I listen to Boortz’s radio show every chance I get, and I like his book on the Fairtax, all of which means you are calling me a “suckered schmuck.” I thus think you owe me, and his other listeners and proponents of his book an apology.

You must also be a listener to his radio show, else how did you know that he has said that he was an attorney, or as you say, “is/was/claims-to-be an attorney.”

Next, do you have any evidence to support your implication that he was NOT an attorney.

If not, then why did you choose to throw out such a slanderous implication about him??

Also, it sounds like you bought his book. If so, and if you do listen or have listened to his radio show, does that qualify you as a suckered schmuck??

Its fine with me if you think of yourself in that context, but I don’t appreciate one bit your slandering me by calling me that, which you have just done.

So, having done so, if you don’t retract that statement about me and apologize, then you’d better hope we never meet.

PapaJack

If you don’t mind, I’m back.

Not on the same subject as before, but on the subject of your being an atheist.

First, though, please understand that I respect your right to be an atheist, but I see parallels between us that might be of interest to you.

After your above comment to the effect that you are an atheist, I accidentally encountered a comment by you on another blog where you elaborated some on the matter of your being an atheist.

That other blog was on the question of whether prayers are answered. It is my recollection that you said in that comment that while an atheist, you do attend church, though perhaps not on a regular basis. And I got the impression that you would really like to believe that there is a diety but that, as of now, and in your words you “are not there yet.”

The thing that interested me is that it appears to me that we may be more alike than I would have thought (you being an atheist and me not).

My wife says (and I admit it) that I am the world’s worst skeptic. If I haven’t seen something with my own eyes, and if I can’t factually prove that it exists, then I have grave reservations about its existence. As an example, supernatural things like ghosts, other apparitions, books and furniture moving without anyone touching them, doors opening and closing on their own, etc. It sounds to me like you may be the same.

Next, it dawned on me to wonder how I can be that way and yet not be an agnostic or an atheist, which I don’t like to think that I am. Yet I have never seen God, nor anything else in the realm of the supernatural (unless the part about my Palm Pilot, below, qualifies). I finally decided that somehow I was substituting faith for fact in the religious world because it made me feel better to do so.

I have seen many crises in my day and much to my surprise I have always been able to handle them with more strength that I thought I had, including the loss of my oldest son to cancer just before Christmas. Some say that God gives you the strength to handle those circumstances, so I accepted that because it was comforting to think that was true.

I have also adopted a philosophy of life that I got from my father who always said that everything happens for the best. Many times, though, it is difficult to understand how something bad that happens can possibly have happened for the best – but I have found that if you look hard enough you can usually see how it might have been best after all.

In the case of my son, for instance. It may have been best for him, though not for me. He was in great pain, and had been for months. His prospect for recovery seemed to dim more and more to the point that I am convinced that he was ready to go. At the end, he physically tore the tubes out of his system (one went down his throat and into his abdomen) and then refused to let them put him in Intensive Care. He died the next day.

Now, the nearest thing to my witnessing the supernatural, came after his death and I was on my way home from the hospital alone. My car has bucket seats up front, with a console between them consisting of a receptical for odds and ends covered by an armrest that could be raised up to expose the receptical or lowered to close it. When closed there was a narrow slit of less than an inch wide between the front of the armrest and the front of the receptical. About 6 inches in front of this and attached to the dash were the drink holders, with nothing but open space in the 6 inches between the receptical and the drink holders.

When I got in the car, I put my Palm Pilot in one of the drink holders.

While driving home at a moderate rate of speed, with no herky jerky motions, just smooth driving, I heard a loud clatter inside the car. I look all around and saw nothing.

Later, I looked in the console for a Kleenex, and, low and behold, there was my Palm Pilot in the bottom of the console. I have yet to come up with a logical explanation of how it got there from the drink holder. Was it my son messing with me? It would be just like him. But if it was, nothing of that nature has ever happened again, although I tried mental telepathy to get him to do something else if it was him. I still haven’t an explanation for that. I have re-created for others the circustances that I have relayed above, and they can’t explain it either. Is it proof that there is an after life? I don’t know.

Now, finally, as to whether prayers are answered:

Some say that all prayers are answered, it’s just that sometimes the answer is NO. Whether that is offered as a serious answer or as a joke, I don’t know.

If you read this and find it at all interesting, please give me the benefit of your thinking on the subject.

Best Regards,

PapaJack

I apologize for the Rock remark — it was really just a poor excuse for a joke.

If so, that is another issue that we are 180 degrees apart on.

I know you have the right to believe or disbelieve anything you like, so don’t bother telling me that. Just remember that I have the same right, and, like it or not, I believe you are wrong and that you either need help now, or will eventually need some.

I will therefore pray for you to get the help you need, when you need it, and when you want it.

I am not joking, nor being sarcastic —- I am perfectly serious.

Meantime, Goodbye and Good Luck — I’m gone.

PapaJack

Neither you nor I cares to continue discussing any charges of name-calling.

The point of 99% of the post was completely outside any reference to Boortz being a fool. It was almost ENTIRELY about the fact that Boortz and Huck disagree on pretty much everything except the FairTax. You’ve agreed that you don’t know whether Boortz or Huck agree or disagree on most issues (and thus wouldn’t be in a place to even dispute whether or not Boortz was acting foolish by endorsing Huck).

So we’re in agreement not to further argue over silly things like name-calling. Jason may have thrown out the term “nut-job”, but nobody called you anything before you started talking about us “gutless” “cult members”, acting as if being an agnostic is identical to being a Democrat. I personally resent that, as an atheist who is by no means in political agreement with the Democrats. And we’re in agreement that you don’t have enough information to determine whether the main point of the post, whether Boortz agrees with Huck enough to give an endorsement (although reading all the links in Jason’s article might tell you a lot more about Huck).

So what do we have left to argue over? Why insinuate that I’m hiding under a rock simply because I didn’t have enough disagreement with you to merit a response?

I do, however, still resent the fact that I have called uncivil, and have been accused of starting the name-calling crap, which is NOT true.

But, if it makes you and Jason happy to continue falsely charging me with that, then hop to it. I don’t care to repeat my argument on that any further. I stand on what I have previously said about that.

PapaJack

Let’s face it. You’re a FairTax supporter, and you’ll vote for anyone who will support the FairTax (as you stated in one of your first comments). If that’s your position, so be it.

As such, you’ve stated nothing about your personal beliefs (other than you apparently hate Democrats and agnostics), so I have no reason to question your support for Huckabee. You could love every other thing he believes in for all that I know.

But not so for Boortz. I’ve listened to Boortz for many years. I’ve heard him espouse many beliefs that are directly contrary to things that I’ve heard from Huckabee. I’ve heard so many contradictions that I find it very odd that Boortz is willing to overlook those other contrary positions in favor of supporting the FairTax.

Whether you want to discuss people being called a “fool” or not is your prerogative. I really don’t care either way. Can you debate the fact that outside of the FairTax, Huck and Boortz probably disagree on just about every issue?

You are just like all Democrats, whether or not you are a Democrat. That is you state as a fact whatever you would like the facts to be whether or not your “facts” are true.

In this instance, you and Jason can contend that he didn’t actually call Boortz a fool, but he not only did in his first open letter to Boortz, but confirmed it later when I chastised him for that derogatory remark. That is, he said he didn’t care how much I resented it, that “it is true”. So thats twice on that one.

As for yours and his lack of expertise and lack of competence in running this country, you apparently recognize that neither of you have either.

In that case, this “drive-by commentator” as you call me, is just as qualified as the two of you. and perhaps more so.

Now, I say again that I didn’t start the name-calling. Jason started it in his first open letter to Boortz, and continues it until now. But I notice that, typical of people like you and Jason, you simply choose to totally ignore his other name-calling that I specifically called attention to.

If you and Jason choose not to reply to this that’s fine with me. I am not impressed with either of you and I don’t regard either of you as worth arguing with. You are obviously going to continue to make up your facts as you go, and there is nothing you can say that will convince me that Boortz is a fool, or that Mark is a nut case, or that I am unable to think for myself, or that I started the name-calling.

So it suits me just fine if the two of you will just go and hide under the nearest rock and SHUT UP!! That way you can tell each other how smart you are.

PapaJack

In one line, Jason suggested that Huckabee was “playing” Boortz for a fool. Perhaps there’s an implicit assumption there that Boortz is a fool if he doesn’t change his mind, and that’s about as close to calling him a name as you can suggest.

And to call Huckabee unprincipled? Well, how about you enlighten us what his principles are? Because as far as I can tell, his principles seem to be all in favor of big government and social policies that are in line with what he believes God wants. How much do you think those “principles” line up with anything Neal Boortz believes in? How much do those principles agree with the FairTax. Do you really believe Huck supports the Fairtax as a way to reduce the size of government, or do you think Huck sees it as a wonderful way to pay for all the new spending he wants to undertake?

As for my level of “expertise”, when have I ever claimed to be an expert? I am a blogger and an engineer. My credibility lies in the accumulated writings I’ve put together on this blog and my personal blog over the last three years. I would like to believe that people continue to read this blog because they value what I (and my co-contributors) have to say? The price for that is dealing with drive-by commenters like yourself, who resort to name-calling at the drop of a hat.

Next you call Mark M. a “nut job” — another derogatory remark.

Next, in your reply to me about my resenting your calling Boortz a fool you said I could “resent it all I wanted to but it is true.” Thus repeating your derogatory remarks about him.

Next, you call Huckabee “unprincipled” which is a pretty derogatory charge.

Next you say that I am unable to think on my own.

What makes you think you can call others names, but no-one can call you what you are??

So, you can take your holier than thou hypocritical crap and stick it where the sun don’t shine.

I stand by my assessment of you in that you are a gutless hypocrite.

PapaJack

I hope you read this because I think I have a strategy that will almost if not entirely assure that Hillary will never be the President of this Country, but I don’t want to publicize it now and give her the opportunity to construct her denial denial of everything.

Therefore, if you will send me a brief Email I will answer with my strategy.

From PapaJack

Thanks for your kind comment and support. Hope you and yours have a very Merry Christmas and a Happy and Prosperous New Year.

From PapaJack