1,987 Forum Posts by "WolvenBear"
At 6/21/08 07:05 PM, BAWLS wrote: I'm sure you have better reasons for why Carter sucked, other than that the conservative consensus is that he was terrible. Carter may have been ineffective, but his presidency didn't leave behind anything of the magnitude Bush's war in Iraq will.
The hell it didn't. All of our problems in Iran and Iraq are Carter's fault.
His continued interference in the MidEast is leading to the continued deaths in Israel.
His entire term was a joke.
He was awful.
With regard to the topic, the democratic congress can't be expected to do much as long as a republican, and a hard-right one at that, is president. Veto-proof majorities are hard to get.
Bush is a center left politician. He's hardly a right winger. And anyone who doesn't get this is simply too stupid to comment on politics.
The most realistic, significant promise the democrats made was to raise the minimum wage. That happened. Everything else they've tried to do has been shot down by either the minority or the president. The U.S. government is set up so a simple majority can't do whatever it wants.
The minimum wage raise was a terrible thing.
Attacks a president of opposite party isn't specific to this congress. Remember Monica?
Laws were broken there. Remember?
At 6/21/08 04:06 PM, poxpower wrote: Yes, but they claim that God gave them an "unchangeable, holy, timeless, best, absolute" etc. moral code.
That's one of their best arguments to have a religion: "without a code from God, how could we pick morals?"
And yet they themselves pick from that code what they want and what they don't.
You see this in any indevor. You see it in law, religion, education, Whatever. There. Is. No. Point. Here.
Pointing out human flaw doesn't negate truth.
haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa hahahahahaha
hahahaha
Yeah? Like what.
hahahaha
All of them. Don't be childish.
I didn't say morals don't change, I said they evolve naturally. They don't come from the bible.
We can even show through evolution how morals like "the golden rule" are extremely beneficial.
Not really. If my neighbors wife is fertile, evolutionally it makes sense for me to have sex with her and pass on my genes. If my neighbor has something I want, it makes sense for me to steal it to better my life. The golden rule, and evolutionary law often directly contradict each other.
And ANIMALS DO THAT. They've been doing it for MILLIONS OF YEARS because it's the best possible strategy for survival of a whole species.
Who the hell taught you about animals?
I mean seriously? Many animals eat their young. They kill each other over territory. They fight over mates or food, even when both are plentiful. Many animals kill over leading a pack.
This idea that animals are benevolent and work for the good of the pack over self interest is a Disney fantasy.
oh but waitwaitwait all that stuff is just "an allegory" right?
So by what fucking right do you come and tell others that the passages on gays is REALLY REAL?
All the stuff on slaves, racism, sexism, murder, rape, torture, pillaging. No, all that isn't for real, but sodomy? Yeah that part is litteral.
I never claimed anything else.
Fuck, Pox, are you too pathetic to debate me here too? This pisses me off. You and Rav are perhaps two of the smartest people on the board and you're debating like children.
Most of the stories in the Bible are simple history, with no direct commandments. Even if the Biblical "slaughter the 7 tribes" stuff was a demand on everyone...it's no longer relevant. The 7 tribes the Israelites slaughtered are gone. Even if one wants to demand modern Christans go destroy "Jericho" (to be a prick like you're being now)....ok...point it out! Where is it? Destroyed thousands of years ago you say? Pity....
Truly ridiculous. It's like you're reading Lord of the Rings and you think that it's all fiction except for Gandalf, whom you presume exists somewhere today casting spells.
Oh yea, that explains my position.
No, it's more like you claiming "OH MY GOD! GANDALF KILLED FRODO IN LORD OF THE RINGS!" Then when I point out he didn't you have no comeback, except "Well, it's fiction anyways."
OK, whatever, I don't care if you believe the Bible. But don't even bring it up, and then piss and moan when someone steps up and tells you that you have no clue what you're talking about.
Secondly, I looked into it, and there's nothing Jesus ever said against gays. The only things against gays are in the old testament, which christians CONSTANTLY say you have to ignore. The others are in St-Paul's I think, and they refer to events in the old testament which is apparently must a metaphor in the first place.
Sounds like Porky Pig is taking over. A bu- a bu- a bu-.....
Jesus didn't need to bring it up.
That's nonsense. Last term, my congressman didn't talk about habeus corpus....must not exist anymore.....
Ridiculous. The chinese invented gun powder. The greeks invented philosophy, poetry, theatre, astronomy etc. The arabs made huge progress in mathematics. The egyptians knew a lot about medicine and construction. Christianity's rise coincides historically exactly with the fall of the Roman empire, plunging the world into 1000 years of NO ECONOMIC GROWTH and NO PROGRESS WHATSOEVER.
Until when? Until the rennaissance, where they REDISCOVERED TEXTS/ART FROM THE GREEKS and THE ROMANS and THE EGYPTIANS and THE ARABS.
HOLY CRAP! The fall of the biggest empire in the world caused chaos? Well, I'm shocked!
However, as even wikipedia notes, all of the Islamic scientific advances made were taken off of earlier findings by others:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_sc ience
That's where science comes from. Christianity hasn't ever done SHIT-ALL for science, it just set up back about 1000 years.
Yea, that's what happened.
The fall of the Roman empire set all of Europe into chaos for centuries. That Christianity helped pick up the pieces of a broken continent and put them back together is neat.
Christianity didn't cause the Roman empire to collapse and therefore is certainly not responsible for the bad effects. It did put it back together and is responsible for the positives tho.
I really don't want to be mean here, but please PLEASE be honest with yourself and others.
I always am.
And, Pox, we both know I'm right here. Which is why you've suddenly went evasive.
The fall of Rome had jack crap to do with Christianity. The rebuilding of Europe did.
The rise of MODERN science is all Christianity. Before that was hodgepodge discoveries here and there.
Did I miss anything?
At 6/21/08 03:46 PM, Ravariel wrote:At 6/21/08 05:24 AM, WolvenBear wrote:No, it's really not... because apparently you seem to think that Jesus removed all the rules you odn't like and didn't remove the rules you don't. There is no condemning homosexuality in the New Testament. None. All that happens is that god punished Sodom for its wickedness by making people do gay things. If the people find gay stuff abhorrent, then obviously it would be a punishment to be compelled to do so... just like I would find being made to eat vomit abhorrent. Does that mean that if god made me eat vomit, that doing so was a mortal sin?
I never claimed Jesus overturned all the rules I "didn't like". You made three EXCEPTIONALLY stupid points:
1. Christians are required to kill gays. (We're not. Jesus overturned the penalty of death for sexual crimes.)
2. The Old Testiment requires we kill those who eat pork. Or ignore the Sabbath. (Jesus overturned the ban on the Sabbath, and the penalty for eating pig was never death.)
3. The ban on pork was stupid to begin with. (It wasn't. It had a scientific reason that we understand NOW.)
Your response to being wrong was to claim that Christians weren't perfect.
I'm repeating...THIS IS IRRELEVANT.
While homosexuality is not mentioned in the NT, Christ does reaffirm marriage for a man and a woman.
lmfao. Right... because none of our morals existed before the abrahamic faiths... lol.
I'm sorry, show me any significant opposition to slavery outside Judeo Christian values. Infanticide? Rape?
I already addressed this with the Spartan argument. The spartans were one of the greatest societies outside of Christianity. Yet they were still into eugenics, killing unarmed messangers, and widespread warfare.
Hmm... I smell more hypocrisy and a self-contradictory argument... anyone else getting that whiff?
Maybe other people that don't have a legitimate argument?
I though Jesus abrogated these rules...? Oh wait... it's just the one's YOU find silly... because YOU don't interpret the bible... because it's so clear-cut and concise... right...
I'm sorry you're a biblical illiterate. And I'm disappointed that you (one of the smartest debaters on this board) is making such a stupid argument. IF I had ever come at you with such a pathetic case in any other debate, you'd tear me apart for shoddy debating. Yet, here, since you have no clue what you're talking about, OOOOOHHHHHH, it's all about
But not this one you don't like, eh? Funny that.
Jesus, Rav, it's like someone slipped you a retarded pill.
Jesus overturned the ban on the Sabbath. "Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."
The story of Jesus protecting the prostitute from stoning is the basis for overturning the imposition of the death penalty for sexual offenses (among others). It does NOT overturn the ban on sexual impropriety, just lifts the stoning aspect.
Actually, that wasn't my point... sigh. My point is this: the are TWO times when homosexuality is mentioned in the bible. The first is in a list of rules you claim was abolished by Christ (even though he did say "I come not to abolish the old ways, but to fulfill them"... but let's ignore that shall we?), the second is a description of a punishment god used on Sodom. Now, the first was either abolished by christ or it wasn't... depending on who you ask apparently. If it wasn't, then by what standard do you figure that all of the other ones were? Did he say "Yeah... except for the homo shit... that's nasty" (paraphrased) somewhere that I don't know about?
I said, SPECIFIC rules were mentioned by Christ and overturned. The Sabbath and the death penalty for sexuality are what we're talking about. The rules you mentioned were the ones I was responding to.
And if god made people homo (like in Romans)... then how can homosexuality be unholy? You said yourself that many of the rules in Leviticus were about health... anal sex in a time where bathing was...rare... would be a hideous health risk, and thus would be an easy target for such rules. Now that we know why the rules are in place, we can easily avoind the dangers it was put their to warn us about. Which is exactly your reason why you don't follow the mixed threads and other bs.
Granted, perhaps I should pay closer attention to the clothes I buy.
Never did I say those health risks made teh rules irrelevant now that we know about them.
Indeed pointing out the health risks was because either you or pox said the law was stupid to begin with. I proved it wasn't. Now, you're trying to claim that my undeniable proof of validity is proof that I have abandoned the laws. That's dishonest.
Give me a GOOD scriptural reason. I dare you.
Read above.
Yer goin' to hell!
Based on? Every day I eat it, I'm unclean til nightfall....
Anal sex was a health issue, so making a law against it was brilliant! But we know better now how to keep clean and avoid disease (and better how to treat disease)... so what are you saying?
Sex in the bible has always been treated as both a health and a moral issue.
Morality aside, homosexuals have a higher rate of disease (even after we know about it). So the law still makes good common sense, even if morals don't apply.
Handily ignoring all the ones for which death was the punishment, I see.
The hell? I addressed every single argument you made.
You incorrectly listed several things for which the penalty was never death, and connected them to sexual impropriety for which Christ lifted teh death penalty.
This is pure hubris. You list things for which the death penalty NEVER applied. I point out that no one was ever put to death for it and you say I dodge the issue? Does religion fry your brain THAT MUCH?
ALL sex was deemed impure in some way... because like you said, it was a desire, a pleasure of the flesh, an obstacle to enlightenment.
Procreative sex was still deemed a neccessity.
When something is so mild as to be nonexistent, then it seems to me you're projecting.
Buddhism generally regards sex as to be done for procreation. In addition to the rules against homosexuals in the clergy, it is clear most Buddhist sects have no positive views of it.
I'm not saying there's a scriptural basis FOR same sex marriages... I'm merely saying there's no scriptural basis AGAINST it.
Oh yes there is. Scripture doesn't mention partners. Scripture mentions man and woman. And it bans homosexuality. That Jesus never overturned this ban works against you too.
I'd even pint to Matthew 5:27 and say you have no place talking about being a good christian and following what Jesus said.
So, again, you are simply unable to argue me, and instead try to shut me down.
I AM CORRECT.
Look, Rav, if you wanna debate, offer something. Right now, all you have is that I'm a sinner (like everyone else), and that some Christians, with no doctrinal basis, ignore the ban on homosexuality.
My point still stands uncontested.
At 6/21/08 01:54 AM, poxpower wrote: Pick one.
Both have dramatically increased.
It's folly to claim otherwise.
At 6/21/08 11:43 AM, Earfetish wrote:At 6/20/08 11:01 PM, Memorize wrote: Welcome to the 60's, which paved the way for personal irresponsibility without accountability!As far as I'm aware, anyway, the 60s paved the way for freedom to break from conformity, not reckless amoral hedonism. I thought the 60s philosophy was all about being a peaceful and moral person and trying not to harm the world.
Yes, the quest for free love, for sex, drugs and rock and roll, was an inherently moral quest.
Of course the 60's was about reckless amoral hedonism. What part of "let's take a lot of drugs, have sex with strangers, and rebel against authority" says otherwise?
At 6/21/08 10:19 AM, Flanofthefuture wrote: It's the girl's right to do whatever they like with their bodies.
- Flan
Yea, if the 17 teenaged girls all have good paying jobs that allow them to care for the baby without a father. More likely, all these girls are unemployed and live with their parent(s). Whatever conditions existed to cause this will be passed on to a new generation. These babies will also be more likely to have children early, commit crimes, not finish school, and be a drain on society.
Actions do not exist in a vacuum. These girls choices affect the rest of us too.
At 6/21/08 12:44 AM, poxpower wrote:At 6/20/08 11:58 PM, Grammer wrote:And yet there's people trying TO PASS LAWS, IN THE REAL WORLD based on SOMETHING SOMEONE MIGHT HAVE WRITTEN CENTURIES AGO WHILE HE WAS INSPIRED BY GOD!
And? We have people trying to pass laws today based on a failed ideology that killed millions across Asia and Europe and Latin America. What IS your point?
You don't understand what I'm saying.
Christians think a marriage is BETTER than a civil union, for INSANE REASONS. And they want to impose on gays the term "civil union" or any other term that isn't "marriage".
That is BY FAR worse than racism.
That is teh dumbest thing I have ever heard.
Gay marriage isn't comparable to the civil rights movement. Why?
Marriage is based on societal acceptance. Being married is society approving of your union. No one has a right to approval. Do I care if Jimmy Bob screws his sister? Not really. It's kinda nasty, but if they both like it...AWESOME! Have fun with that. I have no legal right to prevent Jimmy and his sister from knocking boots. However, when Jimmy and his sister come to me and tell me I have to bless their union, I certainly do not.
The "gay rights" movement is inherently dishonest. "We want equal rights" is bullshit. They HAVE equal rights. They can marry any person of the opposite sex who is not a close blood relative, who is of age in that state, as long as neither of them are ALREADY married. The case for gay marriage shrivels up when it's pointed out that straight people have limitations too. Yet the call for Polygamists, incestualists and pedophiles to "be with who they love" is nonexistant.
The gay rights movement is about forcing society to accept a practice as EQUALLY VALID with straight marriage that is not only biologically unequal, but is rejected by a majority of Americans. THe "we have a right to live our lives in peace" argument has become "We're here, we're queer, and you must publically celebrate our deviance from the norm." Much sophestry has been put forward on the argument, but THIS is the center of the argument. You do not have a right to be accepted, loved or given government benefits.
So HOW CAN YOU EVEN BE CHRISTIAN?
( if you are. Hope you're not cause you'd be horrible at it ).
We are all sinners who are granted paradise not through our own actions but through the blessing of God. While our actions and thoughts are what he judges us on, it is HIS judgement that matters.
Ok so you have no free will then.
Well I guess you DON'T understand your religion after all. The entire point is that God gave you free will so that you could choose your own faith and either go to hell or heaven ( wow that sure sounds like a real choice! )
Yea, that's not how it works. And this is why people with no knowledge of religion should not debate it. Jesus' followers despaired when he told them it was impossible for them to get into heaven on their own merits. (Camel through the eye of a needle story.) But that only through God's grace was such a thing possible.
God does that shit all the time. HE orders executions, stoning, punishments for women, rape etc. Plus how can it be unholy if God made them do it?
What a piss poor argument.
Man religion is endlessly entertaining.
Athiests who don't understand religion commenting on it is mind numbingly tedious.
At 6/20/08 05:37 PM, fli wrote: Goes to show you--
Christianity is a very diverse religion-- and albiet WolvenBear says that nobody can be a Christian and gay at the same time, others will always contradict that.
I never claimed one couldn't be gay and Christian. I did however say that they were ignoring a basic tenet of their faith. That some Christians in your church formed a LGBT group doesn't speak to the word of the Bible as to their ignoring of it.
The sad thing is...
everyone of them believes that they're right.
And then there are those of us who are.
Look you can call yourself a follower of Karl Marx and be a capitalist. You can be a Scientologist who believes in taking drugs. You can be a Douglas Adams follower who thinks the number 42 SUCKS. And you can be a Christian who openly celebrates homosexuality. In all cases you are ignoring the words of your chosen belief system.
I don't give a damn if gays get married. I really don't. Have fun. Enjoy yourself. I pray for all of you to be insanely happy. And those of you who are my friends I will vouch for if given a chance on the day of judgement.
But I have no desire in pretending that such an action is in line with the teachins of my faith. Nor do any of you have any real argument on a scriptural basis for why gay marriage would be allowed. Instead all three of you have put forward pathetic arguments of such vapidity that I have seen you mock others for on other threads. Not one of you has offered a debate. "Christians are hypocrites." Ok, granted. 99% of all people are. Homosexuality is still prohibited in the bible. "The Bible says this this this and this." And it also says homosexuality is prohibited. "Some christians disagree!" Who cares? The bible still prohibits it. None of this changes that.
If you think the Bible is useless that's wonderful. Argue that. If you think that we have non-biblical reasons to allow it, argue that. And if you just don't give a damn and want it because it makes you feel good, then say so. But don't argue Biblical rational, and then complain when I point out that you're wrong.
At 6/20/08 04:11 PM, poxpower wrote: Look at religious people.
If you've ever debated them about their holy book, you'll notice they pick and choose what parts to follow and what parts NOT to follow.
If you've talked to anybody, you'll find that they pick beliefs that they like and beliefs that they don't.
Hypocracy is a lame comeback.
Minus some stupid little club rules against eating bacon and about wearing a napkin on your head. THAT, religion can show you how to do. No idea what's the use of it, but yeah if you want to have to follow lots of pointless little rules and rituals, then be religious.
That ignores the profound impact Judeo-Christian beliefs have had on our society.
Any secular humanism "morals" that exist came from the Abrahamic faiths.
Good morals? That comes naturally through upbringing no matter the society, the religion or the time.
Nonsense. That is complete BS and we both know it.
The Spartans believed that children with the smallest defect were to be cast on the hill to die.
The universal morality argument falls flat.
There's gay christians.
??
There's pedophile christians. There's murdere christians. All of whom are convinced just as you are that they're heaven-bound.
And? That's not proof Pox. That's lazy ass debating. You are way to smart to be making such piss poor arguments.
And you have the balls to tell me that your interpretation of a book is better than theirs? hahahaha
Yes. I do have those balls.
Because I don't "interpret" the Bible. I read it. Thou shalt not murder means thou shalt not murder. You shall not lay with a man as with a woman means what it says. These are clear cut commandments. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong.
Typical. Every kind of religious person thinks they are the right kind, and that's without any sort of soul-searching, evidence, logic or knowledge. From the day they're old enough to talk to the day they're old enough to die, their religion is invariably the right one.
The point was never "Is gay marriage ok?" or "Is gay marriage good?" but instead "Is there a basis in Christian teachings to allow homosexual marriage?" The answer is no. That you don't want to address this anymore shows a flaw in your argument.
So the ones in the majority pass rules against the ones in minority, without anyone having a real say. Religion can't be part of a democracy because a democracy implies debate, and a religion is anti-debate. It's "that's what it is, shut up and accept it".
How pathetic.
We're not there yet and I don't think we can go back, but look at the history of the christian nations and the history of the muslims, it's quite telling. They were on par with the romans and the greeks all the way up till the crusades or so when religious fervor nipped their enlightment in the bud. They started burning "heathen" documents etc. and it was the christian nations who saved most of it and who had their own enligtment and here we are today, far more advanced socially, economically and technologically than they are, and we started out BEHIND them after the roman empire fell.
Yea, that's not the history of Islam at all. In fact, for it's first 300 years, Dar al Islam was in a constant state of war. The same stuff that caused Christians to finally attack Dar al Islam in the Crusades had been going on for CENTURIES. Many of the discoveries linked to Islam weren't made by Muslims, but Jews in dhimmi status. Nothing changed for Islam during the Crusades.
That's what happens when you pick religion over everything else. Religion is NOT an agent of change and progress, it is a resistor. Regardless of wether a religion would be good, bad, fair, unfair, we know for certain that they don't want things to change because as a premise to all religions is the "we're right, this is the word of God for now and forever".
This is rather cut down by Christianity being the foundation for modern science.
At 6/20/08 05:10 PM, Ravariel wrote: Well, while we're at it... have you killed your muslim today?
I haven't. Thank you for reminding me.
Mind you these are all from the same chapter that condemns homosexuality. One of two places in the bible that it's mentioned. So it must mean that it's far more important than all the other things that are mentioned many times, no? Let us continue with interesting things that deserve death in your bible, shall we?
All abrogated by Christ.
Hmm... awful lot of death we need to deal out 'round here. I'll be waiting for you. Your god commands that I be put to death for blasphemy... So... will you follow your gods wishes or no?
No. I think I'll let my God strike you down himself when he so chooses.
Hmm... Contradiction? Nah, it's pretty clear later in the chapter that they're talking about times other than are justified or required by god. So, since we're all christian and shit in this country... why iss the defaul punishment for murder not the death penalty? God obviously commands it.
Agreed. Death Penalty all around!
Eh, you get the point... I hope.
No, Rav. I don't. You either have no clue what you're talking about, or you don't give a damn.
The "religion demands violence" canard is old and tired, and frankly brought out by people who have a "Bible for Dummies" book. Jesus abrogated many many verses of the Old Testiment. Death for sexual crimes was prohibited in the story of Jesus saving the prostitute. The Sabbath restriction was overturned when Jesus proclaimed "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." No one with even passing knowledge of the Bible can claim all these things are demanded of Christians, because Christ changed the rules.
So, because we understand why it was forbidden, it's okay to un-forbid it? That's awfully cheeky of you. But I'm sure God will understand why you disobeyed him.
I don't eat sheep. Nor bugs. And I avoid pork unless it's all there is to eat.
My point was simple, and you're ignoring it because it doesn't fit your rhetoric:
Eating cloven footed animals, pigs in specific, was a health issue. Therefore, the original law was not silly...it was brilliant.
Furthermore, the penalty for this was never death. It was simply that one would be unclean for the day...to be shunned.
As was pointed out... not every one... and not even every major one.
Sigh I hit briefly on this, but here's the expanded version. Hinduism saw sex as a hinderance to enlightenment. Sex was deemed a procreative act, and everyone was expected to marry and continue the trend. Non-vaginal sex was deemed to be impure.
Buddhism also has rules against homosexuality. No matter how light, neither of these religions favors homosexuality.
According to you. Are you god? Are you the final authority on what god meant? Who are you to say who is and is not following christianity? Thing about the bible is this: it's open to a ton of interpretations... even things about which you feel strongly (I realize this is a difficult thing for religious folks to accept). That's kinda why there are a hundred different sects of christianity... all with different takes on scripture... INCLUDING homosexuality.
No major Christian church has ever deemed homosexuality acceptable under the eyes of God. The episcopalians, who openly reject the Bible, are it.
You can be snide all you want, Rav. But the Bible prohibits the act. You can claim the Bible is wrong, and I don't care. That's an honest argument. But claiming there is a scriptural basis for same sex marriage when the Bible prohibits it is stupid.
At 6/20/08 09:41 AM, morefngdbs wrote: I just checked on a couple of religious sites i go to & the Buddhist Religion is not against Gay marriage.
Now some of you may not want to allow that Buddhists are part of a 'religion' but since there approximatly 1.5 billion of them on this planet they ,in my mind , have some credibility as an organized religion.
There are indeed many Buddhist schools of thought which condemn homosexuality.
This is baed on the fact that Buddha condemned "unlawful sexuality" and had no desire to define what that meant. But the Vinaya mentions homosexuality as a sin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuali ty_and_religion#Buddhism
http://www.buddhanet.net/homosexu.htm
It makes me cringe everytime this stupid video is brought up. The section on comparing Christ to other mythological figures has at least 70 errors in it. If it cannot get such simple stuff right, how can we trust it on 9/11 analysis.
At 6/20/08 05:40 AM, Ravariel wrote: Only if they also raise that same eyebrow for people who wear a cotton/poly blend or work on Sunday or eat a cloven-hooved animal that doesn't chew its cud, or, or, or...
The prohibition on working on the Sabbath was lifted by Jesus. THe ban on cloven footed animals was a health issue. And the cotton/poly thing, you're pulling out of nowhere.
The same book that everyone points to as their "reason" for all of this hullabaloo, also mentiones these other things that are apparently worthy of the death penalty.
Uh not quite. The death penalty for sabbath breaking is in exodus.
The penalty for not eating kosher is to be "unclean til evening".
But all those are "silly", no? Or do we just overlook them because they're inconvenient?
Well the sabbath was specifically overturned for Christians. Doctrinally, it is not part of our canon. The other one was a health concern. We now scientifically understand why.
Still true.
Actually no, Rav. It's not. The case for religious gay marriage is insanely stupid.
It ignores that every major religion has banned gay sex. It also ignores that every other religion has defined marriage as "one man and one woman".
Unless they subscribe to an interpretation of the bible that is welcoming of gays... which I would assume most gay christians do.
Then. They. Are. Not. Following/ Christian. Teachings. Period.
The Bible is exceptionally clear, not only in Leviticus, but in the New Testiment as well, that homosexuality is an abomination. If a person is Christian, but pushing for gay marriage...they are ignoring their sacred texts.
It's like someone saying "I am a follower of Marx and I believe in the free market!" Um...no.
At 6/19/08 10:44 PM, poxpower wrote: This is EXACTLY what happened to muslims. Did you know that in the time of crusades, muslims were an advanced nation of intellectuals? They had the best science and the best morals around. But then extremists took over their country, who though JUST LIKE YOU "it's ok to think what you like under a religion" and look where they are today.
They live in a HELL HOLE.
Wow, I don't even know where to begin with that....
Religion can't tell you how to live your life...
Well, if you sign up for it, yea it kinda can.
Grammer's point is well taken. The majority of Christian faiths look upon homosexuality as a sin. If you're signing up for a belief system which says "marriage is for a man and a woman only" and "homosexuality is a sin", it's natural for people to raise and eyebrow at supposed Christians fighting for the right to gay marriage.
there's about 2394239423 kinds of christian.
Since there's no evidence for anything in any religion, who's to say they have it wrong? They have just as much evidence as anyone who'd say that "you can't have sex before marriage" or "you can't be gay god hates that". It's a giant web of stupid and that's the overview: gay christians have just as much a claim to marriage as anyone.
Yea, not so much. Not under laws, and CERTAINLY not under Christianity.
To put it simply: it's really dumb.
Personal opinion.
same reason as anyone.
Not really. It conflicts with their CHOSEN belief system. It's like being an athiest gay boy scout.
At 6/20/08 01:20 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Also, I never understood American patriotism and the hatred of associations that don't like America. I don't like America, so I should leave. Let's populate America with blind idiots who never question the government.
Yea, that's TOTALLY what I said.
I tell you what. You pay me 10 bucks a month. I come to your house and take a room. I constantly tell you what a worthless piece of trash you are. I create a counsil of all your neighbors, including the drug dealers and pedophiles. When one of your neighbors breaks your front window I take their side. In fact, using the authority you give me, I demand you pay THEM for the inconvenience of having to defend themselves against your "slanderous charge". I put the committee I made in charge of deciding what you can do on your property. I demand a unanimous vote for you to call the cops if anything happens to you or your property, and I give the people who hate you most a vote.
After a while of this shit, if you have any brains, you'd stop paying me money and tell me to get the hell out of your house. This is what the UN does. We pay and house them, and they do nothing for us in return. They work against OUR and our closest allies interests.
Moreover, they do nothing for anyone else either. They sent unarmed troops to Rwanda with orders to not interfere if they saw machete executions. They wag their fingers at Iran and the Sudan about their human rights violations. Writing letters! My god, next we might get a phone call! GASP!
In addition to their anti-American/anti-Israelism, and their utter uselessness, add to that that they are involved in sex scandals world wide. Their involvement in the Oil For Food scandal was one of the most shameful things in history.
Why in God's name wouldn't any thinking person be against this organization?
Also, the post you made was actually intelligent, if not biased. Since I have no will to debate you on every subject we will inevitably bring up, I'll just say that I lost. Why the fuck not. I know I'm right, why am I even on the internet to argue when there are more important things here, like lesbian porn and flash games?
Sigh. And every point of that huge 150+ IQ go to waste yet again?
Pray tell teenybopper, what are you right on? It's certainly not economics. Nor is it the UN. So I can't imagine what you're right on. And you don't have the courage to stay around and tell me.
My parents would be ashamed.
I keep hoping you'll grow a pair and show me this vast intellect of yours. And all this knowledge you have accumulated. Sadly, I continue to be disappointed, as you provide one sentence answers that for their lack of depth could've come from a 3 stooges episode. Your world view is so childishly cartoony: Liberal good! Conservative Bad! as to be rendered a parody of intelligent debate.
Who comes on a debate board and refuses to debate? Really?
At 6/20/08 01:15 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: You know what WolvenBear? You're right. Your economic experience is so great, you could obviously bring this country back to it's greatest hour. I am not even worthy to read your posts.
Great comeback junior.
There's simple common sense stuff, economics 101 that liberals, especially young ones, don't seem to grasp:
-The rich employ everyone else. They run the economy. Ask any guy or girl, "do you want your boss to make half the amount of money next year that they do this year?" and the answer is always no. Because people understand that that will hurt them financially. If your boss makes half as much, he can't afford the raise he gives everyone yearly. Hell, he can't even afford to keep everyone. People get laid off. 90% of the solutions Democrats propose involve dicking the big guy.
-Regulations and tax raises kill small business. A great example of this is in St. Louis. We required gas stations to install a vapor recovery system that cost around 10 grand a nozzle. For a small station with 6 pumps (assuming one nozzle a pump), that's a 60 grand loss they have to swallow. Many small businesses couldn't do it, and the independant gas station disappeared overnight. Gas also shot up 25 cents a gallon to overset the prices. All this just consolidated power in the big stations. Without the little guys around, prices never went quite as low again.
-It is impossible with our tax system to make a tax cut that doesn't benefit the wealthy.
Etc.
This is not brain surgery. This is BASIC economics. Debating the economy without a simple understanding of how it works is like trying to be a doctor without understanding that only women can have babies. Snide remarks aside, you seem lacking this basic knowledge. You make up for that by claiming I think I'm brilliant for knowing the basics. But on an economic level, this is like knowing simple addition and subtraction. You're telling me you're ready to tackle quadratic equations...and you don't even know your multiplication tables yet.
It's a sad thing I've noticed that people like you believe these things, and when elected to office they fuck up royally. Some of the greatest times this country has had has been under liberals, and I can't imagine that a Conservative approach will solve any of America's problems.
Then you haven't paid attention. FDR, Carter and Clinton were textbook cases of liberal foul ups. FDR prolonged the depression for years upon years. In a time of food shortages, he ordered farmers to not plant crops, and actually had food destroyed to keep prices artificially high. FDR's incompetence actually caused people to starve. Even Carter realized how useless he was when he created the "Misery Index" to ask his populous how unhappy they were under him. Unemployment was in double digits, inflation was astronomical, taxes were ungodly high. Clinton's first two years were an unmitigated disaster. Republicans took back both houses for the first time in DECADES. 6 years with a Democrat president and a Republican congress say unprecidented economic growth.
On the contrary, Reagan fixed Carter's foul mess. Unemployment plumeted. Inflation flattened out. Taxes dropped. JFK sounded positively conservative when he claimed that high taxes were killing the citizens and that dropping the top rates would cause growth (he was proven right). The Republican congress to Clinton made his years as President economically prosperous. When the dot com bubble burst and Bush took over, despite the first terrorist attack on American soil since WW2, the Republicans rallied the economy. Even now, with a Democrat congress threatening the economy, we still have anemic, but constant, growth.
Now you gun run for office and fix America.
So your answer to not knowing what you're talking about is mockery? At least my mockery is just peppering my facts.
P.S. I support abortion because sometimes, a man's just gotta eat.
I support executions for the same reason
At 6/19/08 07:35 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: "I've been to war [sic]. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go to war."
Link me to the speech?
What war was he in, then?
Bush said he flew with his unit for ''several years'', when he flew for under two.
Again, that's so minor it's ridiculous.
Rational people give leeway on statements. You're just trying to inflate small claims.
He lied about other stuff involving his service, but admittadly nothing else involving vietnam.
Link me? John Kerry is a fucking idiot, so I wouldn't be surprised, but I'd love to see a list.
http://www.wintersoldier.com/
http://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~ebolt/
history398/JohnKerryTestimony.html
Many of the claims turned out to be false.
Actually, Coulter is frequently wrong, say's things that go against established logic, and just overall embarrasses herself.
Actually, I've debated this on this board repeatedly. The majority of things people constitute as "lies" are simply opinions that they disagree with. The spinsanity site reviewed her book "Treason" and though they use a lot of words...their basic critique is that Coulter is "not nice". The five mistakes they list of hers are so minor as to be laughable. 1. A mistake about when the Taliban formed, though her point was not about the Taliban, but about liberals. 2. She said Democrats met with Saddam...they instead met with his lackeys! Snort. 3. She mischaracterized a Bill Clinton speech....that everyone else mischaracterized. (So it's understandable.) 4. Her claim why Carter got the peace prize...tho she's actually just mocking the Nobel committee. 5. Using a NYT abstract and quoting it to Clarke (which is a dumb mistake, but nothing major). Liberals simply don't like what Coulter says and portray it as lies. Most lists of her falsehoods are simply about how bad she sucks with endnotes (she IS really bad with them).
Limbaugh is nowhere near that level, and he does make rather intelligent points sometimes, but he also has his fair share of stupidity sometimes; and I still think he's scum for calling a 13 year old girl a "dog" on T.V.
I can agree with that.
Is he? He seemed like a rather nice guy in interviews, and in terms of his politics he's pristine.
Paul is a jackass for repeatedly lying about Bush's trip to war. His politics can be good but are often awful, as I've documented before.
Buckly called some asshole a "faggot" because they guy said William Buckley was secretly a Nazi. And I know now a days, for some insane reason it's considered acceptable to say your political opponent is a racist, anti-semetic mass murdering psychopath, but I think Nazi is as horrid an insult as one can give someone, and I think Buckly felt the same way.
Oh, I couldn't agree more, but it's not like Buckley was this meek polite never say anything bad saint. He was right 90%+ of the time, but he could be a jerk when he felt it warrented.
At 6/19/08 07:07 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:At 6/19/08 06:03 PM, WolvenBear wrote:You're an idiot. You said he was confused and talking about a different situation, when indeed he WAS talking about Malmedy. HE SAID MALMEDY. He said EXACTLY what I said he said.
I came to my conclusion on reading YOUR links. He described what happened at Normandy. He said Malmedy. The simple conclusion is he mixed the two up. Sorry that you're so ingracious.
You LIE when you say I said "I dont care what he said"; what I said "I don't care too" was the fact that his over all point was that Americans have commited war crimes before. I DO NOT CARE ABOUT THAT POINT.
Sorry, it's relevant because it undermines your entire "he hates the military claim". His point was pro-military.
If I said "See, I'm a very good football player. In fact, I recieved a scholarship to USC last year", I would be a liar, even if my "overall point" was true.
That's a bogus comparison and you know it. If you were 35 and talking about a college game you beat the University of North Dakota to win the championship and it was instead the University of South Carolina it would be ridiculous to claim you were lying. Whether you made the claim once, twice, or four hundred thousand times, it's still idiotic and unfair to call you a liar.
Exactly. He's not saying that he said the wrong thing, he's saying his quotes wheren't clear, and what he MEANT was after Malmedy. THAT'S B.S. Three times he said U.S soldiers shot Germans AT Malmedy, and that is as CLEAR AS DAY.
You're being stupid. And you're refusing to retract your claim. How bloody dishonest.
I did. I watched him saying that he meant after Malmedy the whole time.
So, you lied every time you said he said he never said that.
Except that, once again, he didn't correct himself. He said he meant after Malmedy the whole time, despite the fact that he SPECIFICALLY said AT Malmedy.
Which, with all the evidence you have made available to me, was clearly a mistake.
I did not call him a dickhead for his point. How can you tell me I A) Don't care about his point, B) Think he's a dick head for it? Your contradicting yourself.
You called him a dickhead for not wanting the Abu Ghraib pictures released. And you called him anti-troop. I pointed out his reasoning and you said you didn't care. I'm sorry you're bi-polar. But I'm not contradicting myself. You're the one popping back and forth here. If it fits your bullshit narrative, you acknowledge it. If it doesn't, you ignore it.
He did not correct himself. He indeed admitted the atrocities where after Malmedy, but explained that that's what he meant the whole time, but was being misunderstood.
And? Maybe he did. You're being extremely unfair and partisan.
There are two possibilities here:
1) He really DID mean after Malmedy.
2) He was wrong, and when called on it, sheepishly made a correction. (Yes, changing an untrue statement to make it correct is a correction.)
The evidence doesn't support that he was lying. Because he openly read an email correcting him, and acknowledged publically that his earlier statement was incorrect. You may not like how he went about it, but the clear facts of the matter are against you.
No, you didn't. If conservatives can accuse liberals of "hating the soldiers" for all types of shit, I can accuse O'Reilly of hating them for all types of shit.
OH OH! Billy did it so I can too!
Shrug, you're still being dishonest. I don't care that others did it too. You're still wrong. You're not fucking 6. "He did it too" is not an excuse for near adults.
Let's see, the total list of lies you've accused me of;
1) I said he dodged the draft (I didn't)
Yes. You did. You're not getting away with that. Not serving is not the same as "dodging service" and you damn well know it.
2) I said O'Reilly claimed soldiers at Malmedy killed Germans (he did)
Which you dishonestly claim is a lie.
Wow, what a great list of things you accused me of lying about, none of which are true. Let's look at your lies;
Um, I accused you of a lot more...I'll get back to that tho...
1) Fox didn't wash the transcripts --- even though SOURCE AFTER SOURCE AFTER SOURCE say they indeed did.
You provided the transcrips FROM FOX. They both still have the word Malmedy in them. Therefore I am correct, and any other source you produce is wrong. Click your own links and search for "Malmedy". It comes up both times.
3) You lied and said O'Reilly admitted he was wrong, when what he "admitted" is that he meant after Malmedy all along.
I didn't lie. He publically corrected himself. And you're really starting to piss me off you stupid little shit, calling me a liar when you're own links prove you wrong.
You continue to say I "slandered" him; to slander him, I have to say something that's proven to be untrue. I did not slander him.
Yes, you did.
Me. He said it twice in one show, 3 total.
He made the claim on two seperate occasions. By saying 3, you're trying to inflate your story.
No, it's like if I said "You caused someone to get shot", and you say "See, you just accused me of shooting someone!!!"
No, my comparison was correct.
Abu Ghraib caused Nick Berg to lose his head, that doesn't mean the facility itself executed him.
Or that it was remotely responsible. Nick Berg was abducted BEFORE the news broke. That belies cause and effect.
Shrug, I don't really care. You still have no room to criticize anyone else for not serving when you yourself have not served.
I promised I'd get back to your lies. So here goes:
You manufactured this little story about Bill, that ended up not being true. In this narrative, Bill is a mean cruel guy who hates the troops. He slanders them, making up a fake massacre that never happened. He repeats this lie over and over, three different times. Each time, the media call him on it. But he continues to make this story up. When publically called on it, he lies and says he never made such a claim. Fox then changes the transcripts so that he said Normandy instead of Malmedy.
In reality, none of that happened. He briefly mentioned Malmedy on two different occasions. Both times it was to DEFEND our troops in general. His discription of Malmedy sounds suspiciously like Normandy, which was RIGHT AFTER Malmedy. The point is so obvious that even Keith Olbermann, uber left winger has to acknowledge that Bill is either confusing or conflating two different incidents, or he's simply saying the wrong name. After an email is sent to his show, O'Reilly chooses to read it, PUBLICALLY ACKNOWLEDGING HIS ERROR. He then changes his statement to be factually accurate. He does indeed claim that's what he meant all along, which may or may not be true. We simply have no way of knowing. The FOX transcripts STILL say Malmedy as of an hour ago when I went back and reread them.
So reality looks nothing like the picture you painted. He didn't lie. He didn't slander anyone. He told what actually happened in WW2 and said the wrong place. Even Olbermann...OLBERMANN felt the need to say he's made a mistake, not lied. So, you build off one true thing, he DID say Malmedy, and build a bunch of lies around it. When called on the fact that O'Reilly did indeed NOT lie when confronted with being wrong...you simply refuse to acknowledge you were wrong. And there's a hell of a lot of difference between saying "I never said that" and "What I meant was..." And when pointed out that O'Reilly does a hell of a lot for the troops, you defend your slander with the childish "Everybody does it." You reduce my valid and correct accusations of lying to the absurd and then use a straw man to pretend I am making arguments I never made so that you can call ME a liar.
Bottom line: O'Reilly made a mistake, twice (not three times). Everything says it was an honest mistake. Instead you play partisan prick and inflate the case, when simple fair play says you should give him the benefit of the doubt. You don't have a case, and you lied to make one up. Simple as that.
At 6/19/08 10:04 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: You didn't answer a single bloody thing.
Sure I did.
I'm anti-abortion. (I said monsters were pro-abortion.)
I think Obama supporters are idiots.
People who are anti-corporation are economically illiterate.
Liberals are anti-Israel. And some paleo cons.
People who are pro-UN are fools.
Being pro-government is a liberal/neo conservative position.
I don't even know what you mean by "anti-world police".
And finally, I mocked your question on war. Do you like war is a ridiculous question. War is a neccessary evil sometimes. Some wars are just, others aren't. Some wars are bad ideas even if we had good intentions. And supporting a war doesn't mean you think everything that happens in that was is a good thing. It's NOT a black or white, yes or no type of question.
So I answered all your questions except for one. If you want expounding, I will gladly do so:
Abortion is murder. That's simple truth. Science tells us life begins at conception. A unique human life is formed. Therefore abortion is wrong.
Obama is quite possibly the worst candidate to ever run for office. he cavorts with racists, terrorists and anti-American buffoons. He talks about being a "uniting" candidate when no such thing exists. It doesn't help that he is the most liberal Senator currently serving. He sounds like a high schooler in his rhetoric, and he has no significant accomplishments to his name. Looking at his record and his actions show him to be a man of no convictions. It's inconceivable to me that none of his supporters actually know anything about him.Hearing everyone talk about how he's the only one who's been consistantly anti-war makes me laugh, because he repeatedly voted to fund the war and not to withdraw. His own advisors have said publically that he WILL NOT withdraw from iraq. Thus, I think Obama supporters are stupid.
It always strikes me as amusing that people who claim to be "pro-worker" are so anti-business. Anything that hurts business hurts workers. Raising taxes on businesses means they hire less workers, give less raises, and charge hire prices. Excessive taxes and regulations cause outsourcing. When someone says they are anti-corporation, they really mean they're anti-capitalism.
You see the greatest hatred of Israel coming from hardcore liberals. Jimmy Carter, Reverand Wright, the UN are constantly riding Israel for lobbing missles at "Palestine" while saying nothing to the Palestinian attacks that caused Israel's response.
The UN is quite possibly the most useless and corrupt agency around. The idea that countries like Sudan and Iran should be on the Human Rights Commission is disgusting. That the UN has been involved with the oil for food, and sex scandals is shameful. They're useless and anti-US and anti-Israel. We should stop funding them.
Our government is plenty big and doesn't need to get bigger. If anything we need to shrink it.
I'd also like to add two things. I say you're stupid, and you say I'm stupid. However, I'm the only one smart enough to realize that it is getting us nowhere.
I say you're stupid and post my reasons. You just say I'm stupid. We're not getting anywhere because you won't listen. For a moment I thought we were getting somewhere because you actually debated me (weakly) on the morality of staying/leaving Iraq. But then you went back to complaining about how mean I am to you and how that big brain of yours isn't being respected.
If you debate me and stop whining, you'll find I can actually be pretty amiacable. When you keep making the same stupid claim no matter how much evidence I provide to you that you're wrong, I CORRECTLY figure you're an idiot and call you one. Proof by assertion is one of the most unintelligent things a debater can do. And you do that in spades. It's not something either intelligent or informed people do.
Politics is nasty. And you're going to face insults. If you can't deal with that, don't throw out a half assed opinion and get mad when it gets torn to shreds. There is nothing wrong with being incorrect, but refusing to admit error when proven wrong IS stupid.
At 6/19/08 04:03 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: That's Bush you're thinking of. Kerry served. That can be proven.
Bush never claimed to have served in Nam. Man, you're all about the slander.
When?
In front of Congress.
It doesn't matter. Insurgents used Abu Ghraib as a reason to kill Nick Berg; it's still good that the public was made aware of it.
They captured him weeks before the Abu Ghraib scandal was ever known. While they may have used that as an excuse, they had been capturing and killing innocent Americans long before it happened. They would've killed him regardless.
He's not a liar.
He's just, you know... incompetent.
Uh, no. Ted Kennedy left a woman to drown while he went and made a cover story to stay out of jail.
Michael Moore's not a liar!
LMAO.
The problem is then you get the liars/racists/insulting scum bags like Limbaugh and Culter to the right.
They are both very insulting. They're also normally right.
I think you'll find every one in politics is a dick, save Ron Paul and the late William Buckley.
Ron Paul is definately a dick. And William Buckley called an opponent a faggot.
At 6/19/08 06:30 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Three times he said the U.S SOLDIERS KILLED THE GERMANS. Then he LIED AND CLAIMED HE NEVER SAID THAT. I have TRANSCRIPTS, and a VIDEO CLIP of him saying all that.
And from your own transcripts I pointed out what he said. You said you didn't care. YES, you're right that he was incorrect on the place. No, you're lying about him slandering the troops.
No one called him on it? The internet was on fire talking about it. Keith Olberman chewed him out about it. NUMEROUS places corrected him. When you say something wrong on a highly watched show, something INCREDIBLY wrong and offensive, you're going to be told it was wrong.
You provided a link to Olberman. I'm sorry, I didn't watch it. I'd rather eat my own shit.
So link to it then. Show me all these people who called him out.
In fact, he was told LIVE ON HIS OWN SHOW he was wrong, and he FLAT OUT DENIED SAYING IT.
Sigh. I went back and watched it (God I feel dirty). He did no such thing. In fact, he said he got it wrong in the debate, and needed to clarify. It happened after Malmedy. So, now, even more so, you're being dishonest. He never said "I didn't say that." His correction was weak and sheepish, but he did correct himself, and didn't pretend he never said it. (He seems quite embarassed and wanting to get passed it. No one likes to look foolish.)
He WAS CORRECTED. He ignored the corrections, and when he was corrected on his own show, he LIED ABOUT SAYING IT.
No, he didn't. The quote:
In the heat of the debate with General Clark, my statement "wasn't clear enough." AFTER Malmedy, some German captives were executed by American troops.
(If I'm off a little, I apologize. It was a little hard to understand the words in quotes. I may have gotten it a little wrong.)
Weak? Yea. Should he have made an apology? Eh, maybe. Is that actually what he meant to say? Who knows? (Though I doubt it.) When confronted with being wrong, did he lie about it?
NO. Nor has he apparently made the same mistake since.
Did you not watch your own video?
It's pathetic how far a conservative will go to depend someone insulting the memory of dead U.S servicemen then lying about it.
It's pathetic that you continue to lie after being proven wrong. I'm going to cut out the rest of the parts where you call me a liar. Because now that I watched Olberweasle it's more clear than ever that my assessment was correct.Bill was wrong. He got called out on it. He corrected himself.
Moreover, the overall point, that you called him a dickhead for, was that attrocities are committed in war and that our soldiers shouldn't be judged for the actions of a few bad guys in the military. You have admitted you don't care.
You're so full of it that the only way you can explain away me defending him is that I'm part of some conservative defense group that explains away mistakes conservatives made. Ignored in this are:
I have said I don't like O'Reilly and called him a blowhard and a moron. That I admitted he was wrong. That he corrected himself when called on it. And that I'm not a conservative. Nor is O'Reilly.
Again, dipshit, I gave TRANSCRIPTS of him saying that. I PROVED he said all of that, and I know EXACTLY what he said. I can post, right now, word for word, him saying U.S forces killed German forces, if that's what you want.
No one is as stupid as you're pretending to be here. So it's simple dishonesty.
You accused O'Reilly of hating the soldiers. I proved he doesn't. The transcripts prove he doesn't. You called him a liar. I said he was wrong. The video YOU provided shows him correcting himself. You say he lied when confronted about it. Maybe in another instance, but again, not in the one you provided. And you say he dodged military service. Indeed, you are slandering the man.
And you lie claiming that Fox News changed teh transcripts...which is assinine considering that you linked to two fox transcripts that show O'Reilly saying Malmedy. So you're slandering FOX too.
I have never claimed he didn't say US forces killed Germans. Indeed, I have addressed it over and over. We both know I'm not saying you're wrong on that. And you're starting to piss me off by repeatedly attributing something to me that I didn't say. I have repeatedly pointed out where you're wrong and you continue to say it anyway. Proof by assertion is bullshit, and it is THE MOST ANNOYING thing a debater can do. Even Olberman pointed out that it seemed to be a simple mistake.
And this ignores the fact that American soldiers DID kill unarmed germans.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?
qid=20060708042410AATAaE1
After Malmedy, the allies would often execute surrendering soldiers. This was shown in the movie Saving Private Ryan for example.
Unlike O'Reilly? He continued it. He said it THREE TIMES.
Twice. But who's counting?
No, I didn't. I never even said the word draft.
Oh what dishonest bullshit. You said he dodged his military service. That's calling him a draft dodger. That's like if I said that you had sex with children, and you complained "I'm not a pedophile". Then I could claim I never called you a pedophile. No, I just accused you of it in different words.
Sophestry at its finest.
Once it becomes legal for me to join the armed services, I will be. I fully believe every active man who's not doing particular good for America at home should enlist in a time of war.
Awwwww, you have an excuse. That's cute! You can sit there and malign others and claim "Well, I would if I could!" Awwww.
At 6/16/08 08:15 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: You obviously care about what I have to say, or else you would not go to such great lengths to display your smarmy arrogance.
Or I just simply debate with anyone that I disagree. It's really that simple.
You said something I think is wrong and I countered it. There's nothing beyond that. You can make yourself feel important by pretending it's all about you, but it's not. Sorry.
If you want the debate to be public, then you must realize that i will not jump through hoops to have a back-and-forth argument with a man whose ideas of economics are subsequent with that of a cretin.
My economic ideas are sound thanks.
You say my accusations of you are unsubstantiated, and yet you continue, endlessly and without flaw, to act as though you are talking to the brain-addled bastard child of a retarded leper, not an educated and intelligent 14-year old who has taken great interest in politics throughout his life.
I act like I'm talking to a 14 year old. Because...I'm talking to a 14 year old.
Sorry, you're not that intelligent, and I have no desire to stroke your ego just because mommy and daddy said you were special. Take off the diapers and grow up.
And, as previously stated, if you prove me wrong, I will admit it. So far, you have posted one link showing that England suffered from an economic decision that I never suggested.
I've proved you wrong dozens of times and you haven't admitted it yet. Your word means crap to me.
Pro-abortion
Is for monsters.
Pro-Obama
Is for idiots.
Anti-corporation
Is for economic illiterates.
Pro-government
Is for liberals and "compassionate conservatives".
Pro-UN
Fools.
Anti-war
This is one of the reasons I mocked you. You took a complicated subject and boiled it down to a yes/no question. War can be a good thing, or it can be a bad thing. Anyone who asks if you are pro or anti war and expects an answer is a fool.
Anti-Israel
Liberals.
Anti-world police
Huh?
Now go type something up that will somehow prove me wrong on all these issues, you predictable little fellow you.
I feel no need to prove my superiority to an unintelligent child.
At 6/10/08 05:28 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: That's a lie.
Not quite:
Obviously, Bill O'Reilly (a man who dodged his duty to serve in Vietnam), knows more then Wesly Clark about military matters.
Saying someone dodged military service is calling them a draft dodger.
Called on your own nonsense. You lie.
You're an idiot. Just because the U.S Army isn't drafting doesn't mean they don't need soldiers.
Sign up then.
Again, it's not a case of "whenever the U.S needs soldiers, it drafts them". Drafts are EMERGENCY MEASURES when we don't have enough soldiers volunteering.
Where is your service then Cuppa? You're calling others cowards and "dodgers" for not serving, yet you are not in the military. You have some 'splaining.
At 6/10/08 05:25 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: No, it's not. When how I want him to say it is TRUTHFULLY, it's not stupid to expect that at all.
Yes, it is. Because you dishonestly reported what he said. You simply lied about what he said and then when pointed out you were wrong, said "I DONT CARE!"
Wow. It was an honest "mistake"? He said it THREE TIMES. What, did he temporarily gain a form of Tourette syndrome that made him say it? Then he got temporary amnesia, and legitimately forgot that he had ever said it?
Are you really that fucking stupid Cuppa? If you are wrong, you are wrong. As I have pointed out, no one has called him on this. (Except for your stupid ass on a board he doesn't frequent.) If it is a mistake, then of course he will keep saying it. If you are wrong, you will continue to be wrong until someone corrects you. Are you that damned dumb that you don't it? You're being a hell of a lot thicker here than O'Reilly.
Conservatives are pathetic. You'll go to any length to defend someone brazenly lying his ass off.
He's not lying moron. He's wrong. Call in and correct him, or shut the fuck up. God you're an idiot.
Not yet, so I'll be damned if I ever insult a war hero.
Then how the hell do you get off slandering someone else who didn't serve? You pathetic coward.
He INSULTED 84 dead U.S servicemen, men who DIED FOR THEIR COUNTRY. He LIED, he called them MURDERERS.
He got one incident wrong, confused it with another. You're not honest enough to give him the benefit of the doubt.
He was defending them? HE LIED AND CALLED THEM MURDERERS. THAT ISN'T DEFENDING. Go up to ANY family member, a son, or daughter, or grand daughter or great grandson or anything, of one of the men who lost their lives at the slaughter. Ask them if O'Reilly was "defending" their (great)[grand]parents.
Shrug, if you don't want to look at what he said, that's on you. But don't you dare ever accuse anyone else of dishonesty EVER on this board. Because I will repeatedly bring this up.
What HE DID WAS SLANDER. It can be proven false.
I SPECIFICALLY PROVED WHAT I SAID WAS TRUE. I gave DIRECT EVIDENCE he said all that stuff, meaning it's IMPOSSIBLE to be slander.
Your pathetic.
You're an idiot. And a liar.
I provided context to what he said. And it's exactly the opposite of what you claim.
I don't care that O'Reilly is wrong. Slander is the deliberate telling of non-truths. He's NOT. DOING. THAT. He's wrong. (He is a lot btw.) The man is a rampant idiot. He's wrong about 75% of the time. Does it make him stupid? Yes. Does it make him a liar? Hardly.
On the other hand, you know that you're lying about O'Reilly. I have provided evidence that he's standing up for the troops. You flat out said "who cares" and continued your attack. Unlike O'Reilly, you know you're wrong and are continuing.
Actually, dipshit, MANY people corrected him, as I specifically pointed out. Since the first time he said it, pundits, websites, everything was saying he was wrong. THEN HE DENIED SAYING IT. A letter corrected him, LIVE ON HIS PROGRAM, and he DENIED EVER SAYING IT.
Show that then fool. The transcripts you posted were of him making the claim uncontested.
I pointed out what he said. This is the first you mentioned of disagreement.
No, I never called him a draft dodger.
Yes, you did.
And it's ironic the double standards conservatives have. Everyone talks about Bill Clinton running away from his duties, which he did. Yet a conservative doing the same thing? Nah.
Bill Clinton was drafted and fled the country. O'Reilly's number was never called. It's. Not. The. Same. Thing.
Again, just because the government isn't threatening to imprison you if you don't join the army DOESN'T mean that you don't have a duty to your country to defend it in a time of war.
Then join the army or shut the fuck up.
I'm not playing here. You are calling a man a coward for not voluntarily enlisting. Yet, you are not voluntarily enlisting. By your own standards, you are a worthless, slanderous coward.
At 6/13/08 09:53 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: I don't know if you've noticed, but I actually am a busy person. That I why I post short answers. When I make topics, that does not mean I am looking to argue with you, it means I want to see others argue. This seems to happen in every political thread except mine.
Dude, I have three jobs. And I post here once every week or so. More when I get time.
That you "don't want to argue with me" is weird, because you DO argue with me. Sort of...
I've yet to see a thread where the starter doesn't defend their position if they have one.
Also, your disagreeing with me does not make me a troll. In fact, the fact that I'm polite and civilized makes me even less of a troll than you.
A troll is someone who is impervious to facts. I'm a rude debater to people I think are stupid, but I never dodge an argument. If someone questions a fact I make, I take that to task. If I'm wrong, I admit it. It's infrequent, but it happens.
You're right, your disagreements with me don't make you a troll. Your refusal to face facts and debate honestly makes you a troll.
I know you have a small ego and compensate for it by insulting others and arguing with me at every chance you get, but I don't WANT to spend my time arguing. I want to see OTHERS argue. That's why I create topics instead of replying to other peoples'.
That's bull and we both know it. I have the PM that says "you're here to debate". I address arguments that are incorrect. Yours got targetted. You continue to use lofty little ways to slander me while refusing to address facts, but I still call you a moron.
If you care so much about what I think, do you want me to unblock you on the PM system? I'll be a little more adamant in my debates over PMs.
I'd prefer it be public actually. I enjoy the ability for other people to tell me where my logic is faulty. I LOVE debate with people who will actually address facts.
Look, you were a coward in the PM thing. That's great. You're a pussy who can stand being told he's wrong. I get it. But you keep bringing it up like I'm tracking down your posts to harass you. What is this bullshit? I mean really? Youre on a public site on the front page discussing politics. Stop this moronic victim crusade. Grow a pair and debate instead of whining about "poor me". God you're a twat.
At 6/13/08 08:03 AM, MickTheChampion wrote:I've stuck to my guns and you've yet to debunk a single thing I've said. Give up.
Proof by assertion.
No, I said through the revolution Cuba's literacy rate sky-rocketed. You then decided you'd build a straw-man argument that I was putting Che forward as some benevolent Uncle who went around teaching poor peasant children to read.
You said Che taught children to read. I countered that. You admitted it never happened.
No, you said (my quote included):
:: What nonsense. Batista was hardly a great guy...but let's stop pretending that what replaced him wasn't worse. Even if we grant that Che's cause started nobly, it decended into evil REALLY quick.
:Yeah, teaching the poor how to read and providing them with health care is really the stuff of Hell.
So in refuting a claim that Che's work was bad, you claimed he taught school children to read. I countered that by mocking the claim's basis. You admitted that never happened, and that it was Cuba that did it. You did something. I called you on it. When called, you changed your claim and used your new claim to say I was dishonest. Yea, I'm the one with the problem here.
You're trying to cherry pick. Che did indeed help lead the Cuban revolution, and for the few good things they did he deserves some credit. But that also means he gets lumped in with the crap. The "reforms" he helped impliment are what are causing so much hell today in Cuba.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/
biography/econ-ministry.htm
Even this positive biography shows gradual deterioration of the quality of life. Even assuming the US was evil in embargoing Cuba...they did so because of the new government. Wages were constantly lowered, and quality became non-existant. Che's focus on working for "common good" instead of economic prosperity helped doom Cuba.
Stop questioning whether or not I use the meaning of terms I'm using, the fact that I'm using them in their correct context should tell you that.
You're NOT using them in their correct context. You claim I love American imperialism. OK, that's dumb. Where have I voiced support for us taking over countries to make an empire? I haven't you say? Well, shit.
So since I haven't done that, you're use of the term is incorrect. Since you're incorrect, and your inaccuracy stems from a ridiculous assumption, it's a safe bet to say you don't know what you're talking about.
It's never substance with you, it's all petty attack. You haven't proven a damn thing.
It's petty attack MIXED with substance. You support someone who gleefully killed unarmed prisoners, who he admitted he didn't care if they were innocent.
You just keep writing off my criticisms as irrelevant. "Sure he killed unarmed prisoners. But they were bad, so who cares?"
Che was aiding in overthrowing a Dictator. If he had travelled to Cuba with the intention of building an Argentinian Empire, it would have been imperialistic.
Hardly. He went to institute his own form of government. He created an (admittedly small) Cuban empire. He then travelled across Latin America trying to expand his influence.
It is far more imperialistic than this "American imperialism" you are dreaming up.
Ah okay, I pointed out to you that the economy of Nazi Germany was State Capitalist and not Socialist, you had no counter for that. "I can't answer your points syndrome".
Socialism, defined by Webster:
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
So we have a government that tells business, "You will make the amount we tell you to. You will buy at the price we demand and you will sell at the price we demand. And at any time we feel you are making too much, we will take it away from you. We will control and oversee every aspect of your business, and you will change anything we don't like for any reason."
So you didn't "point out" that the economy under Nazism was "state capitalism" (which is a stupid term btw), you simply asserted it in the face of facts that proved you were wrong. By this definition, Che was a capitalist, because he controlled wages, and when the government SOLD something they made MONEY.
Making a baseless assertion when the facts say otherwise is definition "trouble me not with facts" syndrome.
At 6/13/08 05:51 AM, MickTheChampion wrote: He doesn't need defense.
He murdered unarmed civilians. That kinda needs a defense yes.
I've stuck to my guns and you've yet to debunk a single thing I've said. Give up.
You said Che taught children to read. I countered that. You admitted it never happened.
That's one.
You're an over-opinionated bully with a hard-on for hawk foreign policy, that's why you hate Guevara.
I hate Guevara because he gunned down unarmed people. I hate guevara because he was an unrepentant murderer.
I view it as a combination of your intrinsic hatred for traditional working class values and your love of U.S Imperialism.
Because you're a fucking asshat.
And you're too stupid to know the meaning of terms like "imperialism".
Che guevara was born elsewhere yet traveled to Cuba and across the Americas to institute his form of government. That imperialistic.
If private capitalists own industry and profit from it, you're living in a capitalist country. The fact that they were controlled by the Nazi party and state is irrelevant, as every person in the country was.
Ah OK, "trouble me not with facts syndrome".
We're done here....
At 6/10/08 06:43 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:I'm sorry. I'd go further. Buttil you offer me a counter argument,I fell no need.Now for every other country with a gun ban. If it's a systematic pattern, you should have no problem.
That's not how debate works.
I offer proof. You offer counter proof.
When I show your ideas suck in England (and I'll jump ahead of you, they don't do anything in Australia), it's up to YOU to provide counter arguments. Not me.
At 6/11/08 10:02 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: BurntFaceMan, if we spent one tenth of what we spend on the military on education, we could completely revamp this country's IQ scores. get rid of abstinence-only, have public schools in every city, stricter rules for mandatory attendance, ect. The Bush Administration has been (under)funding much less useful education programs, and the No Child Left Behind is a joke.
The feds spent 38 billion in 2006 in education.
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piecha rt.htm
According to that we spent ~120 billion on the WoT or 4 times as much.
We spend 25%, not 10%. It doesn't help.
At 6/12/08 10:46 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Very well. I respect your style of arguing, and while I disagree with you, you've made a fair enough point that I have no intention of arguing about it. I hope you have a good rest-of-the-day.
This is getting old. I have yet to see a single debate where you get proven wrong and offer anything to debate your side. With me you always cried "meanness". With Mason, you just avoid debate.
You're just a troll.
At 6/10/08 09:59 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Links WolvenBear? Don't link to individual incidences, I'd like a chart.
The trend in England is hardly isolated incidences. It's a systematic pattern.
England:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/polit ics/2640817.stm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,5986 6,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/engla nd/london/7051458.stm
(The rise of police solvency leads to the crime reductions in this article.)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2001/
08/07/guns-usat.htm
I'm sorry. I'd go further. Buttil you offer me a counter argument,I fell no need.
At 6/9/08 08:04 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: O hai.
While I admit that cutting and running is not the most honorable thing to do, it has been clearly shown that our involvement in Iraq cannot possibly make the country better when the civilians themselves dislike us. We approached Iraq with the wrong attitude.
I ignore any article that moronically claims that our invasion of Iraq was illegal.
I also reject any assertion that our involvement in Iraq cannot make the country better...on the grounds that we have provable made teh country better.
Simple facts about the positive changes in Iraq:
State sponsored rape is gone.
The death count (by even the most liberal groups) is down post invasion.
Infant mortality has fallen.
Starvation is almost eliminated.
We are actively seeking out and killing insurgents who are trying to take the place of Saddam.
Et al.
You're simply not right here.
At 6/9/08 09:35 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Also, I do have something to back up my original argument. in Europe and most of Asia, there are gun bans and limitations. There are less shooting deaths there. I don't need to argue about theories when a real-life example is a plane ride away. Communism works in theory, but we all know how that turned out. There are slightly different circumstances regarding the US, but they do not destroy the credibility that it works for the rest of the world. The same can go for limiting government size, the UN, and gay marriage.
That's weak argument. The gun deaths were less BEFORE the ban Since th gun ban they have gone up. Try again.
At 6/9/08 11:19 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: You seem to be going off topic rather often, and my 'it works in real life AND in theory' approach to gun control is all the evidence anyone should need. Also, I don't care if you're a Mason or a weapons expert, it has nothing to do with politics.
It DOESNT work in real life. In England, since the ban, violent crimes went up. The most violent areas in teh US have a no carry policy.
At 6/9/08 10:29 PM, ForkRobotik wrote: Amazing how even american government advisors like perle can admit the iraq war was illegal, yet americans still "believe" that it couldn't be, "because the UN is shit" and "can't tell america what to do." It's like trying to convince a christian of the err in their ways. If you're going to ignore the facts, why are you in this forum?
Perle was wrong. The UN authorized the Gulf War (which was postponed in a ceasefire). Since Saddam breached the ceasefire....Legally, the UN was required to assist the US in the second invasion.
At 6/9/08 07:32 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Man you really must have been so far back in the woods & deep in your cave you ,missed all the collateral damage the U.S. has done to INNOCENT Civilians.
A simple search of Iraq Body Count:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
The majority of links are to innocent victims of random, NON US BASED violence.
4 of the links talk about dead by US airstrike, but many to the right specify that a combatant was targeted in raids that killed innocents.
Looking back at old news stories, car bombings, kidnappings and the like constitute the majority of violent deaths.
So until you take a couple months to catch up on all the news you've missed, the couple of hundered suicide bombers has nothing on the 'freefire' zones where women, children ,old people were killed just because they were there.
The vast majority of innocents killed were by insurgents. No source says otherwize.
Right... that's why so much of the U.S military & lets us not forget the Contractors who are guarding the infastructure of the oil feilds, refineries & pipelines !!!!
Because it's all idle & no oil is flowing.
PLEASE don't shake your head to hard....you really need to, but I'm worried the rocks in your head could do some real damage.
Without oil, Iraq collapses. Oil is THE economy of Iraq.
Iraq pumps the oil. We protect it. We get it for a higher price than during the Saddam years. That we also are in charge of safeguarding it isn't added onto the oil costs...but it's not irrelevant either.
Give us a reply when you catch up dude. Reality is a bitch but what the U.S. has done to the general population hasn't been figured out yet, but just what they have been able to account for.... has nothing to do with the many thousands missing.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/
That's one of my main sources. 8 out of 10 stories there involved attacks on civilians by militants who are not part of the US. Next?
At 6/10/08 09:08 AM, bcdemon wrote: So it's illegal to say the holocaust didn't happen, but it's perfectly fine to destroy someones religious book or country flag? Sad...
Why should it be illegal to say the holocaust didn't happen. Fascists...tsk tsk.
Cellar
The fact that you're getting the same amount now as you were before doesn't prove shit. We'll have to see how much oil you get when/if Iraq is a stable country again. Not only that, but US companies are making a killing off Iraq oil and the war in general.
Most companies in Iraq are losing money. It costs a lot to pay off the families of the dead, pay security costs, etc.
BCDemon: "Trouble Me Not With Facts...I Have Bo Place for Them!"
At 6/9/08 07:17 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Damn fucking right I am. I know EXACTLY what his point was, and although I disagreed with it, that's not what get's me. No matter WHAT your point is, it is NEVER FUCKING OK to slander, insult, and degrade dead U.S fucking servicemen to serve you're point, and it is NEVER ok to then LIE about having done it.
Alright, so it's not what he said, it's how YOU wanted him to say it.
Sorry, that's stupid.
You ignore that what he said was likely an honest mistake to slander him. (Yes, you're slandering him.) And you don't give a shit about his message. That's beyond dishonest.
I am a VERY Patriotic individual, and I think that if some fucking asshole chooses not to serve his country when it needed him, then he has NO RIGHT to go on and insult those who served when America needed them even more.
Have you ever served in the military?
Regardless, he didn't insult anyone. Stop being a prick.
He DEFENDED the troops. O'Reilly is a blow hard, but I'm not gonig to let you lie you way through this. You know as well as I do that he was sticking up for the troops. And you admit that you're ignoring what he's saying to lie about the man. What a jackass.
Well, I mean, this is America, he has EVERY right to do that, it just makes him a dick.
No it doesn't. He's being patriotic and he's supporting the troops. You're just being an asshole and slandering him.
No, it's extremely deniable. You can't say "I support the troops", then twice slander (technically 3 times, but I'll be EXTREMELY generous and say it was a mistake the first time) the memories of troops that sacrificed their lives for their nation.
He has a charity for soldiers. He has repeatedly visited our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. His support for our troops is unquestionable.
It was a mistake all 3 times, since in none of the transcripts did anyone correct him. If you repeat the same falsehood and no one corrects you...it's STILL a falsehood. I'd never heard of that specific incident. Nor had most people. His mistake is honest, and you just refuse to admit youre clearly wrong.
At 6/9/08 11:01 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:At 6/9/08 10:40 PM, Grammer wrote:Lol. The war and the draft aren't interchangeable terms. "He wasn't drafted, therefor there wasn't a war going on, and the U.S Army didn't need O'Reilly".
You said he dodged the war. You don't "dodge" unless you're drafted. Your point was dishonest to begin with. You did indeed call him a draft dodger.
And now you're pretending there's this subtle nuance that doesn't make you wrong.
