southsider2k5

QUOTE(AnthraxFan93 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 03:09 PM) If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. -Joseph Goebels, (1897-1945) Hitler's Minister of Propaganda I guess it shouldn't surprise me that you keep quoting a Nazi, should it?

QUOTE(Steff @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 03:17 PM) We know its funny, because its true.

QUOTE(AnthraxFan93 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 01:59 PM) Other than you have no idea what it is you want to say.. You have no POINT. What is that trying to come down to your way of thinking? How can you sit there with this Garabge and then call me out with no facts? Darwin proved that we evolved from single cells.. Which goes agains the theory of "God" created everything in 6 days which the bible states. Right here there should be a little light going off in your head (HMM if this is untrue, what else is) But no.. You sit there and throw the word God into everything. You even make excuses for this nothingness. You have been pre-progammed to think that there is a GOD when there is right there proof that Man created God.. FYI.. I was raised on Catholic schooling most of my life till I was 14,I did all the traditonal BS that goes along with it, till I ask a priest a simple question, when he did not have the answer, I look elsewhere. Answer what questions? What show, I am being 100% honest with you. showing you the path to the truth.. A man can bring a horse to water, but can not make them drink it.. 90% of what arguement.. You are throwing out claims without backing them up.. BUt to your defenese, that is what religion is, throwing out claims and telling their followers to have faith in what they say is truth. The main issue is, I have lived on both sides, you are stuck on one side and refuse to see the truth laid out in front of you.. If you have read the greek Philosphiers as you have claimed to have, how is it that you are so narrowminded to the truth.. Only willing to accept the wrong answers and the right ones. Facts? You're the logic thinker, I am the believer, remember? Its your job to deal in facts, remember? I have faith. The bible doesn't go into detail about how God created man exactly. Just because Darwin MAY HAVE proved where we came from, doesn't mean a thing. All it means if it is true, is that we still after all of these millenia are fallable... Tell me something I don't know. If you actually read the bible you again, you would understand that instead of having it regurgitated through your biased sources. Does the bible define a day as 24 hours? Did I miss that verse. And actually the bible saids that a day is as a thousand years to God, just to emphasize his timelessness. Again with your example of the priest you are showing that you really need to actually sit and read your bible. Just because a priest doesn't have an answer, that doesn't mean that God doesn't exsist. You have repeatedly ducked my questions, does that mean that your philosophy is totally wrong? No, that is determined on its merits, not on the biblical knowledge of a priest. That is unless I missed the chapter on a priest being God, instead of being created in the image of God. For the tenth time, the imperfections of man do not prove that God does not exsist. You call me stuck on one side, yet you have been completely unwilling to look at the otherside for yourself. You have chided people for what they have not read, but yet you have taken the word of your own side's teachers, and have not read for yourself to try to find out the truth. What does that say? And as for man creating God, you throw that around as a fact, when you still haven't begun to approach proving that. You haven't offered any evidence that hasn't been completely blown out of the water yet.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 01:47 PM) Of course I don't agree with everything either a candidate or a party says or does. Best example I could give is that I actually agree with you on the budget-deficit issue, and for example I thought that the Medicare drug bill the Democrats wrote was basically worse than the one the Republicans passed. The question I think you have to consider overall is...how important is each issue to you? If I genuinely felt I had a candidate who would advocate a balanced budget, barring him being like a neo-Nazi or something like that, he or she would probably wind up getting my vote, simply because I think the idea of paying interest on debt to cover normal expenditures (and not recovering from a disaster like Katrina or launching a large infrastructure building program) is ludicrous. But like you, I don't see any candidate out there willing to do that. The best alternative I could give in that case would be the split-Congress solution, where each party controls 1 house, and each side has a chance to genuinely knock out the stupid handouts that the other side tries to write in. Actually, when I was in the Dean camp before his meltdown in the primaries, I had 2 main reasons for being in his camp...#1 was Iraq, obviously, but #2 was his skills with Vermont's budget...Vt is the only state in the union not required to find a way to balance its budget every year, and it was badly out of balance when Dean took over that state, but he actually moved the budget back into balance and set aside reserves so that when the economy tanked in 00-01, Vt was able to weather the storm quite readily. After that, well, then it came down to choosing between 2 people I wasn't thrilled with at all, but considering how I view Bush's performance, it wasn't really a contest. If it makes you feel better, just to prove I can be bi-partisan, I did vote for Lugar in 00 when I was still living in Indiana, and I'd probably do that again in 06 unless the Dems ran someone dynamite against him. All right, I probably read to much into your post then. I think basically we are saying the samething about how we pick canditates. Myself I would have been solidly for something other than Bush first off in 2000. McCain was definately my first choice. Once it got down to Bush and Gore, I saw too much connection to the Clinton corruption and went with Bush thinking he would end up something like his father. To be honest I wanted to crossover in 04, but somehow in John Kerry they found a canditate I disliked more than Gore, and he was involved in most of the same scandals as Gore/Clinton.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 01:16 PM) But see, here's the problem....Conservatives can sit there and say "yeah we agree the deficit is too high", but if you're not willing to do anything about it, what does it matter what you agree about? The Republican Congress has added handout after handout after handout to bills to benefit either their contributors or to try to help their re-election chances in the past few years. See, for example, the explosion of Pork, or the fact that they're cutting taxes at 5-10x the rate they're cutting other programs, or the Medicare drug company bailout bill. Has this triggered a mass defection from the party? No. Has this triggered a significant number of primary challengers for the people who are writing these bills? Maybe one or two, but certainly nothing organized. Has this triggered a decrease in support for Tax cuts until we can reduce the deficit? No. Aside from "agreement", what has it done? You can sit around all day and say "yeah we agree the deficit is too high", but when you say that and still vote and campaign for the exact people who made the deficit too high, then the agreement doesn't really do anything. Well finally the national party has started to listen. Then again, not to many of them have the guts to actually do something about it, but there are many proposals, many of which the dems voted against, to cut many programs out there. The tax cuts actually fit into my philosophy, it is the spending that does not. Right now no other viable party is offering any better alternative. I have yet to see a Democratic bill before anywhere that cut government spending substantially either, so I am not sure exactly what I am supposed to be doing here. Plus I have seen just as many democrats lining up at the trough for their share of the handouts. I have yet to see a Democratic bill that puts money in the hands of people who have the ability to create jobs, instead I see them putting more roadblocks in the way of business, which would only stand to hamper growth. It isn't just Repubs bringing home pork, if it was the outcry would be WAY louder about it. To me the only viable alternative to republicans fiscal policy is even worse than what they are offering. It is the lesser of two evils. If I voted for the people who thought exactly like me, I would only be voting for myself. Your post also got me thinking about this. Are you telling me that you agree with every blank of every canditate that you vote for? Or are you telling me that you should agree with everything that a canditate saids, if you are going to vote for them? I am also curious as to what you disagree with your party and canditates on as I don't think I have ever seen you actually say something like that?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 01:10 PM) George Tenet did testify to that same thing under oath before Congress already, so Clinton's statement just goes along with that. Can I say that same thing every time Mr. Bush says something? you pretty much do.

Wait we are expected to believe Bill Clinton at his word now? Yeah, I think I will pass and wait for him to be proven or disproven.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 12:22 PM) That is one issue most of the conservatives are in agreement with you. Very in agreement with. Read through the GOP thread if you don't believe me.

QUOTE(AnthraxFan93 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 12:08 PM) WOW, just WOW.. But here we go again.. Time to explain to MR Emperor.. You should already know this answer.. Since you have read all the works of the greek Philosophers... No where does it mention "God", a higher being yes, beucase they could not explain how we are actually here, again this was proven by Darwin.. But I am sure you tell me that Darwin was a fraud to? So you have read the works written by Socrates? :banghead , well now let see if I have this correct, the ideas that They came up with stolen and altered for religion has no bearing on them.. Okay, Then yes that is not logical. Glad we can sum that up.. Keep trying on this one..one day you can get it right. Never finished the bible, I knew at an early age that it is nothing more than reading fairy tales, with that said. I plan to, but there is no rush to.. Maybe you should ask your church to buy you some? Thank you for proving my point yet again. You instantly resorted to insults and humor when you could not provide an arguement. Or like you have done many times in this thread, you just boldly ignored something that you could not answer. You technique is as transparent as your arguements. All Darwin proved is that we evolved. Some in the church hold onto the arguements that this isn't compatable with religion, but then of course they also didn't admit the earth revolved the sun officially until 1992, so we see what the church interpretations of science is really worth. Just because the church does not understand Darwin, doesn't mean Darwin didn't just discover something God did when he created the universe. They are also just getting around to getting rid of limbo too... What does all that mean? Nothing. Once again, these are men trying to understand the universe. Once again, just because men don't understand what God has given them, doesn't mean that God doesn't exsist. Hell I don't understand what the hell you are thinking half of the time, does that mean you don't exsist? Again, you are building a strawhouse on the shortcomings of mankind. The shortcomings of mankind have exactly zero bearing on God. None. And any arguement you try to make using that as a basis is biblically faulty, which you would have known if you had actually taken the time to learn the otherside of the arguement, instead of strictly being a blind sap for what you agree with. Anytime you would like to answer my questions, and show me some real actual proof, I would love to see it. Once again, I would like to see you strip down all of the show you put on in your posts and actually answer some questions. You still are avoiding 90% of the arguement and none of the sideshow.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 11:43 AM) You'll notice that I have so ffar managed to stear well clear of the current religion kerfuffle. Seems some people are giving us atheists a bad rap over there. Please feel free to wade in. Your side could use some intelligent arguements.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 11:48 AM) I have a book at home that proves there are no pitchers and catchers Isn't that genetic anyway?

QUOTE(AnthraxFan93 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 11:27 AM) Baruch Spinoza (born 1632 Died 1677 )..maybe someone needs to do a little research before spouting out.. AS for the other guys.. Read their works.. While doing so keep in mind your statement.. "Umm I hate to break it to you, but none of those guys was even born when Jesus was alive." You might notice that majority of the ideas the chruch has on how to live your lives was stolen from those men..But, I am sure they never told you that. Another thing there was no such thing as "religion" In Greece during the time of the fathers of modern thought. So when I quote Socrates, please don't disrepect him like that with saying the R word. AS for the 25 % is a rough estimate..it may be 33.56% but for the sake of simplicty, and now seeing how much you actually know on the topic I round it off.. As far as the facts behind it.. For Starters.. Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven is here on earth..to treat each man and women with the same respect... But, we do not women have been treated like s*** through-out history and the chruch is a huge reason for this. I explain this one as well When the bible was written, they (those who voted on which stories should be in their) Noticed the writing of one Aristotle who had written that their is a higharchy of the way society should be run KINGS Clergy (They thought that their was a higher power, they could never explain how things came to be..Charles Darwin, kind of made these people obsolete, when he proved evolution. Disproving the "God created man" theory.) Man Children Slaves Women (I think I am missing a few, but I do know that women were on the bottom of the list.) Becuase of this idea, the chruch latched onto it called it their own, and women were treated like s*** through-out history.. even today women are still treated as second class citizens in modern society. This is just one of the examples.. Big huge assumption that you are making in that stuff. You are assuming that they were both the first people to write that down about morals, and then you are assuming that they didn't get the ideas from people inspired by God. I have read works of all of the greek philosophers, I have not read the last guy obviously as I had no idea he wasn't a part of the group of people you mentioned. You even admit that the Christian/Jewish faith did not exsist during the time of the greek philosophers so how can be used to verify the nonexsistance of something that had no bearing on them in the first place? What kind of logic is that??? And as for the actions of man on earth, I guess I will have to educate you since you haven't read anything that you are actually pontificating about here... Man is by his nature a sinful being. We have freewill and continually will sin. The fact that man has sinned proves absolutely nothing. No where in the bible does it say that once you turn to God, that you will instantly become perfect, as a matter of a fact it is the exact opposite. Man will continue to sin, and he will be held accountable for it when the reconning occurs. The churches of today are made of up man, and are therefore also fallable. When you say that the bible indicates a hireachrcy on earch, you show your biblical ignorance, because repeated we are told that EVERYONE is equal in the eyes of God. There is no such things as a human being better than another human in the bible anywhere. The old church treating women with contempt proves nothing, as it has no basis in biblical truth. And finally there is also a huge irony in you telling me to read these guys works when you haven't even read the bible, doesn't that make you a completely disquailified to dismiss their writings, or at least that is the standard you are applying to us who haven't read who you are telling us to read. By your own standards you have no right to disqualify what is in the bible as you have never read it! The emperor STILL has no clothes.

QUOTE(AnthraxFan93 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 11:02 AM) NO Yansy keeps popping up what kind of "knowing right" demonstrates that namecalling should occur? What logic demonstrates that as a useful or "right" activity?

QUOTE(AnthraxFan93 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 11:03 AM) Bible Origins .. Is that the best you can do? That article includes a rebuttal which destroyed everything that was said in your article.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 10:54 AM) Then perhaps this should be deleted under the Filibuster heading... Warning: This forum is not for the faint of heart. Do not come in here if you're not willing to, at times, get into heated arguments. If you knew that already, why would you be whining about Soxy?

QUOTE(AnthraxFan93 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 10:44 AM) I posted a link which got ignored, on the truth of the bible for starters.. Alot of what I have read on the subject are in books, last time I checked I can post links to my library.. I can post names but again this would you to actually read their matterial. Which I take you would not do. For Starters Socrates, Plato,Aristotle, Spinoza, Hell even laerning the true message of Jesus. .Not found in the bible. Umm I hate to break it to you, but none of those guys was even born when Jesus was alive. I have seen your repeatedly referenced Socrates quote, which means nothing out of context. Heck for all I know it could have been in the context of religion being important. Where do you get the 25% truth number? What 25% is true, what 75% is wrong? Site your sources for all of these numbers and revealations or they are pretty pointless. And I am still waiting for your factual basis that priests are anymore likely to be child molestors than say daycare workers or janitors. I noticed you couldn't still go one post without the swipe, does that mean you don't know right, because I don't see insults as doing right? And if you don't know right, how can you be telling others what is wrong with what they believe is right?

You're so vain, you probably think this thread is about you, don't you?

The system is making them political animals. We parade potential SCOTUS judges onto TV and ask them a bunch of questions about hot button political questions without any legal indications which would be surrounding a real case. They go in front of the biggest political group in the world to answer questions about politics from people looking to get reelected based on the chance that their soundbyte makes the difference in them getting back to Washington again. They get asked a minimal amount of questions on the law, and instead they get asked what they personally think about laws... subtle, but there is a difference. I don't know what else is to be expected with the way the process is handled.

I can't believe you are still persisting in this arguement after having been repeated shown that your logic is empty. Before anyone responds to any of your continued baiting, I want to see some actual proof of the statments that you are making. Your whole thing is that faith is worthless and logic is all that matters. You keep making statements based on this so-called logic, but have provided zero factual basis to back up anything you have said. Until you provide some real proof, and not some cute snotty remark to piss everyone off, I am calling bulls***. Yes, I am calling you to the matt right here in front of everyone. Put up or shut up. No more innuendo and rhetoric. Post facts, names, links, anything you need to do so. Until then, quit wasting everyone's time with your lies.

Very nice

Socialism, yeah.

This is nothing new... See also Mary Magdaline.

DBAHO: Australian for beer.

QUOTE(SnB @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 10:01 PM) i "the office" ^ Kudos to NBC for finally making Thursday nites worth watching for the first time in a while.

The perv who abused a 14 year old quadrapalegic or the mom who took $10,000 not to turn him in? http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=local&id=3806077