What is Digg?60 Comments
- SickMonkey, on 10/11/2007, -2/+59This surprises anyone?
Giuliani would gladly dress up like Bozo the Clown and hand out free hot dogs in the parking lot at Walmart if he thought it might get him elected. The man has no shame. - faithhealer, on 10/11/2007, -3/+51Yes, "terrific" but not in a good way. (See definitions 3&4 http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/terrific )
It's amazing that 150 graduates from this "school" serve in the Bush administration - melvs, on 10/11/2007, -2/+47"Scary", I believe, is the correct word. Maybe "horrifying" or "incredibly heinous" or even "***** criminal" would do as well, but easy slip up on Rudy's part... Kinda impressed (and surprised) that he went that far into a speech (as far as is quoted there) without invoking 9/11 somehow, so thumbs up to you on that, sir.
- scaaven2, on 10/11/2007, -0/+24Isn't he the current Rudy Giuliani?
- slayerab, on 10/11/2007, -2/+25Yes, a fourth tier school has terrific influence. An to think I worked so hard trying to get into a top fifty Liberal Arts school.
- hansblix, on 10/11/2007, -2/+18I'm Rudy Rudy Giuliani, and I think think you should vote vote for me.
What's up with all the 'very, very's and 'really,really's. If he's gonna keep repeating words he should stick with '9/11'.
Rudy Giuliani, our most eloquent candidate indeed. - slayerab, on 10/11/2007, -0/+15He did dress up as a woman once.
- arcangelgabriel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14Rudy, you got some jizz on your chin there buddy...
- Tiak, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14Giuliania has now officially convinced me to try my hand at voter fraud if he makes it to the presidential election.
- plaing, on 10/11/2007, -4/+16yeah, breaking news: speaker at university compliments said university, after the jump: bear ***** in woods
- afidler, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11"Today, former Rudy Giuliani...."
huh?
who is he now?
;) - Tiak, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9...OR it made the front page because many of us find the idea of anyone who would say such things in the presidential office to be a nightmare (a reoccurring one apparently).
- ZWarren69, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8And flirt with donald trump....
- ZWarren69, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8You have to understand that Rudy tries not to focus too much on words, as a mayor or candidate. He prefers numbers, which are easier for America to comprehend. Rudy "9/11" Ghouliani in '08.
- cryptomystic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7You're preaching to the choir.
- adam1185, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6http://www.metacafe.com/watch/154212/rudy_giuliani_in_drag/
- waluum, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7As a conservative Christian, I am very sorry that anyone, outside of those who are under his presently occupied office, cares what he says. He is only trying to pan for the Christian vote here and the only ones he will get, if any, are from the Christians who do not know their faith or subscribe to a corrupt orthodoxy, and the two go hand-in-hand.
Thus far - and it is still early on in the race - Ron Paul has shown himself, by his history and has proven policy interests, to be the best Republican candidate for the Christian constituency. If a voting Christian does not vote Democrat or third party, I highly encourage them to investigate Ron Paul to see why for themselves. - KnightMareInc, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8sigh :(, I was hoping he wouldnt pander to the crazy right wing like mccain
- djvchris, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Apparently you are fairly naive to presidential politics. You will be hard pressed to find a candidate who does not pander to his/her party pre-primary only to moderate his/her public political beliefs come the general election. Hardly breaking news that a) candidates do this and b) Giuliani is just as slimy as the next guy.
- Darel99, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8This is scary news if you ask me... Why?
1) Mr. 9-11 is pro-choice but Pat Robertson is pro-life what a contrast.
2) Mr. 9-11 is pro torture which is opposite of true Christian values yet he is speaking at Regent?
Oh I forgot to say 9-11, 9-11, 9-11 a thousand times as Rudy does.
I did a little search and found a interview that Pat gave about China. He actually supported abortion for china and praised the communist leadership of China.
All I can ask is What the hell is going on? Pat had Mitt speak at his school as the guest speaker yet lists his church as a cult.
I'm really going to start heading south when Pat starts promoting a one world religion.
Pat Robertson is a fake Christian and Rudy is the worst candidate on the stage.
I almost buried this story but I think it's important it digged to expose both Mr. 9-11 and Pat. - gregmo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4and he loves the word terrific, too.
- villageatheist, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4nine eleven was not terrific. it was terrorific.
- laserblazer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I hear he graduated Summa Cum Dumpsta.
- ZWarren69, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Wow, you are fairly ignorant of this school, yourself.
- khfn, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Ron Paul?
Ron Paul is clean! - Archos, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Vote Rudy or DIE! http://blog.seedsofdoubt.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/rudy-d.jpg
- slayerab, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2You're welcome to say this to my friend whose throwing discus at Williams, btw
- Arkons24, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I'd like to see all you ***** retards do any better. Oh wait, that's right, all you ***** critics are too stupid to be able to get a job in politics, even with the liberals. shut the ***** up and get some perspective quick. you're a part of the problem not a part of the solution. It isn't the right wing or the left wing causing the problem, it's idiocracy, and you're all card carrying members.
- Ev3nt372, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Just great now if any Republican wins the presidency our first amendment rights go down the drain. The Republican party is no longer a Conservative party, it is a theocratic party. A true conservative wants small government.
A theocratic America has only two outcomes. Either there is a revolt immediately after such installment or America's economy goes completely down the drain. Science education will suffer and with it any economic progress it brings. - Derrekito, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Ctrl+C then Ctrl+V :
Mike Gravel. He seems to fit the bill perfectly for not being sleezy.
interview compiliation: http://derrekito.googlepages.com/gravel-08 - Derrekito, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Mike Gravel. He seems to fit the bill perfectly for not being sleezy.
interview compiliation: http://derrekito.googlepages.com/gravel-08 - bluelightnin90, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I was there when Giuliani was visiting Pat. The great thing I saw was about fifty protesters with signs that said Ron Paul for president. There are still some up on the Regent University Campus where Pat works. Ohh and another interesting tidbit, Pat is is not his first name, it is Marion. He is called Pat because his older brother used to pat his cheeks when he was a baby and said Pat Pat Pat.
- Derrekito, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1buried as offensive. please go away.
- slayerab, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The vast left wing conspiracy has now corrupted digg, eh?
- rockorager, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1My thoughts exactly
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"This notion that our government is completely ineffective and useless is complete fallacy."
It's a right-wing fallacy is what it is.
Remember Reagan? "Government isn't the solution to the problem. Government is the problem."
***** retard. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I think you're being utterly melodramatic.
- endustry, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Good old rabidly partisan DIGG. I guess my response wasn't radical enough. Next time I'll just send Giuliani a turd in the mail. Will that make things better?
- Arkons24, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0i would, straight to his face.
- Arkons24, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0your argument makes no sense. try and form something coherent resembling one, and I'll come back and respond.
- totorototoro, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Thank you, Reverend Ted Haggard!
- Demolisher45, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Yeah, And where are your credible references that are neutral to both Christianity and Atheism that show the gospels weren't written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?
Stating your own beliefs on the subject doesn't make them true like you said :/ - opiestana, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Wow, this isn't trying to make something out of nothing.
- computergod, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1This belongs in "2008 US Elections", not "Political Opinion."
Kudos for not mentioning Ron Paul by name this time though. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Yeah, And where are your credible references that are neutral to both Christianity and Atheism that show the gospels weren't written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?
---------------------------------------------------------
hmmmm......... the bible is 1700 years old, the gospels were all written at least 50 years after the death of the mythical jesus and inconsistancies make the the bible totally unbelievable
Ask any local university historian for the evidence indicating jesus was anything other than a manufactured martyr of the late 1st century CE. He/she will tell you that no such evidence of a "historical" jesus exists. His existence MUST be taken on faith, just like those who believe in Zeus and/or many other mythical characters.
Nothing was written about jesus for more than four decades after he was "supposedly" executed. He has no tomb because (conveniently) his burial could not take place (as his imaginary daddy whisked him up to heaven, apparently just in the nick of time!). No bones, right? Not one contemporary historian wrote even one sentence about him. Why is that? I'll tell you!
Because he didn't exist for them to write about!
The FACT is that jesus christ was a "manufactured martyr" of the late 1st century CE. A small political group "created" him to serve them in their cause of ridding their nation of the Roman occupation.
All such groups at that time needed such a person (who was apparently willing to die for their cause) to gain recruits.
Look it up!
In the 4th century CE, the church became worried about this lack of historical evidence. So the christian bishop and church historian Eusebius went so far as to alter the works of Flavius Josephus to give jesus
credence where none existed (See his Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2, or his Praeparatio Evangelica, book 12, chapter 32, where he admits altering historical works for the benefit of the church is a good thing!).
But he failed.
He had neglected to alter the work of earlier christian historians who studied Josephus and found no mention of jesus (the principal one being the christian historian Origen, who studied Josephus extensively).
But the "Josephus" claim as "proof" for the historical jesus is a poor argument at best, for he was born after the "imaginary" crucifixion anyway!
Here is a short list of writers and historians who lived within the same century as the Jesus myth. Remember that of all these, only one (Josephus) is said to have written anything about it, and it is decried by most scholars as an interpolation :
Caius Suetonius, Josephus, Philo-Judæus, Seneca, Pliny Elder, Arrian, Petronius, Dion Pruseus, Paterculus, Juvenal, Martial, Persius, Plutarch, Pliny Younger, Tacitus, Justus of Tiberius, Apollonius, Quintilian, Lucanus, Epictetus, Hermogones, Silius Italicus, Statius, Ptolemy, Appian, Phlegon, Phædrus, Valerius Maximus, Lucian, Pausanias, Florus Lucius, Quintius Curtius, Aulus Gellius, Dio Chrysostom, Columella Valerius Flaccus, Damis, Favorinus, Lysias, Pomponius Mela, Appion of Alexandria, Theon of Smyrna, Justus of Tiberias
(John E. Remsburg, "The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence", pp. 24-25)
Mythical characters, like jesus christ, have ALL been manufactured in a similar manner.
Christians are only fooling themselves.
They are to be pitied in their ignorance. - scott2007, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0I hope God blesses you.
- Arkons24, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0Why do people think this ***** even ***** matters? I don't get it. I hate Giuliani, I hate Fundamentalist Christians and I hate this ***** university. But for some reason i still can't ***** stand the comments of people who think of this article as relevant and discredit the people who come out of this university and work as effective members of our political process, regardless of how deeply flawed it is. It isn't their fault.
- djvchris, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Agreed. Giuliani's pandering?! Yawn...
- kilofox, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Thats ***** Tiak... there isn't a politician on either side of the isle that hasn't slaughtered the king's english at one time or another. This is a fact: Aterkel works for Thinkprogress.org and games digg to promote Thinkprogress stories to the front page... don't believe me? Check her profile..... 99.999999% of her submissions are from thinkprogress.
Now swallow the bait like a good boy. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -7/+5INFLUENCE IN NOTHING IS UTTERLY IRRELEVANT!
And beliefs based on blind faith are utterly irrelevant. You can believe that cows came from outer space, that aliens created the universe, that people reincarnate into other life forms after death, or that a half-man, half god was sent by his father (and himself) to die for threee days and return to a place called "heaven"...
You can believe ANY of these propositions but your believing them does NOT make them true or real. So it is wild conjecture at BEST.
To say we have to believe in "god" because we NEED "meaning" in our lives is ludicrous. If this were the case, then we would have to believe in every single figment of mankind's collective imagination, such as Santa or the Toothfairy to give us purpose.
If what's true for you is not true for me there is no truth in it. Truth is an absolute, not some wishy washy idea.
Also, the reason "Jesus" bones haven't been found yet is because they were never here to begin with. While it may come as a suprise to many, it has been known for centuries that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Instead, these are "traditional" names given to anonymously-written works over a hundred years after they were written. This much is not controversial among biblical scholars. What is controversial is the attempt to assign actual authorship to these anonymous works, and to place them in the proper historical, social, cultural, and theological context. The Gospels were not simply eyewitness accounts, or even second-hand accounts, of Jesus' time. Rather, they are products of complicated theological advocacy written generations after Jesus' time. Each Gospel is shown to reflect the author(s) own theological interests and agenda, as each sought to advance their own vision of the emerging religion.
Christianity as we have come to know it, is the historical product of a historically brief period between the traditional dates of Jesus' ministry and the Council of Nicaea in the early 4th century. During the intervening centuries, Christianity began as a diverse and conflicting collection of religious associations and movements, passed through a period of competition and acrimony among sects, and ended in the triumph of one particular brand of Christianity which has come to be labeled "orthodox." The Gospels reflect the viewpoints, concerns and agendas of these anonymous early Christian writers during the period of competition between the various visions and interpretations of Christianity. In no way were these writers eyewitness to Jesus the Myth -
Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 