Jacque Pullin wrote on 7 June 2008, 17:11:32 EDT
My E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
How did you find me?: google [Actually, followed a link from About.com: US Military: Gay/Lesbian Military Issues — The Compleat Heretic]
Do you like my site?: no
Will you visit again?: no
Will you recommend site to others?: no
Do you think I'm insane?: no
I think you are an IDIOT not insane!!! Not all gay people should be excluded because of some who won't behave themselves. I spent a good amount of time living the barracks life and the non-sense you were talking is a load!
You said that you would tolerate your co-workers advances because you were so open minded, BULLSHIT you enjoyed that! I don't know one man who would tolerate that, no matter how liberal! If you were so open minded, why did you go run you mouth at your first opportunity? Because you wanted to see a faggot get his ass kicked! You self righteous SOB!
I am an Iraq War Veteran wo happens to be very proud of being a lesbian!
Miss Pullin found my "Gay Ban" essay as noted above; after entering my site, her visit took the following path:
16:44:37 EDT The Military's Ban Against Homosexuals Should Remain
Though she apparently took just over fourteen minutes with the essay, her disparaging tone and abusive language suggest that she wasn't reading for comprehension. No, she was reading simply to find a grindstone for her ax.
16:58:50 EDT Contact Page
17:00:20 EDT Guestbook Central
17:00:40 EDT Guestbook Form
17:11:32 EDT (submission of Guestbook entry)
If she had followed the hyperlink to my "
John T. Jernigan wrote on 7 June 2008, 11:51:15 EDT
My E-mail: Risingphoenix208@aol.com
My Location (City, State, etc.): Lake Shitty, FL
How did you find me?: Duh!
Do you like my site?: You know I hate it!!
Will you visit again?: Dunno. Tomorrow, maybe?
Will you recommend site to others?: Every chance I get.
Do you think I'm insane?: Of course!!
Alright, Mr. Wallace. I haven't bugged you for a while, so I figger you're due.
I want to give you the opportunity to comment on the course of the election. McCain, fer cryin' out loud? Is it just me, or is this another sacrificial lamb ala Bob Dole?
As much as I see Pfleger as a racist moron, he did have a point about Hillary. There WAS an entitlement mentality going on there. Poor babies. Both of the Clintons. This has to sting.
On to the more immediate: Obama? He's slick. And you know how Americans love a smooth talker. Is that enough? It was enough for Kennedy (all he did was talk) and it was enough for Clinton. Do you think B. Hussein Obama can slick his way into the White House, and then what?
McCain?!? Probably my next to last pick from a field where I had no good choices! While I admire his military service, I have nothing but contempt for him as a senator. McCain is a RINO through and through: McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, Gang of 14, "Maverick" John McCain (read "willing to cross the political aisle and work with Democrats to undermine both other Republicans and the principles of the Republican party and conservatism"), etc. At this point, I'll probably use him as a vote against Obama, but he'll have to pick a conservative running mate to make it less distasteful for me. Otherwise, I'm seriously considering writing myself in...
Yes, the Clinton Machine started the campaign thinking they had it in the bag. And so did I. What confuses me is the feeble Clinton response to the Obama insurgency. The opposition research against Obama has to be even more potent than what's trickled out, and the Clintons, being the masters of "the politics of personal destruction," no doubt have an Everest of damaging info, so why did they sit on it? This is probably the great untold story of Campaign 2008.
Obama is a consummate demagogue. He uses vacuous rhetoric about "hope" and "change" and delivers it in such soothing tones that he can sneak around the rational functions and appeal directly to his listeners' emotions. His listeners then can project their personal meanings of "hope" and "change" into his speeches. After the South Carolina primary, I had my TV on in the background while I was working on my computer. Even though I wasn't particularly paying attention to Obama while he delivered his victory speech, I caught myself thinking he was giving a really good speech and found myself almost cheering him on. Of course, once I realized that I was being sucked in subconsciously and emotionally, I recognized the abject emptiness of the actual words he was using. If Obama can get around my formidable intellectual defenses in a moment of inattention, I can only tremble at the power he wields over less sophisticated minds. He used just that power to defeat the vaunted Clinton Machine and win the Democrat nomination. If Obama can thus brainwash enough people and get them to the polls in November, he can "'hope' and 'change'" his way into the White House. That being said, I can only fear for the Republic...
Hmm, predictions? Unless McCain can energize conservatives like me and give us a reason to set aside our differences with him and support him, he will lose. I seriously doubt he will. He isn't partisan enough to do the two things required for victory: secure the votes of conservatives and campaign aggressively against Obama. As I said earlier, I may end up voting for McCain by default; if I do so, I won't be voting for McCain as much as I will be voting against Obama. My personal sentiments bode ill for McCain's chances in November as they probably reflect the views of millions of other conservatives. Though I hope otherwise, my intuition says McCain loses, perhaps in a painfully close one. And if that happens, then America loses too...
— The Compleat Heretic
Sometimes I scare myself...
And for the record, I cast my 2008 presidential ballot "McCain/Palin," and that vote was for Sarah Palin, in spite of John McCain, and against Barack Obama . . . the commie rat bastard!
— The Compleat Heretic, 15 August 2009
Stephen Graham wrote on 3 June 2008, 21:35:02 EDT
My E-mail: email@example.com
My Location (City, State, etc.): Dublin, Ireland
How did you find me?: Intelligent, but wrong-headed. Oh so very wrong.
Do you like my site?: Yes and no
Will you visit again?: Perhaps
Will you recommend site to others?: Too many sites to think about
Do you think I'm insane?: No. Why do yo ask that?
Hi there. I appreciated your reasonably measured essay on the ban on homosexuals in the military. You didn't tub thump, nor did you deny the promise of debate. But I'm afraid I have to profoundly demur. You conflate, in the first instance, homosexuality with an active sexual relationship.I'm sure a woman and man in a relationship in the same circumstances would have caused similar disruption to your activities, just as two close friends might equally generate feelings of alienation, jealousy, or even resentment in close-quartered companions. Oh, and what about an asshole? Would s/he not upset the close bonds of a group of soldiers? Your argument for the exclusion of homosexuals in the military on the grounds that it might, if two interlope, damage collective morale therefore suffers from a category mistake; you should seek a ban on relationships in the military, not homosexuality. Not being a soldier boy I'm not sure but logic tells me that such a ban must already be in place.
Oh and "Males have a natural discomfort for homosexuality and intuitively know that they are not to relate to one another in that manner" - really? I'm a male and I don't, nor have I ever, felt discomfort for homosexuality. Not many men I know would fit that shaven-headed USA!!!! (or insert whatever apt country here) profile. Well, actually lots of men would fit that profile, but that's a sadder observation than I'm willing to contemplate.
Who cares what people desire in the bedroom? You're an atheist and therefore probably don't subscribe to the old letter-of-the-bible hogwash, so what sort of absolute moral code are you actually appealing to? I'm presuming you don't have a problem with women desiring men, do you? So what does it matter if those same thoughts occur in the head of a male? And really, what in heavens difference does it make to you or your life if someone else in the world does something freely, consensually, to the demonstrable/physical/emotional detriment of NO ONE?
Anyhoo best of luck with your life, have a good one xxxxxxxx
I'm glad you enjoyed my essay, The Military's Ban Against Homosexuals Should Remain. Yes, heterosexual relationships can cause problems, but gender segregation keeps the vast majority of them out of the billets. Of course, the mating game makes heterosexual relationships a foregone conclusion, so they must be tolerated unless they interfere with the needs of the organization. And as you suspected, fraternization (inappropriately close relationships, both sexual and nonsexual, between superiors and subordinates) and adultery (sexual relationships between a married person and someone not his/her spouse or between a single person and a married person) are both prohibited.
Your self-contradiction in your second paragraph over my assertion concerning heterosexual male discomfort with male homosexuality concedes my point. Thank you for agreeing with me and acknowledging this fact.
I fully agree that what two consenting adults do in private is no one's business. The problem in the close quarters of a military environment is that this privacy is nonexistent. Furthermore, in the military, there are well-known organizational rules which govern personal behavior. These rules exist to further the goals of the organization and to serve the interests of its members. As membership in the U.S. military is purely voluntary, and has been since 1973, one agrees to follow military regulations and swears an oath to that effect upon joining. Anyone who violates those rules rightly risks sanction. Finally, my essay and other writings regarding my Army roommates' homosexual misconduct clearly prove that this behavior worked "to the demonstrable/physical/emotional detriment of [SOMEONE]," namely me. Once again, you have indirectly made my point.
— The Compleat Heretic
Brian Plunkett wrote on 26 May 2008, 21:10:30 EDT
How did you find me?: Libertarians for Life- links
Do you like my site?: Yes
Will you visit again?: Yes
Will you recommend site to others?: Maybe
Do you think I'm insane?: Not so much
Interesting to see that you list Nietzsche under the people you like. Seems a little out of place on a website that promotes the protection of innocent life, but perhaps you, like me, do not agree with his peculiar beliefs, but still appreciate his writings. I have been reading some of the posts on your site for the past few days, and I was wondering: why Republican? Why not Libertarian? I know the official Libertarian stance on abortion, but that can be overlooked. I am not trying to convert you, I am just wondering.
I suspect the "peculiar beliefs" being referred to are the all-too-many misunderstandings and misappropriations of Nietzsche's thought used to "prove" he was a proto-Nazi, thus the godfather of National Socialism and all its attendant horrors. In his writings, Nietzsche clearly abhorred both German nationalism and anti-Semitism. Please refer to the work of Walter Kaufmann, R. J. Hollingdale, et al. for a thorough discussion of this.
At any rate, Nietzsche's ultimate object is the affirmation of life. Through both positive (the Übermensch, amor fati, Eternal Recurrence, etc.) and negative (the Death of God, the Anti-Christ, etc.) means, he calls on us to embrace life in its totality, to accept our responsibility for living our lives to their fullest, and to rout all that stands in the way of our doing so. Abortion is a fundamental denial of life in that it both utterly destroys the life of an innocent human being and is a complete repudiation of personal responsibility on the part of the child's parents. As such, opposition to abortion practiced as a form of birth control falls in line with Nietzschean principles.
I affiliate with the Republican Party as its political principles most closely conform to mine (though this election cycle has me wondering). While I generally agree with the Libertarian Party on issues of individual liberty, limited government, low taxation, Second Amendment rights, etc., I have long objected to their foreign policy; they haven't got one! Since my teens, I have recognized America's unique place in the world and have always advocated a strong military, an aggressive defense of the Republic, and the promulgation of our political ideals abroad. Also, I disagree with the Libertarian Party on far too many social issues such as abortion, illegal drugs, "gay rights," etc. to ever support them; I've long called them the "Libertine Party" due to their irresponsibly permissive positions on social issues. Finally, the Libertarian Party is not a practical political apparatus as it lacks the political clout to accomplish its goals and will never gain such. Good grief, the Libertarian Party has trouble simply maintaining its place on the ballot!
— The Compleat Heretic
Neil C. Reinhardt wrote on 12 May 2008, 01:15:31 EDT
My E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
My Location (City, State, etc.): Hawthorne, Ca
How did you find me?: Don't remember
Do you like my site?: never got past the stupid anti-choice crap
Will you visit again?: maybe
Will you recommend site to others?: don't know
Do you think I'm insane?: no, just ILLOGICAL
Several months ago, I sent you an e-mail which logically pointed out why there is nothing wrong with Abortion. I also shot down the religious reasons for being against abortions by proving the Bible says there is no life until AFTER the FIRST breath was taken.
Since you never answered me, I can only assume it was because you can not logically prove anything I said was wrong.
Oh yea, you also did not answer the several follow up e-mails I sent either.
Neil C. Reinhardt
"A Pro Iraq War Agnostic Atheist Activist, a Vet, and a Iconoclastic Philosophizing Grumpy Old Son Of A Beach!"
A search of both my personal e-mail used for this site and the e-mail used for my woefully neglected nontheistic and nonreligious pro-life/anti-abortion site, Atheist and Agnostic Pro-life League, reveals that this Guestbook entry is the only communication I have received from Mr. Reinhardt. While it is possible his claimed e-mails were deleted inadvertently as spam either directly from the inbox or indirectly through my spam folder, I rather doubt such is the case. I carefully review both my inbox and my bulk mail folder prior to deleting suspected spam. A legitimate name and subject line or a username like "religionsucks" would get my attention for obvious reasons and would lead me to examine the e-mail. Given the nature of this entry, I suspect Mr. Reinhardt's claimed e-mails would be prime candidates for my "Hate Mail" folder, thus I would have saved them regardless of whatever else I did with them.
Also, the abusive tone and irrational content of this entry suggests that Mr. Reinhardt is an Internet troll. The capitalization of select words, the use of an ostensibly religious argument when debating an obvious atheist, and his self-congratulatory assumption that my failure to respond to him indicates his victory in a debate which I never entered are evidence of his troll status. A Google search on "Neil C. Reinhardt" confirms him as a troll whose activities have garnered a "world wide warning." As a matter of personal policy, I do not directly engage or respond to trolls as such is a complete waste of time and merely rewards and encourages them with the attention they pathologically crave.
As I never received Mr. Reinhardt's "logical" arguments for abortion beyond his Biblical "proof" (apparently a reference to Genesis 2:7: "the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being" (NIV)), I can only assume they were no more cogent. Also, I don't know to what part of my "stupid anti-choice crap" he objected, or why he found it "ILLOGICAL," but then I have no interest in knowing or need to know as a troll's opinions are ultimately worthless.
If you would like to learn more about my opposition to the abortion regime instituted by 1973's twin Supreme Court rulings, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, please refer to: Pro-life pages in Matt Wallace's The Compleat Heretic and Site Index: A: Abortion.
— The Compleat Heretic
In an e-mail dated 6 August 2012, Mr. Reinhardt answered a charge that wasn't made in my response above; sandwiched between reassertions of his earlier claim to having e-mailed me previously, he denied lying about it. In my response above, even as I contradicted his claim, I never accused him of lying. Quite clearly, I merely stated that I found no evidence that I had received the claimed e-mails and admitted the possibility that I mistakenly disposed of them without opening them. Though previously unstated, another possibility is that Mr. Reinhardt, busy little troll that he is, simply had me confused with another victim of his trollistry.
An example of Mr. Reinhardt's troll activity can be found in a discussion of enhanced interrogation and the Global War on Terror at http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6470. While I generally agree with the position taken by Mr. Reinhardt in this discussion, his argument is overwhelmed by his brusque and obnoxious technique. Also, one of the participants reposted the "world wide warning" referenced in my response above and located originally at http://reinhardt.worldwidewarning.net.
— The Compleat Heretic, 16 October 2012
For other entries:
Proceed to Guestbook Archives: Volume 24.
Proceed to Guestbook Archives: Volume 26.
See Guestbook Archives on the Compleat Heretic's Guestbook Central.