Liberty's Flame

When It Comes to Pot, Pain, and Cancer, Jeff Sessions Is An Idiot

Source:	Reason
Published:	Mar 3, 2018
Author:	Matt Kibbe
Post Date:	2018-03-03 17:48:15 by Deckard
Views:	13802

SAIT SERKAN GURBUZ/REUTERS/Newscom

I am a stage-four cancer survivor. No, that's wrong. I'm not a survivor. I beat cancer's ass into the ground, dusted myself off, and proceeded on with life. I don't consider myself, or the millions of other people who deal with life-threatening or chronic conditions, a victim. We are not. But surely, patients have enough to manage already without the idiocy rattling through Attorney General Jeff Sessions' teeth every time he opines on opiods, cannabis, and pain management.

That's right, I said it. Someone had to. Jeff Sessions is an idiot. The problem is plain for anyone who has had an experience like mine to see: Our top federal law enforcement officer has no idea what real pain is really like, or what doctors do to manage it.

Sessions recently told the surely apocryphal story about current White House Chief of Staff, and former four-star general, John Kelly refusing pain killers during hand surgery. I have no doubt that the general is one bad ass individual. But really? Did he wash the wound with tequila before the first incision, while grinding his teeth on a stick?

Watch Sessions tell the story here. It is itself quite painful. It's like your crazy great uncle's circa-1950s-liquor-fueled rants you are subjected to once every year at Thanksgiving dinner. The difference is that your crazy great uncle is kind of endearing when he's drunk, and his opinions are harmless. This crazy uncle is the Attorney General of the United States, and he has all the power to act on his feelings, and he clearly intends to do so.

"The plain fact, I believe, and I am operating on the assumption that this country prescribes too many opioids," Sessions told a gathering in Tampa a few weeks ago. "I mean, people need to take some, uh, aspirin sometimes, and tough it out a little."

"Believe." "Assumption." "Too many." Forget the fact he doesn't have the slightest notion of the difference between acute pain, like when a surgical scalpel cuts into your flesh, and chronic pain, that can last indefinitely. And I wonder what exactly "Dr." Sessions means by too many? Which patients, with what conditions, under what circumstances will be determined by the federal government to be deserving of pain relief? And who, exactly, is just going to have to "tough it out a little bit?"

The Attorney General probably doesn't have any specific patient in mind. He doesn't exactly appear to be focused on individual patients. He just wants to make sure that fewer patients are prescribed opioids to manage their pain—and he is weaponizing the federal government in order to accomplish this goal.

The Associate Press reported last month that, according to Sessions, "the Drug Enforcement Agency is now asking medical practitioners whether they have received continuing medical education on prescribing or dispensing opioids when they apply for a license or renew."

Sessions is forcing doctors to make an ugly choice: Either do best by their patients and adhere to their Hippocratic Oath—or suffer the bureaucratic harassment from the powerful Drug Enforcement Agency, and risk the loss of their license to practice medicine. If incentives matter, and they do, expect doctors to start making bad choices for their patients.

I remember a time, not too long ago, when Republicans and conservatives proclaimed loudly and often that health care choices should be between patients and doctors, and the federal government should keep its nose out. But those well-worn talking points have been shelved, replaced with a new form of medical authoritarianism.

For me, it's personal. I was diagnosed with cancer in 2001. I have been injected with aggressive chemotherapy cocktails that leave you feeling like you have the worst hangover ever, except that it goes on for months. And there's extensive nerve damage. If you are a masochist, you can read more gory details here.

I have undergone multiple surgeries that sliced me open from stem to stern, each time leaving dozens of surgical staples in my belly, making my torso look like I big zipper. Years later, I still deal with collateral damage from the battle, including scar tissue in my abdomen that can generate significant pain. With all due respect to tough guy John Kelly, I doubt he has felt real pain, the kind that makes you wish you were dead, until scar tissue from past surgeries manages to strangle your intestines closed.

And, yes, it irritates me to retell these stories. I'm not nearly old enough yet to be spending my waning days on the porch, telling my octogenarian friends about all the parts of my body that are broken. I was hoping to save the good stuff for when my wife finally sends me away to a geezer farm in the country.

Of course opioid addicition is a real problem, and opioid abuse is indeed dangerous. I have friends who have told their stories about managing pain, and addiction. They all sought other forms of treatment, settling on medical cannabis as a safer, more effective treatment for debilitating pain, and other chronic conditions.

I can recount countless stories of patients using cannabis to get off of opioids. But here comes the idiocy again. Jeff Sessions has said that "good people don't smoke marijuana," and that he believes that cannabis is the gateway drug that leads to opioid abuse. "We think a lot of this is starting with marijuana," he says at that same piece of performance art in Tampa. The research, of course, says the opposite.

So with traditional pharmaceuticals and cannabis off the table, I guess I really will have to "tough it out a bit."

When I sat down to write this piece, I debated using the word idiot. It's intemperate, you might say. So I Googled it. "Idiot: A stupid person. Synonyms: fool, jackass, knucklehead, numbskull, nitwit, asshat." It might as well have just said "Jeff Sessions."

Post Comment Private Reply

#17: Gatlin To: Deckard (#14)

You reposted the scripture exactly as I originally posted it and you said that my interpretation was FALSE. I made NO interpretation. Was the scripture I posted FALSE?

Then you posted your own interpretation, or one that you copied and pasted from the Web. That’s fine with me. As I said before, opinions are like assholes….everyone has one.

But you can’t tell me me interpretation was false when I never gave an interpretation.

I posted ONLY scripture and NO interpretations.

How in the world did you get to be so stupid?

Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 03:57:44 Reply Private Reply

#18: Hondo68 To: Deckard (#13)

Gatlin is a Subverted Nation neo-Nazi.

Hondo68 posted on 2018-03-04 03:58:14 Reply Private Reply

#19: Gatlin To: Deckard (#14)

Romans 13: Should Christians Obey The Government Unconditionally?
Paul is telling us we must not resist the righteous power of God - whether it is manifested in the heavenlies or in various earthly sectors - including righteous government.

I’m sorry, I need your help.

I cannot find anywhere in the scripture in you link that Paul says anything about a righteous government.

Can you please point out to me where that word is appears in the scripture?

It’s not there and you KNOW damned well it isn’t there.

STOP MAKING SHIT UP.

Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 04:13:27 Reply Private Reply

#20: Gatlin To: hondo68 (#18)

You said to me:

You're lying about the Bible.

And that was “despicable.”

Show me where I was lying when all I did was post the scripture exactly as it appears in the Bible without changing one thing.

Show me …

Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 04:18:51 Reply Private Reply

#21: Gatlin To: Deckard (#12)

Show me where I was lying when all I did was post the scripture exactly as it appears in the Bible without changing one thing.

Show me …

Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 04:21:05 Reply Private Reply

#22: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#12)

What did you expect from Parsons? After all - the State is his god.

You may disagree with Gatlin. That is fine. Question is why do you dishonor yourself by saying he worships the government. We both know that isn't true. Making you a liar. Come on deckard have some honor.

A K A Stone posted on 2018-03-04 08:09:06 Reply Private Reply

#23: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#13)

Your post doesn't really prove he bastardized Roman's chapter 13. To prove that you would have to use scripture. Maybe he is incorrect but your post doesn't prove it. Not by a long shot.

A K A Stone posted on 2018-03-04 08:11:45 Reply Private Reply

#24: A K A Stone To: Gatlin (#11)

This topic deserves it's own thread. I will do that later.

A K A Stone posted on 2018-03-04 08:22:42 Reply Private Reply

#25: GrandIsland To: A K A Stone (#22)

Come on deckard have some honor.

Unfortunately for Dickard, he can't just buy that on a shelf. One must be born with those qualities... and keep honor at the top of his priorities. The unfortunate part is, legal drugs are at the top of his priority list. They outweigh "honor". So this is why, with a big fat smile, Dickard will post yella propaganda to sell his priorities.

In my line of work, once you've been proven dishonorable, you can never come back from the dark side.

GrandIsland posted on 2018-03-04 11:04:31 Reply Private Reply

#26: Gatlin To: A K A Stone (#23)

Maybe he is incorrect but your post doesn't prove it.

Mind you, be careful now.

All I did in the beginning was to simply post the sacred writings of Christianity contained in the English Standard Version of the Bible. I never made any comment to say that I either agreed with the scripture I posted or disagreed with the scripture I posted. I simply posted it verbatim.

I was then attacked by the two of the three “forum pit bulls.” One said I was “lying about the Bible” and the other said my “interpretation of the Bible is false.” In reality, the truth be known, I was neither lying nor misinterpreting ....I only posted scripture verbatim for consideration to be given to it. I never said what I believe the scripture meant and I was never asked.

The fallacy oftentimes, more often than not, is that some posters already know what they are going to say in response to my posts before they even read my posts. They continually overuse the same trite remarks that consequently have little import and lack any originality or freshness. It would be far easier if they just assigned numbers to their personal attack statements. Then when I post something for consideration, their simple response could be: “#13, #5, #6, #1 (and the best one of all) #666.

Continuing on point which was:

Maybe he is incorrect but your post doesn't prove it.

I never set out with the intention to prove Brother Ken to be “incorrect.” I merely posted a study. I never said it would prove Brother Ken wrong and neither did I say I believed the study was correct. I simply said:

To really understand the message in the scripture in Romans 13:1-7, one needs to consider a detailed study and not just grab onto something a “preacher” tells them to think it means. The best place to start is with a comprehensive study is by reading the Paul and Civil Obedience in Romans 13:1-7 comprehensive study.

Of course, there are other places to start, I just happened on that one in my first google. Remember, I emphasize, I specifically said that was “a place to start.” I never said it was a place to end and form a conclusion....and I definitelky never said, or even suggested, it would prove Brother Ken to be wrong.

Your post doesn't really prove he bastardized Roman's chapter 13.

Again: That was never my intent.

To prove that you would have to use scripture.

I have no desire to prove Brother Ken wrong and I could not even attempted to do so. Brother Ken MERELY stated his opinion. You said it made sense and I posted to you:

Forget what Brother Ken tells you to think. Read and then think on your own and decide for yourself what the scripture says. You need no one to interpret it for you. God gave you a mind to think with….it’s best to use that mind and not let someone spoon feed you’re their ideas.

I considered that sage advice. It was never meant to offend you, if it did…I apologize.

Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 11:25:41 Reply Private Reply

#27: Gatlin To: A K A Stone (#24)

This topic deserves it's own thread. I will do that later.

You may of course do that if you like. I do however think it would be a wasted effort especially as far as I am concerned. I have no more to say on the matter, I have already said what I wanted to on this thread. Naturally, I will continue to respond to any future personal attack posts or questions.

Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 11:31:08 Reply Private Reply

#28: A K A Stone To: Gatlin (#26)

You got it backwards. Post 23 was to deckard, not you.

A K A Stone posted on 2018-03-04 11:31:28 Reply Private Reply

#29: A K A Stone To: Gatlin (#27)

I haven't watched all the vvideos you posted yet. I did watch a video by one of the guys whose video you posted. In one of his videos he says that God did not create hell. So your source is not right about everything imo.

Anyway this is a good topic. Do we have to obey the government according to Roman's chapter 13?

A K A Stone posted on 2018-03-04 11:34:22 Reply Private Reply

#30: Gatlin To: A K A Stone (#28)

You got it backwards. Post 23 was to deckard, not you.

I’ll just be damned. I went back and looked.

You must excuse me, I am an old man with extremely bad eyesight.

Thanks for putting up with me …

Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 11:36:09 Reply Private Reply

#31: A K A Stone To: Gatlin (#30)

It's ok, my eyes are kind of bad too. I use cheap reading glasses.

A K A Stone posted on 2018-03-04 11:41:17 Reply Private Reply

#32: Gatlin To: A K A Stone (#29)

Do we have to obey the government according to Roman's chapter 13?

With all due respect, I don’t believe that is the right question to ask me.

I think what you really want ot know is my understanding of Chapter 13. I can prepare a “short” [wink-wink] dissertation on that when I have time and get back to you. I promise to do so.

But as a prelude, I will give a teaser and say that I personally believe the intent of Chapter 13 was never to instruct people to become obedient slaves to the government. I find too many people foolishly get raised bristles and defensively believe that was the intent. If you have ever been around a sow with raised bristles, you can truly understand the danger in that.

So sayeth the son born unto an Evangelical preacher-man in an Assembly of God Church.

Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 11:54:26 Reply Private Reply

#33: Gatlin To: A K A Stone (#29)

I haven't watched all the vvideos you posted yet.

They are really not that important. All they do is counter what Brother Ken has to say. It looks like they have more of a battle going on between the bunch of them….the likes of which threads on LF has never seen.

I only posted them to show both sides, as I always try to do….and not to prove Brother Ken wrong.

Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 12:02:25 Reply Private Reply

#34: Hondo68 To: Gatlin (#20)

Show me …

I posted a video which apparently went over your head with nothing sinking in.

Yes, you quoted from the Bible. You also gave your Satanic interpretation. You worshiped LBJ, Jimmy Carter, both Bush's, Clinton, and Obama because.... Romans 13, you claim.

You're too stupid to understand the Bible. That's giving you the benefit of the doubt.

You probably need an exorcism.

Hondo68 posted on 2018-03-04 12:06:15 Reply Private Reply

#35: Gatlin To: hondo68, A K A Stone (#18)

Gatlin is a Subverted Nation neo-Nazi.
AND
Get thee behind me, Satan Gatlin, evil doer!

I use strong language in my posts from time to time in order to stress a point or ask a question and I condone that by everyone.

But to call me a “neo-Nazi” [Post #18] and refer to me as “Satan” [Post #7] are both malicious accusations by you that is way over the top and exceeds any bounds to human decency and civility.

It transcends all the barriers and bridges to effective dialogue and the reason I must place you on bozo quite often. I just tire of reading your incongruous and irrational crap.

Your post stands as a perfect symbol to reflect your troubled mentality and low moral character.

Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 12:35:48 Reply Private Reply

#36: A K A Stone To: Gatlin (#35)

You're right that Hondo is dishonorable and lies a lot of the time.

A K A Stone posted on 2018-03-04 12:45:42 Reply Private Reply

#37: Gatlin To: hondo68 (#34)

I posted a video which apparently went over your head with nothing sinking in.

I understood perfectly well every word that Brother Ken spoke while expressing his own personal interpretation of Chapter 13.

If by not “sinking in” you mean that I did not agree with him....then you are absolutely correct.

Yes, you quoted from the Bible.

That is all that I did....ALL.

You also gave your Satanic interpretation.

I asked you once before to “show me” where.

I now ask you again to “show me” where....and add PLEASE to the request.

You worshiped LBJ, Jimmy Carter, both Bush's, Clinton, and Obama because.... Romans 13, you claim.

That is a maliciously false accusation and has absolutely no correlation with your associated reference to “Romans 13, you claim.”

You are making no sense.

You're too stupid to understand the Bible.

Sonny Boy, the son of an Evangelical preacher-man in an Assembly of God Church may be called “stupid” but it can never be said that he doesn’t “understand the Bible.”

“That's giving you the benefit of the truth.”

Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 12:59:45 Reply Private Reply

#38: Hondo68 To: Gatlin, those that are, are ordained of God, A K A Stone (#6)

Romans 13:1-14 (English Standard Version) - Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

ESV is a bad translation, crappy new wave spin of the Bible. Even the KJV is somewhat better in not saying "governing authorities" but adding some light spin. "Higher Powers" is NOT necessarily Jeff Sessions, or even President Trump. "ordained of God"? That's the question.

KJV - less spin, but it was approved by the King of England.

Romans 13 King James Version (KJV)

13 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

Romans 13 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

13 Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God.

Hondo68 posted on 2018-03-04 13:05:18 Reply Private Reply

#39: A K A Stone To: hondo68 (#38)

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4300

A K A Stone posted on 2018-03-04 13:21:09 Reply Private Reply

#40: Gatlin To: hondo68 (#38)

... approved by the King of England.

Excuse me, but please explain to me why should I give a fuck that the “King of England” approved anything?

Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 13:28:06 Reply Private Reply

#41: Hondo68 To: Gatlin, yukon approved, tater (#40)

why should I give a **** that the “King of England” approved anything?

Your ESV version is fake, approved by the Queen of the Yukon!

Hondo68 posted on 2018-03-04 13:40:30 Reply Private Reply

#42: Gatlin To: hondo68 (#38)

Okay, no problem….let's use your KJV of the bible.

Romans 13 King James Version (KJV)
13 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Oh no, “Brother Hondo.” You cannot take Verse 1 out of context. That verse is tied to all the others. You must read and understand them all. No “Cherry Picking” of Scripture to fit a personal agenda....that is not allowed.

Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 13:41:58 Reply Private Reply

#43: Gatlin To: hondo68 (#41)

Your ESV version is fake.

That is an extremely BOLD statement.

You of course can provide proof of your claim....right?

Then please do so NOW ...

Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 13:45:47 Reply Private Reply

#44: Deckard To: Gatlin, hondo68 (#40)

Gatlin: as the son of an Evangelical preacher-man in an Assembly of God Church
why should I give a fuck

Hmmm...

Deckard posted on 2018-03-04 13:49:35 Reply Private Reply

#45: Gatlin To: Deckard (#44)

Gatlin: as the son of an Evangelical preacher-man in an Assembly of God Church
why should I give a fuck
Hmmm...

“There you go again” with “quick-fire” your assumptions.

I never said I was a practicing Christian....did I?

I know the song well….thanks for posting it.

Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 14:17:54 Reply Private Reply

#46: A K A Stone To: Gatlin (#45)

“There you go again” with “quick-fire” your assumptions. I never said I was a practicing Christian....did I?

Did you give up your faith?

Do you no longer believe?

What does that even mean?

A K A Stone posted on 2018-03-04 14:19:46 Reply Private Reply

#47: Gatlin To: A K A Stone (#46)

What does that even mean?

It simply means that in my statement to Deckard, I merely pointed out to Deckard that he once again made another “quick-fire” assumption.

Nothing else was intended....and nothing else should be assumed. I simply shot-down his gross assumption.

Deckard had absolutely no basis from which to make the snide remark in his attempt to judge me by casting dispersions on my use of profanity.

If Deckard does not choose to use profanity, then that is fine with me. If however, Deckard sees something wrong with my using profanity and objects to it....they he should bozo me and butt out.

I will not discuss my religious beliefs on an open forum. I expect you to fully respect that.

Although, I will be pleased to continue the ongoing discussion on Romans 3:1-7…if you so desire.

You let me know….please.

Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 15:12:10 Reply Private Reply

#48: Hondo68 To: Gatlin, Jack Chick, Texas Militia (#45)

Hondo68 posted on 2018-03-04 15:52:22 Reply Private Reply

#49: Gatlin To: hondo68 (#43)

Your ESV version is fake.

I am still waiting for your proof that the ESV version of the Bible “is fake.”

How’s that going for you?

Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 18:10:34 Reply Private Reply

#50: Gatlin To: hondo68 (#48)

Maybe you should reconsider spending an eternity in hell with Senator McCain & Hillary.

I of course cannot speak for them, but I do know that I have no desire to spend any time in your home.

Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 18:15:45 Reply Private Reply

#51: Hondo68 To: Gatlin (#50)

Hondo68 posted on 2018-03-04 19:57:14 Reply Private Reply

#52: Gatlin To: A K A Stone (#29)

Do we have to obey the government according to Roman's chapter 13?

After careful study and due consideration, my response to that question and to the counsel Paul prescribed in Romans 13:1-7 is that it is as Paul distinctly said. However, while all governing authorities have been instituted by God, some at times have been, and will continue to be, tainted and corrupted with the sins of humans. Consequently, they will not always be following the rule of God.

To see where this has happened, we need to look no further and consider Adolph Hitler’s opprobrious regime. It produced massive destruction and merciless huge numbers of deaths. We can understand that was never an authority in God’s service and therefore it was not necessary to submit to the authorities. (Romans13:5).

Whenever a government or any authority is no longer a force for the good of people and established order, but does become a power of evil and death, then it is no longer a Christian’s duty to follow and obey their authority. (Acts 5:29).

Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 21:22:42 Reply Private Reply

#53: A K A Stone To: Gatlin, deckard (#52)

Good work.

A K A Stone posted on 2018-03-04 21:37:09 Reply Private Reply

#54: Hondo68 To: Gatlin, A K A Stone, Fred Mertz, buckeroo, Deckard (#42)

Oh no, “Brother Hondo.” You cannot take Verse 1 out of context. That verse is tied to all the others. You must read and understand them all. No “Cherry Picking” of Scripture to fit a personal agenda....that is not allowed.
Much later.....
Whenever a government or any authority is no longer a force for the good of people and established order, but does become a power of evil and death, then it is no longer a Christian’s duty to follow and obey their authority. (Acts 5:29).

Thank you for admitting that you were Cherry Picking, and lying about the Bible.

Why are we supposed to misinterpret the Bible, and sin until the retard Gatlin figures it out?

You can if you want, but I'm NOT!

Hondo68 posted on 2018-03-04 21:47:52 Reply Private Reply

#55: A K A Stone To: hondo68 (#54)

Enforcing drug laws is not unchristian. Gatlin wasn't talking about enforcing the will of Hitler.

A K A Stone posted on 2018-03-04 21:52:39 Reply Private Reply

#56: Gatlin To: A K A Stone (#53)

Thanks for cleaning the graffiti off the thread.

Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 21:55:28 Reply Private Reply

#57: Gatlin To: hondo68, A K A Stone, Fred Mertz, buckeroo, Deckard (#54)

Why are we supposed to misinterpret the Bible, and sin until the retard Gatlin figures it out?
You can if you want, but I'm NOT!

Ephesians 4:31 ESV –
Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.

Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 22:03:30 Reply Private Reply

#58: buckeroo To: Gatlin, A K A Stone (#56)

It appears Stone forgot to include you in any graffiti from thread to thread. In fact, it is apparent to me that this is an on-going issue.

buckeroo posted on 2018-03-04 22:05:58 Reply Private Reply

#59: Hondo68 To: Gatlin (#56)

the graffiti

Some tough love was necessary to get you to pull your head out of your rear, even if only temporarily.

Hondo68 posted on 2018-03-04 22:06:13 Reply Private Reply

#60: Gatlin To: hondo68 (#59)

Some tough love was necessary to get you to pull your head out of your rear, even if only temporarily.

I understand ...

Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 22:13:18 Reply Private Reply

#61: Gatlin To: hondo68 (#59)

The Christian life is not a playground, it’s a BATTLEGROUND.

The apostle Paul in Galatians talks about the fruit of the Spirit:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. Galatians 5:22-23

Read: Peaceful living and peacemaking.

Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 23:13:58 Reply Private Reply

#62: Hondo68 To: Gatlin (#61)

Hondo68 posted on 2018-03-04 23:26:32 Reply Private Reply

#63: Fred Mertz To: hondo68 (#62)

Good one hondope!

Fred Mertz posted on 2018-03-04 23:30:43 Reply Private Reply

#64: A K A Stone To: hondo68 (#62)

Catholic church pays out 40million for being pedophiles.

The Catholic sex abuse will Outlast us all. It never ends.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-catholic-church-pays-clergy-sex- abuse-victims/

A K A Stone posted on 2018-03-04 23:42:26 Reply Private Reply

#65: Gatlin To: hondo68, Fred Mertz (#62)

The Catholic Church outlasting oppressive governments since 33 AD.

This is a most interesting pronouncement you make here. However, the reason why you make this historical statement and how it relates to anything is a puzzlement.

It appears that among your other avenues of expertise, you are also now a self-declared authority on the subject of the Catholic Church’s survival for centuries. At least you seem to be proclaiming yourself to be as strongly evidenced by the posting of this meme.

With you being so highly knowledgeable on the matter of the “Catholic Church’s survival since 33 AD,” you can of course enlighten us lay people without professional or specialized knowledge on this particular subject....as to how the Catholic Church was able to survive the oppressive governments of Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini.

Begin first by showing how the catholic church survived Nazi Germany and explain the Vatican Concordat With Hitler's Reich: The Concordat of 1933. Feel free to start whenever you feel like it and take all the time you need. Should you have any trouble with this undertaking, perhaps your valiantly dedicated cheerleader, “Good one hondope–Fred” can assist you.

Gatlin posted on 2018-03-05 07:43:47 Reply Private Reply

#66: buckeroo To: Gatlin, hondo68, Fred Mertz (#65)

With you being so highly knowledgeable on the matter of the “Catholic Church’s survival since 33 AD,” you can of course enlighten us lay people without professional or specialized knowledge on this particular subject....as to how the Catholic Church was able to survive the oppressive governments of Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini.

He was referring to the Roman Empire or governments during the Christian Church Reconciliation.

As always, you are off on a tangent using your nearly 2000 year later facts as a method of subduing relevant discussion.

buckeroo posted on 2018-03-05 21:17:32 Reply Private Reply