southsider2k5

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

I wonder if this would be God's punishment for Robertson not showing Sharon God's love?

QUOTE(AnthraxFan93 @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 04:48 PM) I have faith they are.. so it must be true then right? Why bring up yet another blackmark on this "cult"? HMM Have no idea.. Question.. What is the difference between a religion and a cult? I didn't think you would have an answer, but I do. You aren't applying any logic at all. You are just spoiling for a fight, and when you peel away your firey rhetoric and your button pushing terms, you just got exposed for exactly what you were trying to do. You were never applying any logic anywhere, and the 'methodology' you employed was nothing more than Trolling 201. Congrats you have been exposed as a fraud. [/the emperor has no clothes.]

QUOTE(AnthraxFan93 @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 04:42 PM) Well anyone would not need to have another 4 posts on something that is logical.. anyone with an IQ above a twig, should know that Pedophiles come from all walks of life. Just bringing it to your attention that the people that you call leaders are breaking laws that are set up to help soceity.. But, they feel they are above the law. What happend to those that were found guilty? Shipped out of their chruch.. nothing more. So if pedophiles come from anywhere, and you provided zero proof that priests are anymore pedophiles than anyone else, why would you use that example? Doesn't logic dictate some measure of factual basis when it makes comparison, don't you have to have some research that said the priests are at least more likely to be peds than anyone else? Otherwise why say that at all? Where is the logic in running off half cocked with no proof at all of anything???

QUOTE(AnthraxFan93 @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 04:30 PM) Please show me where I made that claim? With that statement that you just made, one could conclude that because others do it is okay for priests to do. Nice job. Only if you read it and applied your self-contained logic to it. Anyone else would realize that I know that you don't have to be a priest to be a pedophile, therefore using it as a discription of one group of people with no actual statistical proof that priests are anymore likely to be a pedophile just goes to prove that you have been brainwashed by the media, and all this "logic" stuff you preach is self-serving at best.