deadsox

Maybe when I see that someone has posted on the Billy Graham thread it won't be pointless drivel.

Revolving doors are irritating and useless so maybe someone is breaking them on purpose so the building will get a regular useful door.

Kay Burley. I still don't know who she is but Kay Burley anyway.

Kay Burley

Robert Craft http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/arts/music/robert-craft-stravinsky-adviser-and-steward-dies-at-92.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fobituaries&action=click&contentCollection=obituaries&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0 Oh, it's not Robert Kraft. Never mind.....

Bhumibol Adulyadej. Again and again and again.

So Mr. Guest, how are you obtaining these "unconfirmed reports" if they are so "hush hush"? Are you a Graham family insider? Are you on friendly terms with one of the kids or grandkids? Is it more likely that you're just full of it? Probably the latter I think but I like the style. It's the weekend now, his IP address has probably finally been banned. What if 'guest' was really Billy himself and he didn't feel right officially signing up at DL? Now you've banned him, we sure will miss those updates. SC So Billy is on life support with multiple organ failures and every so often goes to his PC or other device and brings up the DL to give us updates? Shouldn't this go in the jokes section?

So Mr. Guest, how are you obtaining these "unconfirmed reports" if they are so "hush hush"? Are you a Graham family insider? Are you on friendly terms with one of the kids or grandkids? Is it more likely that you're just full of it? Probably the latter I think but I like the style.

I'll keep going with Bhumibol Adulyadej until I get it right.

Yes, I'm definitely with the plumber. To think that jerk has the nerve to say the plumber's a lunatic. I hope he gave him a good one.

Lardass Jennifer Lawrence.

Norm Siebern http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/sports/baseball/norm-siebern-82-dies-left-yankees-in-trade-for-maris.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fobituaries&action=click&contentCollection=obituaries&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0

Ah yes, or Justin Bieber (crack addict), Jennifer Lawrence (obesity?), Adele (even more obese) or Beyoncé (Hepatitis C). Jennifer Lawrence is obese?????? Fat girls didn't look like that when I was single!

Shut your stinking gob you @#$%^*^%$!!!

I read the article but don't see where Billy has anything against the First Amendment Rocky. Can you elucidate? This quote implies to me that he doesn't agree with the separation of church and state Pray for our nation, especially as we look forward to elections a year from now. Pray especially that God will raise up leaders who will stand for justice and morality and will seek God’s will in all they do. Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/billy-graham/article41461173.html#storylink=cpy The most vocal among the religious lot in the U.S. feel that the 1st amendment which covers freedom of religion means that everyone should choose a religion of some sorts (as long as it's the right one). They don't understand that it also means freedom from religion and that it's possible to understand what would be immoral based on human rights and not on any religious laws. In the 10 Commandments, number 6 is "Thou Shalt Not Kill". It doesn't take a genius or religious command for someone to realize that is immoral. But it's ok if "God" is behind the soldiers fighting in any war. Even if both sides are fighting for religious reasons and they even happen to worship the same deity. They just have a different interpretation of the sciptures. To be honest Phantom, I've never heard anyone in the US say that the 1st amendment means that everyone needs to choose a religion. Maybe you've paid more attention to the religious right than I have. Certainly they all espouse their own doctrines, but that's to be expected. Frankly the amendment was put in because even then we were too diverse religiously to be united under any one faith. We're a lot more diverse now. Regarding what's immoral, I think the basic concept of the Golden Rule which is shared by many faiths is always a good start. It's rational as well as founded in many religious traditions. It's a shame we have not lived up to it. I read the comments that people leave that follow local news articles whenever ever something happens that has a religious theme to it. There are several people on there that don't hold back with their feelings that if you don't belong to their denomination of whichever religion, then obviously you're in the wrong, even if the end result is that you're worshipping the same deity. If you ever made a comment that you were an athiest on there, about a dozen people will feel that you need to be saved and attempt to convert you. One that's constantly up for debate is the pledge of allegience, even though you can happily point out to them that the "One Nation Under God" bit was only added in 1954 and "In God We Trust" wasn't added to the currency until the late 50s early 60s. A couple of years ago when some stores, public schools etc would put up signs wishing people "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" in order to include all the religious holidays that happen around that time of year, suddenly you started seeing people wearing large badges with "I SUPPORT CHRISTMAS!!" on them. Different people interpret the 1st Amendment in different ways, the freedom of religion bit for me means you won't be persecuted by the government. But at the same time it means freedom from religion, and I take that to mean, "don't force your religious beliefs on me, as I won't force my beliefs on you". I think the problem some people have with the "Happy Holidays" phrase is the pressure they feel (by employers, school systems, etc.) to not mention Christmas as if it was something odious. I have no problem with either phrase but I also don't know why non-Christians would feel abused by "Merry Christmas". The 1st amendment give us freedom of expression as well as religion. If people want to mention God in their public discourse, they certainly can. I don't think it's unconstitutional because the people who wrote the constitution mentioned God often. It doesn't constitute an official state religion. I don't think non-Christians are offended, it appears to be the Christians that are offended when other religions are recognised at the same time of year, even more so when a religion recognises multiple deities. A few years ago, I was talking to a local radio host complaining about "fabricated" religious holidays that happen in November and December. She started to list of the non-Christian holidays with a tone of disgust to her voice and then loudly said "...and Diwali... I've never heard of this holiday before. It must be something new". Myself and other listeners emailed and called in to inform her that as a religion Hinduism is a much older religion. And yes ,even though the country's founders did mention "God" at various times, contrary to the opinion that I've heard people state, the U.S. is not a Christian nation, as it has no designated religion. Without a doubt there are insensitive and bigoted Christians who give the religion a bad name. That doesn't mean they can't say "Merry Christmas". And I was not suggesting that the US has a state religion because many of the founders talked about and referred to God. I was saying the exact opposite. Thanks for the discussion Phantom.

I read the article but don't see where Billy has anything against the First Amendment Rocky. Can you elucidate? This quote implies to me that he doesn't agree with the separation of church and state Pray for our nation, especially as we look forward to elections a year from now. Pray especially that God will raise up leaders who will stand for justice and morality and will seek God’s will in all they do. Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/billy-graham/article41461173.html#storylink=cpy The most vocal among the religious lot in the U.S. feel that the 1st amendment which covers freedom of religion means that everyone should choose a religion of some sorts (as long as it's the right one). They don't understand that it also means freedom from religion and that it's possible to understand what would be immoral based on human rights and not on any religious laws. In the 10 Commandments, number 6 is "Thou Shalt Not Kill". It doesn't take a genius or religious command for someone to realize that is immoral. But it's ok if "God" is behind the soldiers fighting in any war. Even if both sides are fighting for religious reasons and they even happen to worship the same deity. They just have a different interpretation of the sciptures. To be honest Phantom, I've never heard anyone in the US say that the 1st amendment means that everyone needs to choose a religion. Maybe you've paid more attention to the religious right than I have. Certainly they all espouse their own doctrines, but that's to be expected. Frankly the amendment was put in because even then we were too diverse religiously to be united under any one faith. We're a lot more diverse now. Regarding what's immoral, I think the basic concept of the Golden Rule which is shared by many faiths is always a good start. It's rational as well as founded in many religious traditions. It's a shame we have not lived up to it. I read the comments that people leave that follow local news articles whenever ever something happens that has a religious theme to it. There are several people on there that don't hold back with their feelings that if you don't belong to their denomination of whichever religion, then obviously you're in the wrong, even if the end result is that you're worshipping the same deity. If you ever made a comment that you were an athiest on there, about a dozen people will feel that you need to be saved and attempt to convert you. One that's constantly up for debate is the pledge of allegience, even though you can happily point out to them that the "One Nation Under God" bit was only added in 1954 and "In God We Trust" wasn't added to the currency until the late 50s early 60s. A couple of years ago when some stores, public schools etc would put up signs wishing people "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" in order to include all the religious holidays that happen around that time of year, suddenly you started seeing people wearing large badges with "I SUPPORT CHRISTMAS!!" on them. Different people interpret the 1st Amendment in different ways, the freedom of religion bit for me means you won't be persecuted by the government. But at the same time it means freedom from religion, and I take that to mean, "don't force your religious beliefs on me, as I won't force my beliefs on you". I think the problem some people have with the "Happy Holidays" phrase is the pressure they feel (by employers, school systems, etc.) to not mention Christmas as if it was something odious. I have no problem with either phrase but I also don't know why non-Christians would feel abused by "Merry Christmas". The 1st amendment give us freedom of expression as well as religion. If people want to mention God in their public discourse, they certainly can. I don't think it's unconstitutional because the people who wrote the constitution mentioned God often. It doesn't constitute an official state religion.

I read the article but don't see where Billy has anything against the First Amendment Rocky. Can you elucidate? This quote implies to me that he doesn't agree with the separation of church and state Pray for our nation, especially as we look forward to elections a year from now. Pray especially that God will raise up leaders who will stand for justice and morality and will seek God’s will in all they do. Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/billy-graham/article41461173.html#storylink=cpy The most vocal among the religious lot in the U.S. feel that the 1st amendment which covers freedom of religion means that everyone should choose a religion of some sorts (as long as it's the right one). They don't understand that it also means freedom from religion and that it's possible to understand what would be immoral based on human rights and not on any religious laws. In the 10 Commandments, number 6 is "Thou Shalt Not Kill". It doesn't take a genius or religious command for someone to realize that is immoral. But it's ok if "God" is behind the soldiers fighting in any war. Even if both sides are fighting for religious reasons and they even happen to worship the same deity. They just have a different interpretation of the sciptures. To be honest Phantom, I've never heard anyone in the US say that the 1st amendment means that everyone needs to choose a religion. Maybe you've paid more attention to the religious right than I have. Certainly they all espouse their own doctrines, but that's to be expected. Frankly the amendment was put in because even then we were too diverse religiously to be united under any one faith. We're a lot more diverse now. Regarding what's immoral, I think the basic concept of the Golden Rule which is shared by many faiths is always a good start. It's rational as well as founded in many religious traditions. It's a shame we have not lived up to it.

I read the article but don't see where Billy has anything against the First Amendment Rocky. Can you elucidate? This quote implies to me that he doesn't agree with the separation of church and state Pray for our nation, especially as we look forward to elections a year from now. Pray especially that God will raise up leaders who will stand for justice and morality and will seek God’s will in all they do. Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/billy-graham/article41461173.html#storylink=cpy Praying for the nation and favoring one politician over another for any reason does not violate the 1st amendment. The amendment prohibits any official state religion and guarantees freedom of religion as well as from it. This does not mean that any citizen can't espouse his or her religion or believe that politicians ought to conform to their morality. After all, don't we all do that?

I read the article but don't see where Billy has anything against the First Amendment Rocky. Can you elucidate?

So you can type ภูมิพลอดุลยเดช without looking it up on google? ;-) Bhumibol Adulyadej is just a transliteration, not the native form of his name. OK Gabe, I stand corrected: I can spell the transliteration of is name (and I'm proud I can do so).

Bhumibol Adulyadej. Just because I can spell his name.

Well, we don't get any news about him, but he has incurable lymphoma (specifically, his follicular lymphoma has turned into a double hit lymphoma*) doesn't write articles (or blog posts) anymore, he can't take care of himself so he is entirely reliant on his wife. And he doesn't even get someone to update his website. http://www.martincrowe.com Ouch. _____________ *Footnote: He claimed that only 5% of DHL patients survive for 12 months after diagnosis. See this article here: http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/810679.html But he is much younger than the average DHL demographic (they are usually very old with several comorbidities), and newer studies cite slightly longer median survival times. http://www.gotoper.com/publications/ajho/2015/2015apr/clinical-controversies-of-double-hit-lymphoma I picked him too but good for him!

So after all the public flogging of this man it turns out that he did nothing illegal at all. I thought that the lynch mob mentality of many on social media was a disgrace even if he had violated any game laws.

Dean Chance. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/sports/baseball/dean-chance-cy-young-award-winner-and-yankees-nemesis-dies-at-74.html?action=click&contentCollection=obituaries&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0

Roses are red violets are blue the prose here all sucks and the poetry too.