«   |   »

Was Jesus An Alien From Outer Space?

by Ben Hoffman

The story goes: a star traveled across the sky and came to rest over Bethlehem. On that day, a virgin woman gave birth to baby Jesus.

Could it be that the witnesses to the event mistook the light in the sky for a star, but what they really saw was a flying saucer — a UFO? Could it be that the martians impregnated Mary with a seed from another world and Jesus was the son of an alien? It goes without saying that the martians were here illegally and therefore Jesus was the child of an illegal alien.

The story also claims Jesus rose from the dead three days after his crucifixion. It is very possible that he was never dead but instead was waiting for the mother ship to rescue him from his insane followers. On that third day, Jesus probably gathered his belongings and got aboard the space ship and traveled to perhaps another galaxy.

On Christmas, it could very well be that Christians around the world are celebrating, not a messiah, but an invasion from outer space. Check out this mosaic of Jesus:

What is that thing around his head? It could very well be a parabolic dish antenna that Jesus used to communicate with the mother ship. Check out this photo of Jesus entering the ship:


The photo clearly shows Jesus entering the bow of what appears to be an opening in the space ship.

And then we have the Shroud of Turin, which some believe shows the face of Jesus at the time of his burial:


Shroud of Turin

Posted on December 23, 2009 at 10:17 AM in Education, Entertainment, Politics   |  RSS feed |   Reply   |   Trackback URL

Tags: , , ,

68 Comments to “Was Jesus An Alien From Outer Space?”

    
  1. Vern R. Kaine
    December 23, 2009 at 12:21 PM

    Ben,

    Are you drunk?! I think this is extremely tactless (to say the least), especially considering the time of year and what many are going through. In difficult times, any kind of faith (that operates within the law) can be helpful. Do you go around to funerals knocking hymn books and bibles out of people’s hands? Was your wedding not held in some kind of a church with a minister?

    I think this is also unnecessary. While I believe at times you like to throw things out there as bait for an already-anticipated and prepared for response, your position on religion has been clear from your prior posts and could have easily been debated there without the flat-out insulting and mockery like you’ve done here.

    No matter how poorly I thought of any religion, I would never stoop to the level of such an unsolicited attack and direct insult to anyone’s spirituality. It’s your blog, and you can say what you want, but this is very disappointing to see.

    Reply
    • sleepygirl
      December 23, 2009 at 12:32 PM

      Oh please, Vern, grow a sense of humor.

      Ben, this is hilarious! I am LOLing all over the place! I love the thought of Jesus ascending into the mother ship. And Jesus as an illegal alien? LOL!

      Merry Christmas, Ben!! 🙂

      Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      December 23, 2009 at 2:06 PM

      [No matter how poorly I thought of any religion, I would never stoop to the level of such an unsolicited attack and direct insult to anyone’s spirituality.]

      What attack? I am simply offering another explanation, kind of like Intelligent Design.

      Reply
  2. The Arbourist
    December 23, 2009 at 1:22 PM

    Really?

    It always open season on the deluded. No respect should be granted to doctrines that have caused so much suffering in the world.

    Good Show Mr. H.

    Happy Holidays and keep up the great work. 🙂

    Reply
  3. Ben Hoffman
    December 23, 2009 at 2:01 PM

    Some people just can’t handle the truth.

    Reply
  4. Hayzeus
    December 23, 2009 at 3:43 PM

    All the Jewish people fell off the cliff at Masada because they were like lemmings. Once the first one goes, they all go! Haha! Isn’t it funny, you [bleep]?

    Reply
  5. Alan Scott
    December 23, 2009 at 4:58 PM

    Mr. Hoffman,

    So are you an atheist, with no belief in God, or do you just not believe in the Christian God? You have no fear of standing before God the day you die and answering for your little joke?

    I don’t suppose you’d make fun of the Islamic Religion? They have the same God, just a different messenger.

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      December 23, 2009 at 5:14 PM

      [You have no fear of standing before God the day you die and answering for your little joke?]

      No, I sure don’t. It seems a bit silly, don’t you think? I mean, Jesus as an alien is much more logical than Jesus as the son of some mythical being, although aliens would have to be able to travel at close to the speed of light in order to reach us, which for us here on earth is technologically impossible.

      Reply
  6. The Arbourist
    December 23, 2009 at 9:44 PM

    Alan Scott said: You have no fear of standing before God the day you die and answering for your little joke?

    Any being that rules out of fear, hate and coercion is not worthy of being revered never-mind worshiped. Consider what god accepts.

    I don’t suppose you’d make fun of the Islamic Religion? They have the same God, just a different messenger.

    This is the same as saying you should make fun of the Easter Bunny just as much as the Tooth Fairy.

    Worship of any sort of magical being is just silly (the case for jesus or pink unicorns hold equal weight), but, if you simply must engage in delusional behavior why not pick Zeus? He throws lightning bolts and has a big bushy beard – totally rad in my books.

    Reply
  7. Alan Scott
    December 24, 2009 at 1:04 PM

    Mr. Hoffman, and the Arbourist,

    So do you have control of everything in your life? When fate, luck, or chance smacks you in the face you don’t pray to some God or totem to help you out?

    You don’t even have a rabbit’s foot or lucky horseshoe to rub? When someone you are close to gets deathly ill, or worse, when George W. Bush stole 🙂 the Presidency in 2000, you did not call on the liberal ghosts of elections past to give certain Justices of the Supreme Court aneurysms so that Al Gore would win?

    “I don’t suppose you’d make fun of the Islamic Religion? They have the same God, just a different messenger.”

    “This is the same as saying you should make fun of the Easter Bunny just as much as the Tooth Fairy. ”

    My point was that you can make fun of the Christian Religion, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy and you most likely will not be killed.

    You substitute their Prophet in to your funny pictures and they will not be laughing. But do go ahead make fun of the Christian Religion. We are a safe target for you Brave Atheists.

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      December 24, 2009 at 2:31 PM

      I guess I equate God with nature or as Einstein believed, a cosmic god. So, when something bad happens to someone, I do sometimes pray to God.

      What makes Christianity such an appealing target is idiots like Tom Coburn praying for the death of Senator Byrd so he wouldn’t be able to vote for the heath insurance bill.

      Reply
    • The Arbourist
      December 24, 2009 at 2:54 PM

      You substitute their Prophet in to your funny pictures and they will not be laughing.

      Excellent point Mr.Scott as the reactionary nature of radical Islam makes a very strong case for keeping religion marginalized and (to a certain extent) harmless. Because religion,if given access to the levers of power in society, results in repression, tyranny and injustice.

      But do go ahead make fun of the Christian Religion. We are a safe target for you Brave Atheists.

      Do you pine for a more fundamentalist christian state where pronouncements from the 2000 year old magic book are taken more seriously? A state that holds that christianity cannot be evaluated rationally and is therefore treated as a necessary cultural imperative?

      I have no illusions about the length of my lifespan under a theocracy. They would have the faggots primed and toasty to quickly save my heretical soul by fire.

      Religion is my target, safe or not, to criticize because by its fundamental nature it cannot stand up to the light of reason and rationality. Religion is an anathema to autonomy and freedom. Where religion takes a step back, modernity and progress takes a step forward.

      I side with rationality, justice and morality. To uphold these values necessarily makes me an opponent of religion.

      *looks back*… err *grins*…thus endeth the sermon. 🙂

      Reply
      • Moe
        December 25, 2009 at 7:19 PM

        A: I repeat myself frequently on this –

        I believe wars are fought over three things:
        1. Religion
        2. Real Estate
        3. Resources

        I was raised Catholic but abandoned it (and ultimately any organized religion) in my teens when I realized how thoroughly they hated women. A common thread in Christianity.

  8. Ike Jakson
    December 24, 2009 at 9:38 PM

    Ben

    You obviously enjoy offending people; it’s a disgusting thing to do but you are beyond redemption as a human being.

    Reply
  9. Alan Scott
    December 25, 2009 at 2:32 PM

    Mr. Hoffman,

    “I guess I equate God with nature or as Einstein believed, a cosmic god. So, when something bad happens to someone, I do sometimes pray to God.”

    Maybe more like the Native Americans and believe in earth spirits. Is that why you are in to the religion of Man Made Global Warming? Now there is a funny religion. Although, I don’t know how safe it is to make fun of it. They are a religion on the rise, not like those old dusty ones from the Middle East.

    Now Al Gore entering the mother ship or reading the shroud of Anglia, I could go for that.

    Arbourist,

    “Do you pine for a more fundamentalist christian state where pronouncements from the 2000 year old magic book are taken more seriously? ”

    I do not believe that the United States is a Fundamentalist State. Even under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush religion was used as a moral guide. You atheists were the ones along with your buddies the ACLU who assigned the repression to Conservatives in Government.

    So how are you on Abortion? That’s one issue you guys really hate our side on. Do you think it’s a right to kill an inconvenient fetus?

    “A state that holds that christianity cannot be evaluated rationally and is therefore treated as a necessary cultural imperative?”

    I had not thought of it in your perspective. There are two issues. Religion in Government and Religion in the American culture. Separation of Church and State keeps Religion from dominating Government, but it’s real purpose is to keep Government from banning religion.

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      December 25, 2009 at 10:14 PM

      [Maybe more like the Native Americans and believe in earth spirits. Is that why you are in to the religion of Man Made Global Warming? Now there is a funny religion. Although, I don’t know how safe it is to make fun of it. They are a religion on the rise, not like those old dusty ones from the Middle East.]

      I believe that is known as a logical fallacy, often used in circular reasoning as was the case here.

      Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      December 25, 2009 at 10:19 PM

      [So how are you on Abortion? That’s one issue you guys really hate our side on. Do you think it’s a right to kill an inconvenient fetus?]

      That reminds me of a joke I heard a few months ago…
      Q: What’s the difference between a Ferrari and a garbage bag full of dead fetuses?
      A: I don’t have a Ferrari in my garage.

      I know, I know… That’s not funny; that’s sick. (Well, maybe a little funny. 🙂 )

      Reply
  10. Moe
    December 25, 2009 at 7:21 PM

    [So how are you on Abortion? That’s one issue you guys really hate our side on. Do you think it’s a right to kill an inconvenient fetus?]

    Just one thing on that: the State may keep their damn hands off my body.

    Reply
  11. Vern R. Kaine
    December 26, 2009 at 4:29 AM

    Ben, you’re a clever and calculating guy, but you’ve still let me down! 🙂 I still haven’t seen any Muslim jokes here, even re: Christmas or Hannukah. So since I can’t wait any longer, here’s one:


    (Jeff Dunham, Ahkmed sings Jingle Bombs)

    Enjoy!(?)

    Reply
  12. Alan Scott
    December 26, 2009 at 1:38 PM

    Ms. Holland,

    “Just one thing on that: the State may keep their damn hands off my body.”

    So an unborn soul has no Constitutional rights?

    Mr. Hoffman,

    “Q: What’s the difference between a Ferrari and a garbage bag full of dead fetuses?
    A: I don’t have a Ferrari in my garage.

    I know, I know… That’s not funny; that’s sick. (Well, maybe a little funny. :)”

    You seem to be better at telling jokes than taking them.

    Reply
  13. Alan Scott
    December 26, 2009 at 9:50 PM

    Ms. Holland,

    I appreciate the honest answer, even though I cannot agree.

    Mr. Holland,

    “The DrudgeRetort is an equal opportunity offender.”

    Partially true. I would say only if the target is right. I also have not seen you go after your own traditional religion. In fact you would have to go pretty far in bashing the other religions to equalize the offense you dished out to Christians.

    Then again asking you to bash these other faiths is rather like asking the Lord Obama to over tax everyone just because he over taxes you. It serves no useful end.

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      December 26, 2009 at 10:50 PM

      I go after Christians because they excerpt so much influence in politics. The health insurance reform bill has been radicalized because of demands made by Bishops. It’s not an abortion bill; it’s a health insurance reform bill, which will benefit millions if it passes, and the religious-right is impeding its progress.

      I believe in freedom FROM religion. THAT is why I go after Christians.

      Reply
  14. Vern R. Kaine
    December 27, 2009 at 8:20 AM

    [I believe in freedom FROM religion. THAT is why I go after Christians.]

    I believe Islamic Fundamentalism has done more harm to America, and I think the “Church of the Political Correctness” has done worse by even helping them along.

    A religion that believes that blowing me and my family up mid-air is the ticket to heaven, and a “church” so bent on protecting the attackers and their sensitivities, those are the religions I want freedom from!

    As for the rest, my own position on pro-life/pro-choice aside, I think people have a right to question and challenge why they should be paying for something that goes so against their deeply-held beliefs on life, and I’m glad that they are. I don’t think the issue should be an excuse to kill an entire bill, though.

    Reply
    • The Arbourist
      December 27, 2009 at 9:34 AM

      I believe Islamic Fundamentalism has done more harm to America,

      I’m sure a great deal of the people, who are currently deluded by Islam, believe that America has done them a great deal of harm by the support and maintenance of tyrannical regimes toward the goal of ‘energy security’. Marginalize people and whoops surprise they tend to hate you.

      A religion that believes that blowing me and my family up mid-air is the ticket to heaven,

      Versus ones that actively preach against condom use and are AIDS denialists? Wow, choose your flavour of crazy. Why not avoid both brands of intellectual constipation and embrace rationality?

      I think people have a right to question and challenge why they should be paying for something that goes so against their deeply-held beliefs on life, and I’m glad that they are.

      LOL. What a nice way of saying that the rights of women are up for debate. People used to hold the deeply held belief that the colour of a persons affected the content of their character. ‘Deeply-held’ does not equal correct.

      Reproductive freedom is the cornerstone of female autonomy. The crazy that is going on right now in the US over the healthcare debate is indicative of how deeply ingrained the patriarchy is within US culture.

      What sweet irony as well as these particular noble conservatives are making ‘stand’ for life. Contrast this their lockstep devotion to the previous (and sadly the present) administrations zeal for imperial war. Stopping the war machine would save a great deal more life than stripping women of their rights.

      So, if you are really concerned about innocent life, stop making war. Denuding women of their reproductive freedom and bodily autonomy has nothing to do with ‘saving life’ and everything to do with keeping women firmly in their role as the sex class.

      Reply
      • Vern R. Kaine
        December 27, 2009 at 7:46 PM

        Arbourist,

        “deluded by Islam” – we agree, but your reply moves us somewhat off-point. I’m not saying we’re angels over here, but what a government does through it’s military doesn’t automatically make its citizens guilty and subject to punishment. Your response makes it sound like you think you deserve to be the next victim of an airline disaster. I respectfully disagree. 🙂

        “Versus ones that actively preach against condom use and are AIDS denialists? Wow, choose your flavour of crazy. Why not avoid both brands of intellectual constipation and embrace rationality?”

        Again, one doesn’t try to blow up planes that my family happens to be on, but as for the “flavors of crazy”, I don’t need to “avoid” them since I practice neither. I do, however, acknowledge that within both there are SOME positive aspects and that people have a right to choose their own religious path.

        “Nice way of saying that the rights of women are up for debate.” That may be your interpretation, but it’s not my belief. What’s at the core of that whole issue is when life actually happens, and best I can tell, it has yet to be resolved. Until then, I leave it to mothers and fathers individually to debate that issue amongst themselves and until then, people have a right to protest what their tax dollars pay for based on their belief.

    • Moe
      December 27, 2009 at 10:56 AM

      [I think people have a right to question and challenge why they should be paying for something that goes so against their deeply-held beliefs on life, and I’m glad that they are.]

      The death penalty goes against my deeply held beliefs. War goes against my deeply held beliefs. Do I not pay for these things?

      Reply
      • Vern R. Kaine
        December 27, 2009 at 7:18 PM

        Note that I said “right to question and challenge”, not whether or not abortion should or shouldn’t be covered. If the death penalty goes against your deeply-held beliefs, I support your right to question and challenge it, too.

      • Moe
        December 27, 2009 at 8:10 PM

        Ooops, you DID say question and challenge. And glad to hear you consider things like abortion to be a private decision.

        And those who oppose it have every right to challenge it on moral grounds, but at present abortion is a legal medical procedure.

        The State has not the right to set it aside from other legal medical procedures.

        And when the challenger is an elected federal official it’s different. They have the obligation to equal treatment and to the law of the land.

        They cannot treat an exception as a new law, which it would be since the procedure is currently legal.

        And I’m with Arborist on the underlying cultural dynamic. Those who oppose a woman’s right to choose are uncomfortable with women even having such a right. It’s a fundamentalist patriarchal hold-over and we see those attitudes reaching their full flower in groups like the Taliban.

  15. Alan Scott
    December 27, 2009 at 9:03 AM

    Mr. Hoffman,

    ” It’s not an abortion bill; it’s a health insurance reform bill, which will benefit millions if it passes, and the religious-right is impeding its progress.

    I believe in freedom FROM religion. THAT is why I go after Christians.”

    Are you only mad at Christians over the health care Bill or were you mad before. I have not been reading your stuff long enough to know.

    Let me see, you hate it when any religion lobbies political leaders? If they stayed out of politics, you might stop your hate campaign against them? You do hate them, right? Or are you one of those hate filled liberals who says they don’t hate anyone? I meet them all of the time.

    When Hindus, Buddists, Muslims, and Jews begin using their influence in government to the extent of Christians, then we can all count on you to use the same passion in going after them? Unless you happen to agree with them, eh?

    Reply
    • Moe
      December 27, 2009 at 10:58 AM

      [When Hindus, Buddists, Muslims, and Jews begin using their influence in government to the extent of Christians, then we can all count on you to use the same passion in going after them?]

      TO THE EXTENT OF CHRISTIANS? This is like a 75% Christian country, so when in the world would you expect the Buddhists to be moving in on our our political process?

      Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      December 27, 2009 at 2:11 PM

      [Let me see, you hate it when any religion lobbies political leaders? If they stayed out of politics, you might stop your hate campaign against them? You do hate them, right?]

      Just because I make fun of them, doesn’t mean I hate them. I find belief in the supernatural to be a little bizarre in this day and age. The Bible was written at a time when there was widespread chaos and destruction, and people needed something to believe in. Belief in an afterlife provided them a bit of comfort.

      Reply
  16. The Arbourist
    December 28, 2009 at 9:20 AM

    V.R Kaine said: ‘but what a government does through it’s military doesn’t automatically make its citizens guilty and subject to punishment.’

    Not automatically, but the US is a representative democracy. Elected representatives made the choice to go to war, war was brought to civilians, the casualties inflected upon them whether they were guilty or not was certainly unjustified.

    Your response makes it sound like you think you deserve to be the next victim of an airline disaster.

    I abhor violence, yet it is perpetrated daily in my name to keep my way of life and standard of living intact. When the people who suffer at our hands strike back I certainly do not condone their actions but I can understand somewhat why they do what they do.

    Why is 9/11 such a big deal? Because it happened to us. Do we remember the first 9/11? Does the first 9/11 even enter our consciousness? Western nations are used to wielding the stick, not being hit with it.

    acknowledge that within both there are SOME positive aspects and that people have a right to choose their own religious path

    People certainly have the right to delude themselves in whatever way they please. However, people need to holster their intellectual constipation when dealing with things like politics and science (and other topics requiring rational thought) as the assorted magic books are supremely unqualified to deal with those topics.

    What’s at the core of that whole issue is when life actually happens, and best I can tell, it has yet to be resolved.

    Horsefeathers. I will not accept that cognitive frame as it lends credence to the fatuous notion that somehow the mass of cells inside a woman has any footing with regards to rights. But I digress, this fact remains when it comes to abortion there is only one life involved: the woman’s. What she does with her body rests entirely with her.

    people have a right to protest what their tax dollars pay for based on their belief.

    They certainly do. It would be nice if they applied some critical thinking when choosing causes though.

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      December 28, 2009 at 2:24 PM

      [Elected representatives made the choice to go to war, ]

      Actually, with Iraq, they gave Bush the power to make that choice.

      Reply
    • Vern R. Kaine
      December 29, 2009 at 7:02 PM

      I was going to ask if you are Canadian based on your spelling of “Arbourist” – guess I don’t need to ask now!

      I believe violence is, in many cases, necessary and if we look at history, war of some sort seems inevitable. Unfortunately, then, innocent casualties are inevitable too, since neither side no longer defines the boundaries of a battlefield. So many miles of uninhabited desert – why not just square off there?!

      “There is only one life involved” – I don’t believe this is fact as you state it to be, so we will continue to disagree there.

      “It would be nice if they applied some critical thinking…” Wouldn’t it! Think of the responsibility some people would have to take for their lives, though, if that were to happen?!

      Reply
      • The Arbourist
        December 29, 2009 at 11:26 PM

        V.R. Kaine said: I believe violence is, in many cases, necessary and if we look at history, war of some sort seems inevitable.

        Violence seems necessary because it has been our answer to our problems throughout our history. Sadly, it will continue to be the answer until we find a just way to distribute the meager resources of our planet (or spiral into oblivion).

        “There is only one life involved” – I don’t believe this is fact as you state it to be, so we will continue to disagree there.

        Works for me. I seem perhaps a little strident on this issue, but necessarily so. Reproductive freedom is the foundation from which the rights of women stem. Without reproductive freedom women are treated as mere chattel.

        Think of the responsibility some people would have to take for their lives, though, if that were to happen?!

        There would be a lot less to blog about, for sure. 🙂

  17. Alan Scott
    December 28, 2009 at 7:34 PM

    Mr. Hoffman,

    “The Bible was written at a time when there was widespread chaos and destruction, and people needed something to believe in. Belief in an afterlife provided them a bit of comfort.”

    I suppose you are right. In today’s world when there is no widespread chaos and destruction, there really is no need for the comfort of an afterlife. I never realized how confident and secure you Liberals were. I always thought you were pissed off SOBs who were jealous of the inner peace of Christians. I see my mistake now.

    Arbourist,

    “Arguing the tu quoque style almost to death.” So we hear from our resident Intellectual. “We may just have to say it louder next time.” No, just write a little s-l-o-w-e-r. You obviously are the best educated poster here, or the best bs er.

    ” I abhor violence, yet it is perpetrated daily in my name to keep my way of life and standard of living intact. When the people who suffer at our hands strike back I certainly do not condone their actions but I can understand somewhat why they do what they do.

    Why is 9/11 such a big deal? Because it happened to us. Do we remember the first 9/11? Does the first 9/11 even enter our consciousness? Western nations are used to wielding the stick, not being hit with it. ”

    Why aren’t you serving in the Obama Administration? Are you sure you did not preach with Reverend Wright? Wait, no you are not religious, but other than that, you could be Obama’s spiritual confidant.

    If you had been around in the 1930s, you could have been a member of the German American Bund, explaining how Adolf Hitler was really a good guy and why America should stay out of Europe’s affairs.

    In case you are not aware of it we were hit at the WTC before 911. If Clinton had gone after these makers of man made disasters, 911 might never have happened. Evil has to be attacked and confronted. If you were as smart as you believe yourself to be, you would study world history and learn what it teaches.

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      December 28, 2009 at 8:54 PM

      [I always thought you were pissed off SOBs who were jealous of the inner peace of Christians.]

      I see anxiety in Christians. First there’s the anxiety that you might not go to heaven, then there’s the anxiety that what you believe about religion might be a total farce — that belief in the supernatural is a lie.

      I see inner peace in Buddhists. There’s no belief in deities in the teachings of the Buddha.

      Reply
    • The Arbourist
      December 29, 2009 at 1:32 PM

      Mr. Scott said: “Arguing the tu quoque style almost to death.” So we hear from our resident Intellectual. “We may just have to say it louder next time.” No, just write a little s-l-o-w-e-r. You obviously are the best educated poster here, or the best bs er

      If you wish to debate, then do not throw logical fallacies into the mix. Easy fix.

      Why aren’t you serving in the Obama Administration?

      Other than being Canadian and ideologically opposed to much of what Obama is doing I might just fit in.

      If you had been around in the 1930s, you could have been a member of the German American Bund, explaining how Adolf Hitler was really a good guy and why America should stay out of Europe’s affairs.

      If you had been around in the 1930 you would have seen corporate America rally around the rising fascist powers in Europe, cheering the decline of organized labour and the increase in the entanglement of industry and state.

      If you were as smart as you believe yourself to be, you would study world history and learn what it teaches.

      And the case for American Exceptionalism rolls on. Thank you Mr.Scott for once again illustrating my point. The first 9/11 happened in Chile, when the democratically elected government was overthrown (with US backing) and replaced by a dictatorial regime responsible for more deaths and disappearances than the second 9/11.

      Noam Chomsky summarizes:

      “So, let’s imagine how [the September 11th attacks] could have been worse for example. Suppose that on September 11, Al-Qaeda had bombed the White House and killed the President, instituted a murderous, brutal regime which killed maybe 50,000 to 100,000 people and tortured about 700,000, set up a major international terrorist center in Washington, which was overthrowing governments all over the world, and installing brutal vicious neo-Nazi dictatorships, assassinating people.

      Suppose he called in a bunch of economists, let’s call them the ‘Kandahar Boys’ to run the American economy, who within a couple of years had driven the economy into one of the worst collapses of its history. Suppose this had happened. That would have been worse than 9/11, right?

      But it did happen. And it happened on 9/11. That happened on September 11, 1973 in Chile. The only thing you have to change is this per capita equivalence, which is the right way to look at it. Well, did that change the world? Yeah, it did but not from our point of view, in fact, who even knows about it? Incidentally, just to finish, because we [the U.S.] were responsible for that one.”

      AS: you would study world history and learn what it teaches

      I do. Perhaps you should give it a try? Right now, given the caliber of your statements, it would seem that the only history study you have engaged in is a cherry picked selection(s) that supports your ideological beliefs. If you studied the diverse body of knowledge that world history as opposed to the filtered, ideological blinded narrative that you seem to base your assumptions on, then my reference to the first 9/11 would have been fairly obvious.

      However, rather than engaging in relevant historical debate you mention another unfortunate event in decidedly American history. Again, possessing a more balanced historical outlook would bring greater contextual weight to historical argumentation. Furthermore, the extensive myopia toward other historical narratives illustrates a decidedly romantic view of history (see American Exceptionalism), at least when American actions are concerned.

      AS:Evil has to be attacked and confronted.

      Fighting the evildoers worked so well in Vietnam, and currently a big ‘mission accomplished’ in Iraq and Afghanistan… to name some of the more recent imperial ventures.

      Whose evil will be the standard? What is truly dangerous is the binary thinking behind statements such as those above. The human experience is too rich a pallet to only be painted with two colours.

      Reply
      • Ben Hoffman
        December 29, 2009 at 1:49 PM

        [The human experience is too rich a pallet to only be painted with two colours.]

        Hey, we spell it “color” here in ‘Merica, you dang for’ner. 🙂

      • sleepygirl
        December 29, 2009 at 3:50 PM

        Arbourist,

        I agree with everything you wrote, especially about the tendency of right-wingers to pick and choose their historical “facts”. I was thinking about Pinochet and Chile last night (after watching a show about how the CIA propped him up after they helped him overthrow the elected government of Allende), and it occurred to me that most Americans really don’t see the world as it is. They see the world through red, white, and blue colored glasses, and with a Christian patina that makes everything they do seem wonderful and correct. Christians haven’t cornered the market on morality, but they like to think they have. In fact, Christianity helped Bush make some of the worst moral decisions in our nation’s history, such as the invasion of Iraq, denial of funding to family planning clinics in developing nations (where they are the most needed), allowing Osama bin Laden to escape, just to name a few.

      • Moe
        December 29, 2009 at 10:39 PM

        Arb: My brother was a graduate student at the University of Santiago in 73 when it all happened. He, his wife and my ten month old nephew had to flee and leave almost all their possessions behind. Allende was an intellectual so Pinochet’s people moved on any one who was perceived as liberal, left or of the ‘intelligencia”. Three for three, so Joe grabbed his kid and hit the road. A number of their friends were ‘disappeared’.

        I am so deeply ashamed of how many military dictatorships, brutal ones, we have supported. Pinochet, Marcos, the Shah . . . it goes on and on.

        And now we’re dragging you guys in.

      • Moe
        December 29, 2009 at 10:40 PM

        [The human experience is too rich a pallet to only be painted with two colours.]

        That’s beautiful.

  18. Vern R. Kaine
    December 29, 2009 at 7:06 PM

    “Allowing Osama bin Laden to escape” – let’s be fair! Clinton had him in his sights (literally) and didn’t give the green light. Apparently his panel of advisers said he didn’t need the bad press at the time, among other reasons (this was during the Lewinsky affair).

    Reply
    • sleepygirl
      December 29, 2009 at 7:23 PM

      Are you kidding me? Any incident during the Clinton administration completely pales in comparison to 9/11. We invaded Afghanistan IN ORDER TO CAPTURE OR KILL OSAMA BIN LADEN. Allowing him to escape in order to bolster Bush’s fanatical obsession with Iraq and Saddam Hussein and give him more reason to invade is one of the most immoral decisions Bush’s administration ever made.

      Reply
    • Moe
      December 29, 2009 at 10:25 PM

      “Clinton had him in his sights” BEFORE 9-11. Whole different conversation.

      Reply
    • Moe
      December 29, 2009 at 10:29 PM

      And Vern, his advisers feared not ‘bad press’, but a Republican backlash – Clinton would be accused of using weapons to distract from his personal scandal.

      The real scandal was that a Pres of the US was undergoing impeachment by a congress intent on assassinating any hope for prudent government in this nation. And they may have succeeded.

      Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      December 29, 2009 at 10:39 PM

      [“Allowing Osama bin Laden to escape” – let’s be fair! Clinton had him in his sights (literally) and didn’t give the green light.]

      Actually, that story has been thoroughly discredited.

      Reply
  19. Alan Scott
    January 1, 2010 at 5:42 PM

    The Arbourist,

    This board is too long and I’m bored with it. Thank you for all of the commentary. My first impressions of you were wrong. In the large volume of crap you have revealed who you are. Your citing of Noam Chomsky was especially valuable.

    I have argued with you left wing intellectuals for years on many boards. Some are misguided, but honest in their ignorance. Then there are the others. Usually extremely well educated and clever. This type will put out complex arguments and try to win by brute force. They weave together unrelated facts, with half truths, and bald face lies. Unless you happen to be well informed in the fields where these facts, half truths, and bald faced lies are retrieved from, it is easy to be deceived.

    These intellectuals sound like they know what they are talking about. They fool many. Examples are Barak Obama, Keith Olbermann, and Al Gore.

    While researching how arguments, that these type of people use, actually succeed I came across the term Chomskyite. I found that Noam Chomsky, on whom the term was based, perfected this process. Since you have cited Mr. Chomsky and you are sufficiently educated, and have proved yourself to be proficient with his technique, I hereby honor you by calling you a Chomskyite.

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      January 1, 2010 at 5:57 PM

      [This type will put out complex arguments and try to win by brute force. They weave together unrelated facts, with half truths, and bald face lies.]

      Can you give an example?

      Reply
  20. The Arbourist
    January 1, 2010 at 6:50 PM

    My first impressions of you were wrong. In the large volume of crap you have revealed who you are.

    Happy to be of disservice Mr.Scott.

    When your arguments are weak it always traditional to attack the character of your opponent. Well done.

    I found that Noam Chomsky, on whom the term was based, perfected this process.

    Allow me to translate. Because Chomsky is often right about many imperial sacred cows rather than constructing a coherent refutation of his facts its easier to call him names and besmirch his reputation.

    Reply
  21. Alan Scott
    January 1, 2010 at 9:46 PM

    The Arbourist,

    I do not always save my research. Awhile back I had quite a lot on Chomski. Whatever fight I was in at the time with one of your philosophical brethren, I used up my ammo. I believe I came across the term while reading a right wing source commenting on my favorite BS artist Olbermann. Up until that time I could not classify what he did. I do know that Edward R. Idiot will never have anyone on his tv program who does not 110% agree with him, because he could never defend his arguments against the slightest opposition.

    Mr. Hoffman,

    ”

    [This type will put out complex arguments and try to win by brute force. They weave together unrelated facts, with half truths, and bald face lies.]

    Can you give an example?”

    All you had to do was ask.

    The best example I can give is President Barak Obama. I’m pretty sure I have repeatedly made this point with you before. His speeches are long winded, incomprehensible, and deceptive.

    Here is one of my heroes Mr. Krauthammer cutting through the total BS of your hero.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/17/AR2009091703329.html

    Does He Lie?

    By Charles Krauthammer
    Friday, September 18, 2009

    Excerpt:

    ” Obama said he would largely solve the insoluble cost problem of Obamacare by eliminating “hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud” from Medicare”

    “That’s not a lie. That’s not even deception. That’s just an insult to our intelligence. Waste, fraud and abuse — Meg Greenfield once called this phrase “the dread big three” — as the all-purpose piggy bank for budget savings has been a joke since Jimmy Carter first used it in 1977.

    Moreover, if half a trillion is waiting to be squeezed painlessly out of Medicare, why wait for health-care reform? If, as Obama repeatedly insists, Medicare overspending is breaking the budget, why hasn’t he gotten started on the painless billions in “waste and fraud” savings?”

    You and your over educated cohort may be able to out argue an uneducated lowly opponent such as myself, though so far you have never managed it, but I have yet to see the progressive who could do it to Krauthammer.

    Reply
    • Moe
      January 2, 2010 at 9:26 AM

      [This type will put out complex arguments and try to win by brute force. They weave together unrelated facts, with half truths, and bald face lies… The best example I can give is President Barak Obama. I’m pretty sure I have repeatedly made this point with you before. His speeches are long winded, incomprehensible, and deceptive.]

      Brute force? Brute force? Please explain. I haven’t noticed Obama or Chomsky using weapons. Do you count long-winded as brute force?

      Reply
      • The Arbourist
        January 2, 2010 at 10:05 AM

        Brute force? Brute force? Please explain. I haven’t noticed Obama or Chomsky using weapons. Do you count long-winded as brute force?

        Perhaps arguments that require thought and study to properly refute or understand can be considered ‘brute force’? There must be, at least some level, some cognitive dissonance when presented with arguments that are not readily identifiable as dichotomies or easily categorized.

        Another possibility is the realization that once you leave the comfort zone of accepted and approved reality more work is required.

        Taking a dissident point of view is much more difficult as one must constantly and meticulously prove the facts and arguments (vs the accepted wisdom of the time) one uses.

        Or maybe Mr.Scott does not like losing an argument and will move goal-posts, engage in ad hom attacks or change the subject until he feels he can ‘win’.

        Certainly not all possibilities out there, but just the ones that come to mind.

    • Ben Hoffman
      January 2, 2010 at 10:29 PM

      [His speeches are long winded, incomprehensible, and deceptive.]

      It’s like some articles people have posted that you weren’t able to understand. That’s why you like Fox “news” and the right-wing websites. They dumb down the information and spin it to fit the right-wing ideology.

      Reply
  22. Alan Scott
    January 2, 2010 at 6:17 AM

    No reply yet. I guess I win.

    Reply
  23. Alan Scott
    January 2, 2010 at 9:12 AM

    Mr. Hoffman,

    This is why you will always take on the Christians and never Radical Islam.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,581746,00.html

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      January 2, 2010 at 10:27 PM

      [This is why you will always take on the Christians and never Radical Islam.]

      No, I like to take on people with power. Muslims don’t have much power in our government, but the Christian church has a lot of influence — way too much. Our founding fathers knew the dangers of mixing religion with politics, which is why they wrote the First Amendment, yet we still get these radical fundamentalist Christians determining policy.

      Reply
  24. Christian
    December 29, 2012 at 11:09 PM

    Jesus died for everyone. Every single one even for you Ben. Not every one called “christian” is a christian.” Christian” is just a name…its not what ure called dat determines where u go after ure dead. @ Ben..ure free to make all the jokes u want. I get your pain. Using a religion in politics forces u to function based on some of its laws meanwhile u shud be free to function on your beleifs. Like I said not everyone called a “christian” is a true christian some just use the name to blend in. “2000 year old magical book” if ure referring to the bible lol. U should try reading it and trying some of its tricks. They work. They are harmless don’t worry no part of the book requires a blood sacrifice or suicide. It basically says God loved the world and he gave his “only” son who died for u, me, everyone out of love. his son is the way, the only way.”””LOVE”” If u believe in him u shall not perish but have everlasting life. Everlasting life is life beyond death. Everything in this world wud pass away..even diamonds aint forever they have a lifE span. Forget all the rational bla bla. U aint sure if there is life after death but ure sure u wud die one day. Its “safer” and “wiser” to believe in life after death and preparing for it ..I mean if u die and there isn’t life after death u aint at a loss. See the wisdom? Give true christianity (hard to find) a try. Read the bible and check what’s happening in the world today. U will see dat if everyone believed in the bible there wud be no need for a health care bill or abortions, there wud be no hunger and a lot of things. Example the bible said love your neighbor as u love your self. If u were involved in an accident and I was there I’d help u cos I love u like I love my self. What’s the harm there? Give to the poor! Why give? Cos dey are in need and God would bless you it will come back to you…what’s the harm? Apply theses laws..they feel good. In my country right now if u give to the poor they use ur money to build local bombs to blow christians up for no logical or rational reason. The devil doesn’t want us to practice giving. Funny thing is Jesus still loves them and he wants us to love them. “Love” I have so much to say but I can’t. Think rationally or logically of the little I’ve said

    Reply
    

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: