Comments Posted By Gang of One
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 16 Comments


Rick, as you well know by now, when you get flak it is because you are over the target.

Rock on, Rick.

Comment Posted By Gang of One On 30.08.2009 @ 15:09


Christ in a polo-shirt. Get a grip, Rick.

Comment Posted By Gang of One On 19.06.2008 @ 07:12


Happy B-day, Rick.

I know exactly what you mean about focusing on the important things and tossing out the mundane things [like other people's opinions -- they are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink].

Lose the fifty pounds -- that is very important. I am sure you can do it if you set your mind to it. I am almost 49, I do Tai Chi, kick-boxing, and Wing Chun Wu Shu martial arts. I need to lose at least ten more pounds, but I have dropped 25 since returning to the states five years ago.

Steve #27, go piss on someone else's parade.
Good grief.

Comment Posted By Gang of One On 26.01.2008 @ 09:29


And none of the Republican candidates, nor their campaigns can use this to their advantage. And the MSM will not make an issue of this. Breathtaking ...

Comment Posted By Gang of One On 21.01.2008 @ 14:52


Hello Rick,

Congrats on the 2Meg Milestoneâ„¢! Also, a prosperous, healthy and happy New Year to you and yours. Keep up the great work.

Comment Posted By Gang of One On 31.12.2007 @ 16:34


davod Said:
11:16 am

Why is the KOS convention a political event?

Perhaps because Democratic candidates, pols and wonks were there in abundance, and the topic was, uhhh, politics?

Just asking ...

Comment Posted By Gang of One On 6.08.2007 @ 13:07


I get a bit confused here. I have read that intel in possession of the CIA, MI5 and other usually-reliable agencies had some kind of information that a threat existed, but what that threat was, was not at all clear. I have also read that some knew the threat involved aircraft [sorry, no link, but I could search if you all desire me to do so]. Even so, knowing a threat exists is not the same as having prior knowledge of the actual conspiracy.
Then, there are the Truthersâ„¢ who are convinced 9/11 was a deliberate, inside-job perpetrated by the government.
Which is it?
And more confusing, is that it seems to me that the same individuals who walk around looking over their shoulders 24/7 for spying federal eyes are usually the same people who wish to see government powers expanded -- regulation, nanny-statism, welfare, national health care, etc.
Maybe it's just me ...

Comment Posted By Gang of One On 6.05.2007 @ 07:30


Rick, you are certainly welcome to your beliefs, How, may I ask, would you respond to the following?

Take as much time as you need.

God is the one and only self-caused fact in the universe. He is the secret of the order, plan, and purpose of the whole creation of things and beings. The everywhere-changing universe is regulated and stabilized by absolutely unchanging laws, the habits of an unchanging God. The fact of God, the divine law, is changeless; the truth of God, his relation to the universe, is a relative revelation which is ever adaptable to the constantly evolving universe.

Those who would invent a religion without God are like those who would gather fruit without trees, have children without parents. You cannot have effects without causes; only the I AM is causeless. The fact of religious experience implies God, and such a God of personal experience must be a personal Deity. You cannot pray to a chemical formula, supplicate a mathematical equation, worship a hypothesis, confide in a postulate, commune with a process, serve an abstraction, or hold loving fellowship with a law.

True, many apparently religious traits can grow out of nonreligious roots. Man can, intellectually, deny God and yet be morally good, loyal, filial, honest, and even idealistic. Man may graft many purely humanistic branches onto his basic spiritual nature and thus apparently prove his contentions in behalf of a godless religion, but such an experience is devoid of survival values, God-knowingness and God-ascension. In such a mortal experience only social fruits are forthcoming, not spiritual. The graft determines the nature of the fruit, notwithstanding that the living sustenance is drawn from the roots of original divine endowment of both mind and spirit.

The intellectual earmark of religion is certainty; the philosophical characteristic is consistency; the social fruits are love and service.

The God-knowing individual is not one who is blind to the difficulties or unmindful of the obstacles which stand in the way of finding God in the maze of superstition, tradition, and materialistic tendencies of modern times. He has encountered all these deterrents and triumphed over them, surmounted them by living faith, and attained the highlands of spiritual experience in spite of them. But it is true that many who are inwardly sure about God fear to assert such feelings of certainty because of the multiplicity and cleverness of those who assemble objections and magnify difficulties about believing in God. It requires no great depth of intellect to pick flaws, ask questions, or raise objections. But it does require brilliance of mind to answer these questions and solve these difficulties; faith certainty is the greatest technique for dealing with all such superficial contentions.

Page 1127 If science, philosophy, or sociology dares to become dogmatic in contending with the prophets of true religion, then should God-knowing men reply to such unwarranted dogmatism with that more farseeing dogmatism of the certainty of personal spiritual experience, "I know what I have experienced because I am a son of I AM." If the personal experience of a faither is to be challenged by dogma, then this faith-born son of the experiencible Father may reply with that unchallengeable dogma, the statement of his actual sonship with the Universal Father.

Only an unqualified reality, an absolute, could dare consistently to be dogmatic. Those who assume to be dogmatic must, if consistent, sooner or later be driven into the arms of the Absolute of energy, the Universal of truth, and the Infinite of love.

If the nonreligious approaches to cosmic reality presume to challenge the certainty of faith on the grounds of its unproved status, then the spirit experiencer can likewise resort to the dogmatic challenge of the facts of science and the beliefs of philosophy on the grounds that they are likewise unproved; they are likewise experiences in the consciousness of the scientist or the philosopher.

Of God, the most inescapable of all presences, the most real of all facts, the most living of all truths, the most loving of all friends, and the most divine of all values, we have the right to be the most certain of all universe experiences.

Comment Posted By Gang of One On 19.04.2007 @ 12:55


Wingo Said:
8:57 am

her conservative values will see her through this ordeal.

Apparently, then, her liberal values got her into this mess?

Comment Posted By Gang of One On 19.02.2007 @ 10:24

Well said, Rick. I have traveled this path, but not as destructive nor as desperate. I feel bad for Ms. Spears, as the demons she mustface will be overwhelming -- no one ever really knows how they will fare. I have a friend, a brilliant and gifted musician who is also going through this pain. We can only pray for these people, wish them Godspeed, and allow them some privacy. But the celebrity-mania of this Brave New World will never allow her her the dignity of that privacy, and the vultures who have so little of their own souls left intact will consume her until she is no more. Sometimes it things like this that make me wonder if what is destroying is not the Islamofascists, the Communists or the anti-Semites, but our own sicknesses and decadence.

Comment Posted By Gang of One On 18.02.2007 @ 12:16

Powered by WordPress


Next page »

Pages (2) : [1] 2

«« Back To Stats Page