1,987 Forum Posts by "WolvenBear"
At 10/19/08 12:04 AM, Grammer wrote: The dude who runs the place says it isn't Muslim. The end. How do you know it was once Muslim and Obama just didn't make a mistake?
That's stupid and you know it.
Not only have I addressed this TWICE, and you're just too fucking lazy to admit it, but you just keep begging the question. So here goes.
If the school is secular now, it doesn't mean it was years ago. If the demographic changed, or the desires of the parents changed, or any variety of factors, the school changed with it.
OK, let's take the dude at his word. And then let's apply that standard to everything.
We don't segregate today...therefore we never did. Slavery is illegal, therefore it always was.
OK. I've made my point. You're just being foolish.
It encourages religious prayer. Christian, Jewish, Muslim, anything you believe.
Yea. No.
Catholic school encourages prayer. But it requires you go through religious classes, which are Catholic in nature. Spin it anyway you want...you're going through Catholic religion. Now a Catholic School is different from a seminary, but no one would deny they're both Catholic. And a madrasses is different from an Islamic school, yet now we have confusion! Well, some of us do...who can't walk and chew gum at the same time I suppose.
No he didn't
Yes. He did. In both books. Don't tell me I'm wrong when Obama's autobiographies support what I say.
When he says he went to a Muslim school and studied the Koran, it means what it says. His further quote about religion that "his mom cared more about him getting his arthimatitic right than his (Catholic or Muslim studies)", also means what it says.
What the fuck is up with your excessive commas
I'm making fun of you. Hence when I further mocked you and said (more politely of course) "Jackass, stop talking like a valley girl." Stop taking one quote and acting like I don't explain it later.
You have no proof Obama ever witnessed Rev. Wright ever saying crazy shit while he was attending the church at all.
Uh, yes I do. Like, when Obama said:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail /2008/03/27/post_279.html
"Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes," Obama said.
And of course his 2nd book is titled off the speech where Wright famously said the "White folks greed" line.
Of course Obama heard his comments.
No she said she left because people were bugging her and shit.
Yea, uh, nope. Try again
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/04 /oprah-discusses-reverend_n_100046.html
According to two sources, Winfrey was never comfortable with the tone of Wright's more incendiary sermons, which she knew had the power to damage her standing as America's favorite daytime talk-show host. "Oprah is a businesswoman, first and foremost," said one longtime friend, who requested anonymity when discussing Winfrey's personal sentiments. "She's always been aware that her audience is very mainstream, and doing anything to offend them just wouldn't be smart. She's been around black churches all her life, so Reverend Wright's anger-filled message didn't surprise her. But it just wasn't what she was looking for in a church."
Guilt by association is a logical fallacy you fucking retard. He knows someone who's bad, so he's bad. That makes no sense, shut the fuck up.
Wrong.
He denounced Wright so yeah, he's not his mentor anymore, lol
Wrong.
My minister thinks killing animals is equivalent to breaking the 'Thou Shall not Murder' commandment and says being gay is perfectly fine, two positions completely inconsistent with Christian theology. I worked with my minister three years straight doing charity work. DO I SUPPORT HIS VIEWS BECAUSE I WORKED WITH HIM?
Well, if you are there, then you say that his views are either not inconsistant with your own, or that you are too apathetic to leave. So yes.
Israel has a corrupt government and is pretty doing everything in it's power to piss off Muslims
Yea, no bully ever likes being stood up to.
So, let's check. I'm right on every point so far. And you're not. Hmmmmmmmm.
At 10/18/08 02:44 PM, Grammer wrote: It wasn't a slip up
It couldn't have been
I mean that would make no sense
Since when do politicians slip up in their talking points?
If you REALLY don't get what I was doing there...you really shouldn't consider yourself intelligent anymore. Because it's pretty simple, and you COMPLETELY missed it.
And heaven forbid Joe Biden get mocked for saying something stupid. Since FDR wasn't President in 29, there were no TVs, and he didn't buy up housing. That's not a gaffe, that's being wrong...or stupid. The three letter word "JOBS, J-O-B-S", was a mistake, and kinda funny. "Potatoe" was a mistake, and again funny. The FDR thing was either a lie, or complete cluelessness.
At 10/18/08 02:41 PM, Grammer wrote: Doesn't matter
I know. Hence why it was a throw away.
Well w/e. School's Headmaster says it's not a Muslim school, or at least it isn't now, so I'm gonna take his word over Obama's. I know Obama attended the place years ago, but the Headmaster kind of, you know, runs it, or something
Well, that's stupid on the face of it. Because it isn't now...it never was.
And the school teaches religion. So it is a religious school of SOME sort. No matter what the headmaster says.
And as I further pointed out, it may or may not be the Muslim school. MSNBC pointed out it could be the Christian one.
So, yea, I'm like...gonna go with the fact that Obama says he received instruction in Islam, and went to a Muslim school to mean...like that he went to a Muslim school and received instruction in Islam.
Obama never said he never listened, or that he had no idea what the good Rev. Wright had to say. He said the church he attended for 20 years, he's never heard him say things like that before. Which is like, different, sort of.
Like, um, I already, sorta, like, um, mentioned that he took it farther than it like was. And that he was, like, um, mocking Obama. Guess you missed that, huh?
OK, obviously you're an Obama supporter, but can you stop talking like him, you know, like a valley girl?
His original defense was that he never heard Wright mention any of that, which is ridiculous, because Wright ALWAYS talked like that. Oprah went to the church for a couple of months, and left because she found it radical. Consistantly. To believe Obama's defense IS to believe that he was just walking around ignorant of everything around him. And that he wasn't truely listening to Wright at all. Or was just never there.
srsly guys, pathetic, classic guilt by association. Who gives a flying shit fuck what some crazy preacher says? I don't because I am not a retard. I'll vote on the issues, and character, etc etc. Do you think I care who Obama knows? And even if Obama did know about what the good Rev. Wright was spewing, some things Wright said were actually true.
If you think it doesn't matter than yes, you are retarded. Especially if you're voting on character.Who Obama chose to be his mentor speaks to his character. The church he went to speaks to his character. This is not some dude he bumped into on the street once 15 years ago. This is his close friend, his pastor, his spiritual advisor, and his sounding board. This is someone Obama chose to ally himself with, and someone he defended (and lied about), when he came under fire. What kinda fool looks at "character" but refuses to look at the kind of men that Obama wants to be close friends with. Especially people like his pastor, who help shape his world view?
And what was our good reverand Wright on? The government creating AIDS? Us deserving 9/11? America hooking blacks on drugs to get them off the streets? Hamas being in the right over Israel? Black liberation theology? Just stop. You sound stupid for defending him.
At 10/17/08 06:27 AM, Korriken wrote: I don't like rap music but I'm not gonna say that "rap artists" (oxymoron) should be silenced and not allowed to spread their crap music and poison the minds of the children. However, I do not buy or listen to their filthy music. Hypocrite? no, I don't go around telling people not to listen to the music. I allow others to follow their own preferences rather than ram mine down their throat.
You know. I'm tired of this particular brand of stupidity. Not supporting something with your money is your right. If you don't want to spend your money to support rap...you ARE NOT trying to silence rappers. You're just refusing to give them your hard earned money.
I think Pox is kind of a tool for his blind hatred of religion. But the kosher issue is whether or not Pox should be allowed to decide where he spends his money. Even assuming it's cheaper, more humane, and has health benefits, who cares? Even assuming Pox doesn't want to buy it because he thinks Jews are a blighted people and wishes Hitler had done more...who cares?
He doesn't want to support Jewish teachings, which is his right. And he explained it. People decided to debate him and tell him what a jerk he is for not supporting it...and he defended himself. Defending your position when confronted is not "silencing opposition" or shoving your views down someone's throat.
That noise should stop.
And then, of course, there's this:
At 10/18/08 10:01 AM, Grammer wrote:At 10/18/08 09:52 AM, jokerscard wrote: Obama was enrolled in a Muslim school.CNN actually visited the school in Kenya and the school headmaster says he doesn't know where the fuck people get this from. They've got like, people from every religion in the school. Prayer was encouraged, but for any religion.
So like, yeah, you made that up. Or you heard it from someone else who made it up. Either way, it's irresponsible to talk shit that you're not sure whether or not it's really true.
Well, considering the school was in Indonesia and not Kenya....
Regardless, if it's a misconception, it's one Obama started. As even CNN notes, Obama called it a Muslim school in both of his books:
Obama has noted in his two books, "Dreams From My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope," that he spent two years in a Muslim school and another two years in a Catholic school while living in Indonesia from age 6 to 10.
Moreover, as MSNBC countered:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2 007/01/23/38774.aspx
Obama spent four years in Indonesia between 1967 and 1971, when he was aged 6 to 10. In his book, "Dreams from my Father," he says: "In Indonesia, I'd spent two years at a Muslim school and two years at a Catholic school," which suggests the Muslim school was the first he attended and Basuki may be the one he describes as "Catholic." CNN did not clarfiy this, so the search is continuing for the other school -- the "Muslim school" where he supposedly spent the first two years.
You couldn't distort what Obama really said anymore. Not even if you went on prison planet, and they're fucktarded.
Actually, that WAS one of Obama's defenses when countered with what Wright said. "I didn't actually hear any of that. I was never in church on those days." While he's definately being mocking, there's a grain of truth in his jest. With as many inflammatory and controversial comments as Wright made, and with them on sale, and with the church talking about them, and with remarks being repeated in the church bullitin...to believe he never heard any of it, you either have to picture him as never there, or some dude who's sleeping in church and never paying attention.
At 9/2/08 02:11 PM, Pontificate wrote: We're not certain how the universe came about; it's not something scientists claim to know. It is, however, what creationists claim to know (burden of proof, anybody?). The big bang, which has a considerable amount evidence for it, is all the matter in the universe expanding rapidly but doesn't actually concern itself with the genesis of the universe.
EEEEH, Buzzer sounds.
The big bang theory is the theory of the origin of the universe. If you don't get this, you're really too stupid to debate...well...anything.
I don't blame Poxpower for ignoring me.
We both know he's going to lose in sny pen debate.
At 9/2/08 10:29 AM, morefngdbs wrote: I laughed my ass off at your Afghanistan comments.
THe U.S. at the height of it's military Power cannot control Iraq after 6+ years of trying.
Afghanistan is being occupied by U.S. forces along with their NATO allies...& still those backward Jihadist monkeys are killing and infiltrating & bombing unstopped.
Um, the Iraq wat is almost over. Yet we won.
And the jihad monkeys have little control over Afghinstan, We've slaughtered thousands. And once we apply the "surge" to Afghanistan, the Taliban will be eliminated.
I don't know why you laughed, and so will suspend my rebuttal.
The jihadist problem is becoming larger in Pakistan as well.
Somalia is a un Governed quag mire.
None of this has anything to do with Britian attempting to confront their growing knife related violence.
Yet you have combined them.
You say they're not compatable yet you put them together.
By your own standards, you're a fool.
Blah blh blah.
You're too stupid to make a point. So you make me yawn instead.
Imbecile.
At 8/30/08 04:26 PM, poxpower wrote: Anyway, I could devote days to telling you about all the way in which the flood story is retarded but you probably wouldn't read.
Because by your very admission, your point is stupid.
"The entire known world for these people was underwater."
There's nothing else to it than that.
oh my God, read a book. Jesus Christ.
That's a basic scientific tenet. Until modern days, the idea that something caused itself, or that life popped out of nothingness would be ridiculed. Why? Because the idea is stupid. The theory that the universe made itself and then continues to creat life goes against science.
Pre-emptive strike: Since the athiest always uses the moronic claim that "Entrophy only works in a closed system....WE HAVE A CLOSED SYSTEM. According to the big bang theory...there was no universe til this lil ball of all the matter that is in our system now exploded. Either one must argue the big bang is wrong (and be mocked as unscientific) or argue that, despite the Big Bang theory, the system isn't closed (which is a textbook argument for God).
You know who I'll believe? A scientist who does a double-blind study of thousands of people.
Not a christian leader who doesn't know dick about setting up experiments and who has everything to gain by "finding out" that miracles work.
The only people who find miracles are the people who are extremely partial to them existing. That is bullshit, that is not science.
Except it's not. As every study ever done on the question shows, Prayer matters.
Regardless of whether or not God exists, we know that the "Placebo effect" exists. This is an unquestioned truth, and no drug study exists without a placebo. As even the most skeptic of observers admit, prayer makes a difference for it's mental effects. The fact that prayer works is uncontested. Whether it proves there's a God or not is the debate now.
To miracles, how do we define a miracle? If a miracle is something that can't be scientifically explained, miracles happen EVERYDAY.
That's not what we get with prayer. Only the believer's experiments seem to yield "prayer works!" results. As soon as you look into it, you find out that they have shitty experiments or they're plain lying about it!
Again, or not.
http://www.stats.org/stories/faith_healt h_mar27_06.htm
As even the skeptic Stats.org says, the benefits are undeniable. But is it the placebo effect?
And yes, newsflash, the decay is constant. There's no possible way it CAN'T be constant, it's the property of the matter itself. You couldn't even change it if you wanted to, unless you destroyed the elements in a nuclear reactor, which doesn't happen in nature except in a SUN.
Incorrect. Carbon dating can be affected by quite a few factors. Including fire.
But you really want to learn about it? Tell me, I'll show you videos on it, you'll know exactly how it works, why we know what we do etc. in just 1-2 hours.
Because you are A LIAR. I know you haven't read the books. Don't lie to me. I know you haven't looked into it. I know what you did watch is bullshit like Kent Hovind videos.
I call your bluff. I used to be a huge believer in evolution. But the ID arguments are simply more scientific, require less assumptions, and are in line with what we currently know.
That's what you did. You really want to learn about it?
Tell me and I'll show you. Otherwise, stay ignorant and keep holding humanity back.
Go for it.
At 8/31/08 12:06 PM, morefngdbs wrote: As put out in an idea from the old Soviet Union , if America was invaded, their plan was for the population to be rounded up & if not possible ,simply killed everyone, no quarter.
Mass Genocide was what they considered to be the only way to be able to take control, of many of the large inner city areas. They were not even going to try to take control...bombing & chemical weapons were their first choice, for these areas.
KILL everyone...let god sort it out.
So if an enemy with that attitude was able to invade all the handguns & small arms in the world aren't going to save you. If for Example the U.S. did that in Iraq or Afghanistan...you would be done over there. All you would be doing now is keeping others from attempting to attack & infiltrate through your borders.
Sure it would.
In the peak of the USSR's power, they were unable to put down an armed rebellion in Afghanistan from backwards jihad monkeys. The Russians suffered insane loses. There's no way they'd be able to take over a country of armed people, many of which have the best military training in the world.
Plus, there's also this thing that, if Russia invaded us, we'd bomb the shit out of them.
So in a situation that will never happen, you argue that we couldn't beat an enemy that only faced unarmed forces....and then claim your case is made....
Wow.
At 8/14/08 10:44 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Neoconservatism is just conservatism, mixed with the shitty elements of liberalism, like a blatant hard on for socialism and a big brother type of covernment.
I'll be damned. A blind squirrel finds a nut.
That's a damned good description.
At 8/14/08 01:09 PM, Bolo wrote: My biggest objection regarding Neo Conservatism is its dependency and pandering to the radical Right-Wing base of Evangelical Christianity.
When Bolo speaks, you know something stupid, that has no base in reality is gonig to be said!
Bush is a left of center politician. Strike one.
Evangelicals lie staunchly against scientific progress, in an attitude that can best be described as, "I don't understand this, so I'm going to speak out against it!" The public at large supports stem cell research somewhere in the area of a 2-1 margin, yet with a Neo Conservative president, any legislation Congress passes on Stem Cell research is quickly shot down by veto.
Um, strike 2.
Bush passed a bill requiring federal legislation for embryonic stem cell research,
This research will never provide a cure,
OOPS!
We are now beginning to fall behind other countries in terms of Science -- the subject that for over a century was a given for us to be unequivocally leading. It's dangerous for us to be dawdling in this area when countries like Russia and China have the know-how and the will to overtake us.
Something like 60% of all cures come from the US. The other 40% come from the rest of the world. When the rest of the world combines are't even equalling our progress, this point falls short.
At 8/14/08 02:04 PM, Bolo wrote: My point is that other nations around the world see Stem Cell Research as a crack in our impenetrable wall of scientific progress that has for so long defined us. They, as in China and Russia, see this as an opportunity to play catchup, and perhaps exceed our efforts in the areas of science where we lack.
Shrug. Your "point" is wrong.
We have tried it for over a decade with not a single result. That every scientist with a brain has given up means we're provably superior. No nation will outpace on on stem cells.
At 8/4/08 12:30 PM, lapis wrote:
Of course those who martyr themselves for Islam martyr themselves for Islam.
Fuck you're an imbecile.
It's hard to compare how popular Islam was back then, because the threat of the Cold War may have subverted peoples' attention from them, but I'll stand by the fact (Or at least I certainly believe so) that Islam's time is NAO.
So..."I don't know what I'm talking about BUT!"
At 8/4/08 12:29 PM, lapis wrote:At 8/4/08 04:40 AM, WolvenBear wrote:Right, so this is what we've established: you were making it look like I needed to constantly call you names during that discussion but it was you who constantly needed to bring up the name calling (which, like I said before, was a response to your childish summary of the discussion in the earlier thread) to cloud the poor level of substance in the rest of your posts. Every single reference to bigotry or Islamophobia in that thread was brought up by you, followed by me telling you to stop whining. This was an issue that you found relevant enough to constantly bring up, not me.
Shrug, that's simply the way it is. I have no desire to pretend like youre a masterful debater. Your entire argument was that I hated Islam. Because, you know, you suck at the whole debate thing. All the references to Islamophobia were references to what you said about me. Sorry.
Yeah, right. You know Wolven, real winners don't need to constantly try to convince others of their superiority as they have nothing that they need to prove.
Yawn. Awww, it's bute. It admits it can't debate. Awww.
How ridiculously irrelevant, there is no verse that is abrogated by 2:144 so this has nothing to do with nussâkh and mansûkhât. In the sentence that contained the very first time I used the word abrogation in that thread (second post) I said I was talking about verses annulling other verses. For fuck's sake, you have no idea what I wrote in that thread, I guess it's easy that way to pretend that you kept hauling ass in every discussion we had.
I keep "pretending" I kept hauling as because I did. If the argument is "abrogation is not in the Quran" your argument is null and void. There's not a single Islamic school that accepts that argument. So um, every school of Islam acknowleges the cahnge in direction of prayer. That undermines your entire point.
Hahaha, that's fantastic. Fucking A. This warrants a picture. FIRST POST I made in troubles1's thread, the first one in which we EVER talked about Islam. Now what's that word I used about justified violence? Could it be ....... retaliatory???
I addressed that too. The sequence of events went like the following:
YOu: There's no violence in the Quran.
Me: You're a moron. There's tons of violence.
You: Well....well...well ts retalatory.
Me: Well, yea. Sometimes.
But that a hell of a long way from "their is no violence"....
Great conclusion, I now know why you think you owned me in every debate we've been in:
YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENED IN THOSE THREADS
Haha. Cheers, Wolven.
I think I owned you cause I'm always right and you're always wrong?
Let's call it like it is. I think I'm smArter than you cause I....well, I AM.
At 8/2/08 12:32 AM, Al6200 wrote: Really? Most nice private schools cost 50k a year (because the school often has an endowment the student usually pays less though), and a good private High School like Exeter costs 30k a year.
Exeter is also a boarding school. If you take out rent and food, and other stuff, evenExeter is cheaper than that.
The only reason why private schools would cost less then public schools (aside from federal funding) is that they can only choose to admit students who don't have problems, so no money needs to be spent on one-on-ones for the mentally or emotionally handicapped (some kids have a single adult that helps them around the entire day, that's a HUGE amount of money).
You're not going to find a single normal private school that doesn't help it's less able students.
The "private schools discriminate: meme is based off the fac that you have to have passing grades to get in...
At 8/3/08 09:55 AM, lapis wrote: NOT ONCE, you idiot, I called you a bigot once in the Falwell thread.
And you called me a bigot in that thread too. Nice try.
blah blah blah
So your stupid ass called me a bigot. Then when I brought it up to mock you, you reiterated it because youre simply too stupid to debate me. And in every debate we've had you've had your ass handed to you...
Gotcha. That makes me a bigot. I have the memo now.
Or tell me I wanted Islam to be violent.Yes, and I turned out to be right. You were by your own admission being hard on Islam because "people like me" (now I know that you thought I was a Muslim) had pushed you over the fence. You had negative experiences with people who defended the religion so you turned against them and argued that the religion was violent - hence, in order to support your case, you needed it to be violent.
Or not. On every single issue we debated I was right. You said abrogation was bullshit. Yet every school of Islam accepts that the direction f prayer has changed.
You said there was no violence in teh Quran than had to immediately pretend all teh violence was retaliatory...
You're not clueless. Youre a worthless moron who refuses to admit when you're out of your league.
At 8/3/08 09:14 AM, bcdemon wrote: Bush administration discusses ways to provoke a war with Iran. Cheney considered proposal to dress up navy seals as Iranians and shoot at them. Holy war mongering Batman. Too bad this kind of news doesn't hit FOX or CNN, I guess it would destabilize the region, the US region that is.
A buncha sites I'vde never heard of=bullshit.
At 8/3/08 04:16 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:Nixon wasn't a shining capitalist, nor is Bush. Let's not forget Nixon's gas rationing.
So your entire argument is based on the fact that Arnold left an oppressive country and fell in love with a liberal republican to prove your point? You're frigging kidding right?
Yea, if you ignore stuff like price caps, gas rationing etc.
Open challenge Cuppa. Show one time where I've ever been dishonest with you.This topic, where you specifically said I was saying capitalism wasn't being challanged, when I had said the opposite.
You said no such thing. You said the opposite. Granted, you're a moron who can't articulate his position...
The O'Reilly thread where you blatantly supported a man who had lied his ass off? Right.
Um, here's what happened.
You claimed O'Reilly said something 3 times. He was called on it on all three times and lied his way out if it To this day, under your story, he'd never admitted lying,
The reality: You made every last bit of it up. OReilly made a bad claim on two occasions. The first time he was called on it, he admitted guilt and changed his story. Wehn I confronted you on the fact that you were a liar, you admitted that your own links didn't support your story, but claimed it didn't matter. Thus, I was right, and you were dishonest.
Because it doesn't. The only "pro" of the Free Market is that it makes more money and makes money more efficiently, whereas socialism and mixed market is a giant money pithole. The fact is that financially, the free market can ALWAYS outperform the government. But this isn't ABOUT finances. If someone said "This new deal will make money", then it would be a good time to bring up the "Capitalism above all else argument". But I bet the politicians who made this bill would ADMIT this deal is bad financially, meaning that capitalism is irrelevant.
This is why I give you the benefit of the doubt Cuppa. You're honestly too stupid to understand your own arguments. If someone sayd "We're ignoring the free markets" and you claim "no we're not" you have to show it. Showing an abandoning of fre markets makes you look dumb....
And that's completely made up.
No, tyhat's exactly what you argued.
Actually, the point is that capitalism is irrelevent to the argument. Oh gee.
You can't say capitalisms irrelevant to the argument moron. Capitalism has been a central point. Fuck youre stupid.
At 8/3/08 08:51 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: blah blh blah
What a load of crap.
They=Republicans, led by McCain and Bush.
No one has claimed you shouldn't vote for him cause of his name or color, so you're still a liar.
At 8/2/08 08:48 AM, lapis wrote: Yeah, that's a complete misrepresentation of what happened in that thread about Falwell. When you called Muhammad, who I certainly never referred to as my prophet, a "conquerer, a looter, a thief, and an employer of assassins", I gave a factual response. The only hostile thing in my response to you "defiling my prophet" at that time was me writing out the 'word' sigh, which was, in fact, a result of the fact that we had already had a lengthy debate about that subject in the past.
Oh such bullshit,
http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/7033 90/2
How many times did you call me a bigot on that thread? Or tell me I wanted Islam to be violent. So, you basically threw out every common Muslim argument.
You started by giving a pathetic response. Then when it was clear you were out of your league you called me a bigot and an Islamophobe. Shove off.
I may have overstated your "Muslimness", but you certainly acted like a hysterical woman.
It was that same old thread by troubles1 that made my responses turn really sour, and specifically your cowardly attempt to blame me for making discussion in that thread impossible. We were discussing the meaning of the word fasâd in that old thread, which you insisted meant 'corruption' in the broadest sense of the word based on the Qur'an translation that you owned while I preferred Rodwell's 1876 translation which used the word 'disorders'
And I debated your cowardly ass while you called me names. Basically, it's because I'm right and youre a dishonest asshat.
Anyway, you never responded, which is fine,
Shooting that bullshit down too. I have always continued the debate from wherever we have left off. If I get busy and lose track of stuff, that's because I have other things to do. Shit happens. I have never backed off on an opportunity to debate you. And you have never proved me wrong.
It wasn't not your view on Islam or Muhammad that pissed me off, and I honestly mean that. It was YOU, as a person or Newgrounds BBS user or whatever, and specifically the absurd, self-reproach dodging manner that you use to describe debates that you discontinued, which you're doing in this thread as well.
I'm rebringing up the debates. If you'll go back, you'll see I'm far from shy in debating you. And I'm clearly more knowledgable. You claimed abrogation is bullshit. I demolished that. You claimed lying isn't Quranic based. I disproved you. Basically, if you ignore the parts where you say I want to sacrifice Muslim virgin women to drink their blood and rape their corpses, I'm in the right over you on every issue.
I wasn't necessarily debating for him, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and thought you had simply confused me with him and I specifically decided to mention that we were in agreement to make sure you wouldn't call my right to defend the Muslim side of the argument into question.
For a moment, I thought I HAD confused you. Then wen back and saw the thread. Nope, it was you.
If your only reason for thinking I was a Muslim was that I defended the Muslim side of the argument and that I at one point started to react in a hostile fashion because the only reason why someone could POSSIBLY dislike you is that he's an irrational offended Jihadist who riots every time someone makes a cartoon about Muhammad, then I guess I didn't need to mention seventy-one.
No, I thought you were an irrational Muslim because you acted like one, and debated like one. In light of the fact that theres not a single Muslim branch that doesn't accept some form of abrogation, you repeated yourself. In cases where you were clearly wrong, you called me a bigot. When asked to provide external links, you strenthened my case.
Either you're a Muslim apologist, or an imbecile. I have no nicities for you either way.
At 8/2/08 07:14 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: I never said Christians started bad, all I said was at the time of their greatest achievements they were. Islam, if its population boom is any indication, is approaching its time of power. Islam may have kicked off faster than Christianity, but that isn't relevant.
You really did:
Now, Christianity was pretty extreme back when it was first formed, and so were the nations that sponsored it. Outsiders were required to follow its laws, and those who didn't were often exiled or executed. Holy Wars, violence, death, all under the benevolent eye of the lord.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you poorly worded your argument. But it's exactly what you said.
Okay, I said, 'they weren't all the rage', not that they were unimportant. I'm not going to lie, I should have been a little less ambitious in my estimation. 100 years would have been better, but that doesn't change the fact that 50 years ago the News was all over the Reds, with barely a mention of the Middle East.
That's a very poor counter argument.
I never said they were the same thing. I did say, however, that they both display a similar level of violence when they are in such great degrees of power. Wait, I'm sorry... Hyperbole.
Except...they don't. We saw more deaths on 9/11 than during the Salem Witch Trials. The Muslim purges of Albania excede all other monothiestic religious violence throughout history!
'Every last one of.' There has been only one notable Muslim attack on the US, and after you say all of Islam is out to bite your ass, you call only call up the tiny group of fanatics? Not every Muslim is that EXTREEEEEEME. And you call out MY hyperbole.
Um, you said all Muslim extremists are poor and uneducated. I disproved it. That was the most notable and violent muslim attack. If it breaks your theory...welllllllll.......
At 8/2/08 04:23 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: The GOP member, George Bush backing man who left his home country to escape socialism then IMMEDIATELY decided that he loved Nixon because he heard Nixon making a speech in favor of Free Enterprise is a capitalist, yes.
Nixon wasn't a shining capitalist, nor is Bush. Let's not forget Nixon's gas rationing.
So your entire argument is based on the fact that Arnold left an oppressive country and fell in love with a liberal republican to prove your point? You're frigging kidding right?:
Actually, you dishonest asshole, I specifically stated they were limiting free market.
Open challenge Cuppa. Show one time where I've ever been dishonest with you. It's worth 100 bucks if you can do it. Once. Try. And I'd be REAAAAAL shy about calling someone dishonest after the O'Reilly thread....
You start off by saying:
"Free Market" has nothing to do with this.
You go on to argue that fast food joints aren't being screwed...its just that restaurants are being helped! And youre entire point is a refutation of someone talking about how we're abandoning the free market.
Maybe you idn't mean to argue against free markets...but you did.
To anyone who doesn't make a habit about lying to the person they are arguing with, I will repeat my position; no one is arguing that by limiting the free market, this deal will help the state or consumer financially. You can't argue "OMG BUT CAPITALISM ROX", because the entire point of capitalism is it's ability to make more money and sell better products. Maybe if the state thought this plan would somehow help financially, you could explain that capitalism is a better financial decision then government control 100 percent of the time, but since the entire point of the Bill is to achieve a specific, non-financial result capitalism can't offer, that argument doesn't work here. I suggest sticking to the argument that the government is stepping on personal freedoms, again.
So, your basic defense to lying through your teeth is to reiterate that everyone other than you is right? Curious strategy, but I wanna see where you're going with it!
I wouldn't say that too soon. On a point that's totally irrelevant to the topic at hand, opening that many fast food chains is NOT a good idea some times (Key word; sometimes). Starbucks did that without a clue what they where doing, and although it helped that meet opening quotas, it recently started crashing down on them. A new restaurant in the right place may make your company a nice little bit of cash, or it may be padding the President of the companies resume.
Starbucks failed due to bad business decisions, not location. Instead of trying to create the best product, Starbucks tried to bury their competition. Starbucks has gotten no less than 3 boycotts in the past year. There are a lot of reasons for Starbucks failure. Location isn't one of them.
At 8/2/08 04:21 AM, metalstorm wrote: Subways is a fast food restaurant. I also never implied that people who go to fast food restaurants do want to eat healthy. When I go to a fast food restaurant I don't want to eat healthy either but the difference between me and someone who is obese is that I am responsible enough to moderate how much I eat and how often I eat fast food.
Who cares? I don't give a flying one about what a great human being you are.
I'm well aware of this and I never said that fast food restaurants should have to offer healthy alternatives. Although, mind you, the 'smart ones' are.
How is it smart? As we've both acknowledged, salads don't go over well in fast food.
I'd say it would only really be appropriate for the government to intervene in extenuating circumstances and this would include situations where fast-food related obesity is leading to a diversion of tax payers dollars from other places in order to subsidize medical treatment of obese individuals.
AND HERE'S THE PROBLEM.
The problem is that government has stepped in and delegated this role to itself.
There's no tax payer funds at stake without the government offering. This is like me offering to buy you a free lunch then complaining that it was expensive.
And which right would that be? Believe it or not, gluttony is not a right.
Yes. Yes it is.
At 8/2/08 05:14 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: I was always under the impression that playing the race card was soemthing that people pulled out when it wasn't relevant or they had no other defense for something.
Coming out and saying "My opponent is saying you shouldn't vote for me cause I'm black" is irrelevant if your opponent is saying no such thing. You'r being a filthy liar and a race baiter.
Obama is black and running for the presidency. The entire world is focusing on the fact that he's black. Him stating ' yes I'm black, but don't let that put you off voting for me' is not playing the race card. It is him addressing the fact that certain parts of American society will be campaigning agains thim simply because he is Black.
Horsecrap. Moving the goalposts.
At 8/2/08 05:19 PM, CIX wrote: What fact? You haven't presented a single piece of evidence. You just think we can't be in a recession because it hasn't been "two months".
Two quarters. And yes, that means we can't be in a recession. Kinda like you can't be an amputee unless you've had something amputated. Words have meanings. By saying "who gives a shit about 'two months'" it rather shows a bias against the truth.
Let's see, 4 year unemployment high and the dollar is weak around the world. I think that's a strong indication that we are not growing.
Yea, that's fucking stupid. "We can't have job growth, because the dollar is weak, and unemployment is higher than it's been...recently....you know...a couple of years and stuff....bagel"
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dic tionary/entry/recession
"An extended decline in general business activity, typically two consecutive quarters of falling real gross national product. "
THIS is the definition of a recession.
Contrasted with:
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national /gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm
"Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 1.9 percent in the second quarter of 2008
(that is, from the first quarter to the second quarter), according to advance estimates released by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the first quarter, real GDP increased 0.9 percent."
Well shit. No one agrees with you. Damn.
At 8/2/08 08:51 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Do you know what could really help your argument?
An external source.
We're in a recession because i said so
We're not in a recession because i said so
doesn't cut it for me.
There was a lot more to it than "We're not in a recession because I said so."
Here, I'll post the whole argument again:
A recession is two consecutive periods of negative economic growth. We have not had a single month of negative growth, therefore there is no possible way we can be in a recession.
This is why every economic story has the little tidbit buried 33 paragraphs down..."Despite massive layoffs in XYZ sector, the economy has continued to grow."
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/20 08-03-04-local-differences_N.htm
Notice the wide swath of green.
There' simply no credible argument for recession.
At 8/2/08 03:31 AM, metalstorm wrote: Did you even read what I wrote? Try re-reading the last sentence.
Wow.
"Reread my last sentence"
I did. I t was dumb last time, but ok....here's a more in depth mockery:
1. All fast food restaurants without exception will put on a sauce or cheese as long as you ask.
2. This doesn't make the food more healthy, and can make it less healthy.
3. Every fast food restaurant I've ever heard of offers salads. This is the least seling item on their menu.
And here's why you're stupid!:
1. People who go to fast food don't WANT to eat healthy, or they'd go to Subways.
2. Forcing a company to carry healthy items will no force people to eat them.
3. All of this pretends that this is the appropriate role of gov't to tell us how to act and regulate our food.
4. It denies the right of the individual.
At 8/2/08 02:22 AM, CIX wrote: I'm a tool.
So, in response to the fact that there's no denying that the economy is growing...you stick your fingers in your ears and scream "lalalalalala". Yea, sorry bud. You won't win any pissing contests on this board.
At 7/29/08 05:32 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: I'm not just talking about Rome, in fact, I never even mentioned it. If you'd like to recall France, Spain, and England, all of which basically controlled the world from the mid-12th century to right before world War I. And these countries conquered, banished, killed, or otherwise brutalized any non-Christians they could find. They launched a hundred-year long war in the name of God, then another one, and then Spain decided to go off and start the greatest Crusade in the history of the planet. Then the colonized the Americas and converted or killed them, too. Christianity, at the time of its greatest conquests, was a barbaric, warloving, horrible religion with a bad case of superiority complex.
You talked about Christianity from it's origins. It's origins were from the time of death, approximately 40 AD. Or, if you wish to consider it in terms of being a state religion, 300 AD. Pointing to the 12th century as "when it was first formed" is like pointing to the civil war as the start of the United States. Even granting your point for the ssimpel sake of argument means you're still clueless about the very argument you put forward.
You: When Christian Started it was violent!
Me: Um, the Christians were murdered by the Romans til 300 AD.
You: Oh, I like to ignore the centuries of persecution and jump to the 1100s where Christianity was bad. That's more fun!
Me: But that's more than a millenium into Christianity...
Were Muslims all the rage 50 years ago? Not really. It's true that back in the the day, they were pretty big too, but it has been over a millennium. For this reason I say this is their greatest hour (So far). Mostly because they're still growing and will soon be the largest religion EVAR.
Um, again, no.
The Muslim infitada against Israel is more than 50 years old, and has been going on since the restoration of Israel. The Albanian Massacre predated that, and even that was predated by the joys of the Ottoman empire. Even in recent history, Muslim violence is far from unheard of...leading Churchill to name it a religion of violence.
You know exactly what I mean, don't hide behind your sarcasm.
I'm sorry, you're right.
The books are different. The origins are different. The middles are different. The present day realities are different. Even though there's not a single fucking similarity, they must OBVIOUSLY be the same thing. Well, damn, I just slipped back into mockery didn't I?
Were knights barbaric 1,000 years ago? No, that's just what they did. The Middle East has done a glorious job in keeping their civilization as much as possible to the Dark ages as possible. Sure, technology has advanced, but the real measure of a society's development is the advancement of their culture. Therefor, for all intents and purposes, The Islamic States, and the people within them, aren't barbaric, just ignorant.
Yea ok. Bullshit.
Herein lies your idiocy. That statement I made was against everything you've said so far, and you say that you agree just because somewhere in there I said that if I had agreed with YOU, I would be ignorant. You're more interested in taking cheap shots than you are in debating.
I dare you to provide two bits of evidence. One, prove that the educated Muslims, not the retarded brain-washed ones, actually have any interest in killing you. Second, prove that Muslims are actually the #1 source of misery in this world.
Every last one of the 9/11 hijackers was highly educated.
2nd, hyperbole. For a genius you miss a lot.
That's a low blow, Colonel.
Pointing out your terrible arguments is a low blow? Crap son, I hope you don't play sports. Heaven knows how you'd take a blocked goal or an out....
At 7/29/08 01:29 PM, lapis wrote: stuff
OK< so you argued with me from the Muslim position and took offense claiming "I called your prophet bad names." If you don't get why I thought you were Muslim...well, no, I'm not gonna try to sugar coat this, You're a fucking idiot.
Don't play games, you attacked me for "defiling your prophet". If you were speaking for someone else say so, otherwize, shove it up your ass.
Our dialogue basically consisted of you calling me an Islamophobic bigot, me being factually correct on Islamic texts, you calling me names again, and then me telling you to go jump off a bridge.
Now your entire argument is that you were debating me for someone else...which you never mentioned before. Because we both know that I would've refrained from calling you an asshat (among other things) if you'd told me that it was your Muslim friend debating me. Even now, ou're not honest, you twat.
