offensive, just as my example could be. I don't know why this is so hard to see (unless you're ultra-religious)......

*********************************************

Ok. Doggy, you offend me. Would you please remove yourself from these blogs.

I can't tolerate intolerance.

Report this comment
#61) On November 16, 2009 at 4:40 PM, freunddoggy (93.03) wrote:

Chris,

No.

Report this comment
#62) On November 16, 2009 at 4:41 PM, DaretothREdux (36.37) wrote:

Free speech stops at advertising?

Hahahahaha. Best laugh I have had today.

Now true "propaganda" in the strictest sense (state media) I disagree with because it's paid for with my tax dollars (see anti-weed smoking ads).

But the church is nothing more than a body people acting collectively, no different than a business, or the NRA, or any club, and they can advertise however they see fit. It's their money, it's their labor and they can do with it as they see fit.

Dare

Report this comment
#63) On November 16, 2009 at 4:45 PM, freunddoggy (93.03) wrote:

"Free speech stops at advertising?

Hahahahaha. Best laugh I have had today.

Now true "propaganda" in the strictest sense (state media) I disagree with because it's paid for with my tax dollars (see anti-weed smoking ads).

But the church is nothing more than a body people acting collectively, no different than a business, or the NRA, or any club, and they can advertise however they see fit. It's their money, it's their labor and they can do with it as they see fit."

 

Hate to break it to you, but Churches enjoy tax-exempt status. That means my tax dollars subsidize them (in effect). Thanks for proving my point.

Report this comment
#64) On November 16, 2009 at 4:51 PM, DaretothREdux (36.37) wrote:

freunddoggy,

Tax exemption is not a subsidy! Do you have any idea how ridiculous that argument is? You can get tax breaks for all kinds of things. In fact if you make less than 11,000/year the governemnt will give you money. It's called the Earned Income Tax Credit. That's a subsidy for the poor.

Churches recieve tax-exemption status the same reason Casino dealers should not be taxed on tips. It's because the money was already taxed (numerous times) before the people gave the money to the church. And its a "gift."

Our tax code actually gets one thing right, and you call it a subsidy. Unbelieveable.

Dare

Report this comment
#65) On November 16, 2009 at 4:56 PM, DaretothREdux (36.37) wrote:

freunddoggy,

So, non-profit businesses shouldn't be allowed to advertise in your opinion either, right? Since they enjoy so many tax breaks that "for profit" businesses don't receive. How about GM or Ally Bank or AIG or anyone who recieve gov't money of any kind? Any dealership which took cash-4-clunkers money should also not be allowed to advertise, right? We should also extend it to Wal-Mart or any company that accepts the EBT card!

In your world who is allowed free speech through advertising?

Anyone? Anyone at all? Or just non-religious-non-offensive-idiot-bloggers?

Dare

Report this comment
#66) On November 16, 2009 at 4:59 PM, guiron (26.99) wrote:

A person has the right to believe and say anything they want as long as it does not endanger the life or property of another (can't yell fire in a building).

No, sorry. TMF and its website are private property, and the 1st Amendment has nothing to do with this. TMF can block posts or delete users, and it's their property and TMF is not the government, so you post here at their grace only. They do have the power to cut off your speech on their site, just as you would if this were your website.

Report this comment
#67) On November 16, 2009 at 5:02 PM, guiron (26.99) wrote:

Tax exemption is not a subsidy! Do you have any idea how ridiculous that argument is?

A tax cut is the same as spending on the government's books. Both count as money out. A tax exemption is essentially a government subsidy, because it otherwise would count as money coming in, and we have to make up for the loss elsewhere.

Report this comment
#68) On November 16, 2009 at 5:03 PM, anticitrade (99.66) wrote:

If I ever become top fool my message will be an advertisement for Sham Wow.  (I wouldn't hold your breath though)

Report this comment
#69) On November 16, 2009 at 5:05 PM, guiron (26.99) wrote:

But let's assume that you are right and God IS a product. People are obviously buying, shouldn't they be free to do what they like with their time and money?

Sure. And peope are also free to tell you what they think. And TMF is also free to delete your account or your posts for any reason.

You are free to do and say what you wish, but nobody is obligated to provide a venue for your speech.

Report this comment
#70) On November 16, 2009 at 5:05 PM, kdakota630 (29.73) wrote:

anticitrade

If I ever get that honour, I plan on being very insulting, denigrading, and demand that all bow down before me to worship my superior CAPS skills, and that's just for starters before I start swearing like a sailor.  LOL!

Report this comment
#71) On November 16, 2009 at 5:08 PM, freunddoggy (93.03) wrote:

"So, non-profit businesses shouldn't be allowed to advertise in your opinion either, right? Since they enjoy so many tax breaks that "for profit" businesses don't receive. How about GM or Ally Bank or AIG or anyone who recieve gov't money of any kind? Any dealership which took cash-4-clunkers money should also not be allowed to advertise, right? We should also extend it to Wal-Mart or any company that accepts the EBT card! "

I never said they shouldn't be allowed to advertise. Where do you come up with this stuff? I'm simply saying Free Speech shouldn't (in my opinion) apply to advertising. I don't think a company should be allowed to sell sugar pills while calling them a cure for cancer. For someone who espouses freedom of speech, you're getting very aggressive in attacking mine.

Report this comment
#72) On November 16, 2009 at 5:08 PM, guiron (26.99) wrote:

But the church is nothing more than a body people acting collectively, no different than a business, or the NRA, or any club, and they can advertise however they see fit. It's their money, it's their labor and they can do with it as they see fit.

No, that is also incorrect. Churches are prohibited from participating in political campaigns, precisely because of their tax exemption. Although this hasn't been enforced very well recently, particularly in CA and Maine for example, someone with big enough pockets and enough time will eventually bring a case.

Report this comment
#73) On November 16, 2009 at 5:10 PM, DaretothREdux (36.37) wrote:

guiron,

I don't think that you and I are in disagreement (except maybe tax-exemption status being a subsidy) about TMF and their property, but that has nothing to do with freunddoggy's argument.

He wants BB to remove his post because he was "offended." Seeing as how it's not his website....

Dare

Report this comment
#74) On November 16, 2009 at 5:11 PM, guiron (26.99) wrote:

I'm simply saying Free Speech shouldn't (in my opinion) apply to advertising.

Advertising on television is regulated by the FCC, and for cases like you mention with drugs, it's also regulated indirectly by the FDA and some other agencies.

There is no such concept in the law as absolute free speech. Speech is curtailed regularly for various reasons. A lot of the time it's done to protect the rights of others, so it's not automatically bad if it's regulated.

Report this comment
#75) On November 16, 2009 at 5:12 PM, freunddoggy (93.03) wrote:

"If I ever get that honour, I plan on being very insulting, denigrading, and demand that all bow down before me to worship my superior CAPS skills, and that's just for starters before I start swearing like a sailor.  LOL! "

And I'll start a post specifically targeting you, dakota :). But I'll make it optional, I swear.

Report this comment
#76) On November 16, 2009 at 5:12 PM, guiron (26.99) wrote:

He wants BB to remove his post because he was "offended." Seeing as how it's not his website....

Since he put it as a request, I don't see the problem. BB can always decline. What's the issue?

Report this comment
#77) On November 16, 2009 at 5:13 PM, DaretothREdux (36.37) wrote:

freunddoggy,

Again. Let me be very clear. I'm not attacking your free-speech or your right to be wrong. I'm attacking the fact that you are attacking BB's free speech, no matter how you try to spin it.

You are requesting that he "remove" something. It may simply be a "polite" request, but your ultimate goal is to censor his speech.

Dare

Report this comment
#78) On November 16, 2009 at 5:14 PM, DaretothREdux (36.37) wrote:

guiron,

If I were ever President, the first agency I would abolish would be the FCC.

Dare

Report this comment
#79) On November 16, 2009 at 5:15 PM, freunddoggy (93.03) wrote:

"I don't think that you and I are in disagreement (except maybe tax-exemption status being a subsidy) about TMF and their property, but that has nothing to do with freunddoggy's argument."

Tax exemption status plays a significant role in my being offended by an advertisement for religion.

Report this comment
#80) On November 16, 2009 at 5:16 PM, aussieguy73160 (45.90) wrote:

If you find the original post offensive or the retracting requests to be offensive, never forget we all have the right to free speech. 

 Whether we agree or not is irrelevant.

 

Report this comment
#81) On November 16, 2009 at 5:18 PM, TMFBabo (100.00) wrote:

If I ever become top fool my message will be an advertisement for Sham Wow.  (I wouldn't hold your breath though)

Nice.

Report this comment
#82) On November 16, 2009 at 5:19 PM, DaretothREdux (36.37) wrote:

guiron,

What's the issue?

Calling for censorship. I thought I made that very clear. So has the supreme court many times. They always rule in favor of free speech no matter how "offensive" (see Two Live Crew). The issue has always been who gets to decide what is offensive? And I for one don't want freunddoggy or anyone else deciding for me.

Dare

Report this comment
#83) On November 16, 2009 at 5:21 PM, freunddoggy (93.03) wrote:

My ultimate goal is not to censor his speech. If I wanted to do that, I wouldn't ask at all, I'd complain directly to TMF saying it offended me greatly and I would never use this site again unless they asked him to remove it. If it was a company advertising their wares through TMF, I would send a message directly to TMF asking them to remove it.

Report this comment
#84) On November 16, 2009 at 5:21 PM, EyeT4Me (58.11) wrote:

You've made too many fabulous posts here in this thread to copy them all here - freunddoggy will NEVER understand.  But most do. To sum up - hopefully this will suffice:

 

"DaretothREdux for President!"

Report this comment
#85) On November 16, 2009 at 5:23 PM, freunddoggy (93.03) wrote:

"Calling for censorship. I thought I made that very clear. So has the supreme court many times. They always rule in favor of free speech no matter how "offensive" (see Two Live Crew). The issue has always been who gets to decide what is offensive? And I for one don't want freunddoggy or anyone else deciding for me."

If only I had the power to actually decide...... but then again, I still wouldn't use it. Hence why I'm still perplexed by this whole free speech thing.

Report this comment
#86) On November 16, 2009 at 5:24 PM, guiron (26.99) wrote:

If I were ever President, the first agency I would abolish would be the FCC.

Well, that's unlikely to happen.

Report this comment
#87) On November 16, 2009 at 5:25 PM, freunddoggy (93.03) wrote:

"You've made too many fabulous posts here in this thread to copy them all here - freunddoggy will NEVER understand.  But most do. To sum up - hopefully this will suffice:

"DaretothREdux for President!" "

That doesn't sum up anything. If you can enlighten me, please do. But so far it seems as though we all agree with freedom of speech.

Report this comment
#88) On November 16, 2009 at 5:27 PM, guiron (26.99) wrote:

Calling for censorship. I thought I made that very clear. So has the supreme court many times.

This has nothing to do with the Supreme Court nor the Constitution. This is a private matter. The person who made the request has no power to follow through, though the admins at TMF do, and it's still not a Constitutional issue, so at worst you get annoyed by it. I thought the whole point was that you don't have the right not to be offended? Does it not apply both ways? I don't know why people keep bringing up the Constitution, because it's irrelevant here.

Report this comment
#89) On November 16, 2009 at 5:27 PM, DaretothREdux (36.37) wrote:

guiron,

Well, that's unlikely to happen.

LOL. I already have EyeT4Me's vote, and he's not the first person on TMF to say that...

Dare

Report this comment
#90) On November 16, 2009 at 5:31 PM, freunddoggy (93.03) wrote:

"This has nothing to do with the Supreme Court nor the Constitution. This is a private matter. The person who made the request has no power to follow through, though the admins at TMF do, and it's still not a Constitutional issue, so at worst you get annoyed by it. I thought the whole point was that you don't have the right not to be offended? Does it not apply both ways? I don't know why people keep bringing up the Constitution, because it's irrelevant here."

Thank you! Hence why I said in comment #10:

"I'm not saying he did anything wrong per se, just asking him if he'd voluntarily change it. Like I said, if Motley Fool condones it then fine. It's a matter of respect for others, really, not a legal matter."

Really nothing to argue about here at all. Not sure what all the hubbub is about.

Report this comment
#91) On November 16, 2009 at 5:35 PM, DaretothREdux (36.37) wrote:

guiron,

I thought the whole point was that you don't have the right not to be offended?

Exactly. And I'm not offended, even by your pot-shot earlier.

The person who made the request has no power to follow through

Really? What was his purpose then? Just to whine and complain to make himself feel better. Or was it to attack religion? Again. He didn't complain about UltraLong's Monty Python quote...he complianed about the religious one....

His purpose was censorship, and since (you are correct) he did not have the power to do so on his own, he tried to drum up support by using a mob mentality and claiming some BS about being offended but still believing in free speech. I can only assume the reason for doing this was hoping that he would get enough supporters of his suggested censorship that either TMF does something about it, or that BB would be too ashamed by the fact that he offended the sentiments of someone with the mentality of a high school freshman who makes statements like "there are no wrong opinions, so keep your to yourself and don't try to change mine."

If you can't see that was his purpose from the beginning maybe you should take some of those pyschology classes he suggested.

Dare

Report this comment
#92) On November 16, 2009 at 5:38 PM, chaimyl (94.47) wrote:

Thank G-d BravoBevo is the top fool

Report this comment
#93) On November 16, 2009 at 5:44 PM, freunddoggy (93.03) wrote:

"Really? What was his purpose then? Just to whine and complain to make himself feel better. Or was it to attack religion? Again. He didn't complain about UltraLong's Monty Python quote...he complianed about the religious one...."

I find this HILARIOUS. A while back, I complained about a post made by EverydayInvestor where he (seemingly) posted an advertisement. Read comment #49.

I don't comment on every single top fool post. I didn't even see the Monty Python one you refer to.

I'm not here to bash religion. I'm not here to censor. I'm here to stop advertisements on the top fool post. Sorry you don't agree that they're advertisements that could offend, but that's not your call.

 

Report this comment
#94) On November 16, 2009 at 5:45 PM, EyeT4Me (58.11) wrote:

freunddoggy,

 

   I don't know that I can enlighten you.  There is so much here it isn't practical to copy it all again, but I will put in two of the most obvious points since you asked 'politely'.

1) You complain about how this message from the top fool, BB, is offensive to you because it mentiions God, but you go on to post things like:

 I view God as a product, packaged and sold to the masses

 I suppose you don't realize that this statement could be considered offensive.  What - you didn't think of that from another person's viewpoint?  How could that be?? Or err...somehow, whatever YOU feel like saying is not offensive but when anyone else says something you don't agree with, THAT is offensive.  Get over yourself.  If you don't like it, don't read it.  It is entirely your choice. It is also entirely his choice to post what he will. He has FREEDOM to post it and you have the FREEDOM to ignore it.  Neat, huh?

2) You complain about how the message is not about investing and this is an investment site, but then you spent a good part of your day adding posts here on this topic that are NOT investing related posts. In the midst of this, you say:

 I dont understand how that's hypocritical. 

Borrowing from Dare: HYPOCRITE: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. AKA freunddoggy.

 

Report this comment
#95) On November 16, 2009 at 5:45 PM, guiron (26.99) wrote:

His purpose was censorship

I have never heard of anyone calling a request to remove an offensive post censorship, by itself. I think his purpose was to express his views on it. Once you put your stuff out there, on a message board or even in a spoken conversation, people can request that you not do that, and it's not censorship.

Report this comment
#96) On November 16, 2009 at 5:46 PM, EyeT4Me (58.11) wrote:

#93 - NOR is it yours

Report this comment
#97) On November 16, 2009 at 5:53 PM, freunddoggy (93.03) wrote:

EyeT4Me

If I didn't have to defend myself so rigorously, I wouldn't have said things like "God is a package". Of course it's offensive, and of course you have the right to tell me. THATS THE WHOLE POINT.

And, as I've said earlier, I am required to have his post on my screen every single time I login. Little bit different than posting something in MY OWN BLOG about it, where people have to COME to me.

And as for taking things off topic, where do you suggest I complain about something I find offensive on this website? On a piece of paper? On some other blog, hoping BB reads it? That makes no sense at all.

Oh and by the way - take your own advice:

Report this comment
#98) On November 16, 2009 at 5:54 PM, freunddoggy (93.03) wrote:

#96: But I have the right to express my disdain. Thanks.

Report this comment
#99) On November 16, 2009 at 5:55 PM, freunddoggy (93.03) wrote:

Oh and by the way - take your own advice: "Get over yourself.  If you don't like it, don't read it."

Report this comment
#100) On November 16, 2009 at 6:01 PM, EyeT4Me (58.11) wrote:

#99

 

  Great suggestion.

Report this comment
#101) On November 16, 2009 at 6:28 PM, DaretothREdux (36.37) wrote:

freunddoggy,

Your argument grows more childish by the minute...

I can't seem to shake the image of a goldfish swimming circles around his bowl thinking that everytime he comes to the castle he has reached a new point. Your foolish ramblings would be humorous if they weren't so pathetic.

Who exactly is BB advertising for again? God? I want to buy some. Where should I send my check? Since he has not mentioned a specific church can I just postmark my check to heaven? Your ridiculous attempt to draw a parallel between the church and the pump and dump stock SpongeTech continues to fail, yet you continue to make the argument.

You seem incapable of understanding even the simplest arguments about freedom/censorship and something as basic as being able to do what a person chooses with their money.

Please warn everyone not to buy into God, "the package," was it? Continue in your fight to discredit or censor anyone who "advertises" for the church. You are doing truly a noble service, by warning people away from a religion that preaches love for your fellow man.

I'm finished. You clearly have no taste for humble pie, and choose to remain blind. Again, I support your right to ramble, and your right to be wrong. Just do me a favor, either stop trying to censor other people that offend you, or stop claiming to be an advocate of freedom of speech, choice, and action.

I've made my argument. Most people will be able to see the holes in yours.

The Defender of Freedom and Hater of the FCC rests,

Dare

Report this comment
#102) On November 16, 2009 at 6:40 PM, kdakota630 (29.73) wrote:

DaretothREdux

Sorry Dare, but your goldfish analogy is false.  From Mythbusters, episode 12 of the 2004 season:

Jamie trained his goldfish to recognize color patterns and complete an obstacle course under water. They remembered what Jamie had taught them over a month later and easily completed the same course without Jamie's prompting.

Sorry I had to be the one to break that to you.

Report this comment
#103) On November 16, 2009 at 7:28 PM, devoish (96.26) wrote:

I suppose when you're top Fool you can kindly put whatever the f-to-the-k you wanna put up. Until then, don't read it. Solves that problem.

freundoggy,

I find myself agreeing with David. And I have the feeling that if I read all of the next 100 replies I'll be agreeing with him on the value of JD too.

Bravobrevo has every right to post whatever he wants as Top Fool, the Motley Fool has every right to allow or disallow posts on their site as they see fit, and you have every right to ask for consideration whether Bravobrevo grants it or not.

Regards,

devoish

Report this comment
#104) On November 16, 2009 at 7:36 PM, BravoBevo (99.97) wrote:

freuddoggy: Thank you for your cordial advice.  I have no reason to think that I might ever have the privilege of being "top fool" again after today, which would render most of this discussion moot.  Was my prior "top post" more acceptable? If case you had missed it, I'm reprinting it here (in bold) for your inspection and comment:

"If we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord Jesus finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered to us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased." C.S. Lewis ~ ~ ~ God being glorified and God being enjoyed are not separate categories. They relate to each other not like fruits and animals, but like fruits and apples. Apples are one kind of fruit. Enjoying God supremely is one way to glorify Him. Enjoying God makes Him look supremely valuable.

Nevertheless, I do plan on changing the current "top post" if I'm afforded the opportunity and time, but would you suggest that I consult with you beforehand on the next "top post" so that it isn't offensive to you?

You said:  I wouldn't ever put that up, because I don't want to impose my beliefs on you.  Really? Almost every conversation, communication, post or comment a person makes (unless it is intentionally misleading) reveals a part of that person's beliefs.  In one of your earlier blogs you said "When you combine the best methodologies of the best investors, you will come up with the best investing strategies" and then you end it with "It is my suggestion that investors use a blend of value and growth in their investment decisions." I liked your blog because it is informative and in it you share your thoughts on something that is important to you.

I'm aware that TMF is an investment forum and that CAPS is an investing game where we can gather and share ideas. I appreciate this medium. I don't take it for granted at all. As interesting as investments are, there must be more to life than merely aspiring to accumulating wealth. It seems to me that one of the largest voids in our daily lives is when we continue our routines at work, at play and at home day after day without thinking about God. And isn't that the biggest insult we could ever do to someone - not to argue against a person, but simply to ignore that person?  How rebellious we mutinous creatures are to see the handiwork of a Creator in everything around us and yet pretend that He is irrelevant, insignificant, non-existent.

Thank you again, freuddoggy, for sharing your thoughts. I appreciate the opportunity to have this discussion with you.

Report this comment
#105) On November 16, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Mary953 (78.70) wrote:

How absolutely disappointing to find this blog so late in the evening and after 102 comments.

Dare - Thank you for your most able defense of the principles of freedom and stance against censorship in its most benign form of "kindly requesting" with every expectation that the request will be granted.

FD - I would be highly insulted by your assumption that God was a product, packaged and sold to the masses.  However, God loves you anyway.  Do not worry, dear.  He dispenses mercy rather than justice to those with the intelligence to ask for it - In fact, I am counting rather heavily on that.

As to the ATM's in churches, I invite you to visit my church.  Here is a direct quote from the program -

"About the offering:  If you are a visitor with us this morning, during the time when we give our tithes and offerings, please know that there is no expectation placed upon you to give.  You may certainly do so if you feel led, but know that you are our guest during this hour of worship." 

We are a small group and we shelter the homeless.  We do not want any people to stay away because they do not have the "proper clothes" or an offering.  There is breakfast before the service if you are hungry.  Come join us.

And BB, thank you for using your opportunity to pass along word of the best possible investment.  The knowledge that we are All Loved Unconditionally by the One who Made Us.

Report this comment
#106) On November 16, 2009 at 8:08 PM, russiangambit (29.40) wrote:

Well, if anybody cares, I loved EI's messages but BravoBevo's message irritates me too.  I wasn't going to say anything since I am not going to be a top fool ever . But in my view of the world God doesn't consider anything, God just is, and God is not Lord Jesus for me either, God has no gender. The Jesus of the Bible is too human, God is not human. Why should we be discussing that on the investment board though, I really don't know .

Report this comment
#107) On November 16, 2009 at 8:12 PM, greenwave3 (< 20) wrote:

First of all, BravoBevo deserves to write whatever he wants since he is clearly the top investor on this site.

Secondly, even as an atheist, I can appreciate the magnitude of his words. I may or may not agree, but it is an intelligent and well-articulated statement by BB.

 greenwave 

Report this comment
#108) On November 16, 2009 at 8:42 PM, wolfman225 (64.30) wrote:

@#38-- 1) Religion has nothing to do with investing.

Neither does your post/complaint.

2) Don't I have the right to be offended?

Of course you can be offended, if you want.  You just lack the "right" to demand that someone accomodate your personal prejudices.  You just have to deal with it (ie, shut the hell up, already)

 

Report this comment
#109) On November 16, 2009 at 8:57 PM, leohaas (31.07) wrote:

This post is nothing but a cheap plot to get as many comments as possible. 109 and counting. Congrats freund!

Report this comment
#110) On November 16, 2009 at 11:36 PM, Eudemonic (61.42) wrote:

#56: Sham-Wow and God in the same sentence!! Whee doggy-doggy, shazam shazam...whodathunkthat? My day is complete.

Report this comment
#111) On November 17, 2009 at 9:09 AM, jstegma (29.44) wrote:

I admire BravoBevo for standing up for his beliefs and speaking out.  Regardless of whether you agree with him, you have to admit that he gets more attention out of his Top Fool statement than anyone else.  You don't see 110 comments on blogs about EDI's little quotes or UltraLong's humor.  I say "Bravo!  Fool on!"

Report this comment
#112) On November 17, 2009 at 11:11 AM, floridabuilder2 (99.32) wrote:

Wow, had to stop reading at around #77...  As Kdakota stated there are far worse players that could be posting from the #1 position.  Do you really want to see references to poo every day?

Report this comment
#113) On November 17, 2009 at 11:28 AM, leohaas (31.07) wrote:

#109: "ploy", not "plot". Sorry. So now we're at 113!

Report this comment
#114) On November 17, 2009 at 12:20 PM, jsneesby (93.38) wrote:

God is an abstraction.

And science isn't mature enough yet to explain the universe.

As a start, I recently read a transcription of a speech given by a physicist, who explained that the universe is made up of matter, energy, and meaning.  The meaning is the subtext that partly explains away the uncertainty principle and also any synchronicity in our lives.

Report this comment
#115) On November 21, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Teacherman1 (26.73) wrote:

Wow, a 114 (now 115) comments and only 13 recs.

That must be a new record.

Thank you Lord for getting me through surgery yesterday and bringing me home so I could post in praise of your Name one more time.

Blessed be the name of Jesus Christ and glory be to God Almighty.

Thank you Father.

Have a nice weekend everyone.

I know I will.

Report this comment
#116) On November 21, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Mary953 (78.70) wrote:

Never underestimate God's ability to turn any situation to His advantage.

Thank you Freunddoggy for giving Him such an amazing forum.  And YES I am a believer in God and in his ability to love us in spite of ourselves!

Teacherman, I am glad your surgery went well.  I will pray for your continued good recovery.  I may not know you, but God does!

Report this comment
#117) On November 23, 2009 at 12:48 AM, TMFUltraLong (99.95) wrote:

 I admire BravoBevo for standing up for his beliefs and speaking out.  Regardless of whether you agree with him, you have to admit that he gets more attention out of his Top Fool statement than anyone else.  You don't see 110 comments on blogs about EDI's little quotes or UltraLong's humor.  I say "Bravo!  Fool on!"

jstegma,

Actually 'Bash My Stock' has 198 comments and Ask A Blunt Man went for 180 comments in roughly 30 hours =)

UltraLong

Report this comment
#118) On November 23, 2009 at 3:46 AM, TMFUltraLong (99.95) wrote:

If I ever become top fool my message will be an advertisement for Sham Wow.  (I wouldn't hold your breath though)

Ok Anticitrade.....just for you....

UltraLong

Report this comment
#119) On November 23, 2009 at 4:17 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

UltraLong,

Isn't that the guy that beats prostitutes?

OK, I admit it. I never want this thread to die.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#120) On November 23, 2009 at 8:17 AM, ttboydxb (28.84) wrote:

freunddoggy

 

you suck.....  Go God Go!!  Hahahaha...  

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement