Breaking News….This Just In from our BS affiliate out in the field!

It is now confirmed that the “Politics and Other” section on “PDXRADIO” has surpassed the “Portland Radio” section in the number of posts. This will be the first in the history of the forum. We have confirmed and un-confirmed reports and just plain assed hearsay that one main reason for this is due to what this group refers to as “A PAIR OF INTERNET TROLLS” which we are told, and we quote, “poop poop poop thump thump thump” in every thread. It is reported that these two “TROLLS” post inflammatory and just plain stupid responses that incite the group into exchanging insults with them.

Will there ever be an end to this controversy….no one knows for sure but one can only hope that there will be.


This has been a special report from BS (Bull Shit) broadcasting
Brought to you by your friendly field reporter

Muck Raker

Have a good night and remember to lock your doors and load your gun before going to bed!!!



To quote Randy Quaid in Independence Day, “I’mmmm Baaaaaack! Miss Me Boys!"

"Thank me very much"-Mark Levin

Sounds like a great time to send a bit Dan's way, doesn't it?

Make the noise, pay for the toys.

Far from undesirable, this is a success story.
If there are more posts on the politics side, that means the politics board is more robust in generating discussion.

Clearly, leftists don't like the free expression of opinion found here. In their name-calling, they reveal a blatant inadequacy to discuss political issues.

Their meagre attempts to squelch diversity of thought will never succeed. This is America.

Once more, leftists show their hand. They hate the First Amendment when anyone but they use it.

Thank God almighty it's still a free country.

Herbert Milhous Nixon II

Herb,

How does it feel to take advantage of someone's mental disorder in this forum? Surely you're aware that you're enabling the other troll by utilizing his inability to comprehend entirely agendas you support. At the very least, morally and ethically, you should stop encouraging someone who is incapable of understanding the consequences of his own behavior. Rather than creating chaos with this man's life, encourage him to present defendable arguments.

Herb, let me ask you something(s). Do you really think that my disdain for Wayne comes from the fact that he is a conservative? Do you honestly think it's something, in and of itself, that I can't handle and want it silenced?

Or do you think that I have valid frustrations in the way he expresses himself?

I won't slam you for any position you choose to take. But is Wayne and his persona totally rediculous to the point that it is worthy of wanting him to quit making the kinds of messes he makes?

Or is what he says and all the ways he says it - or doesn't - carry the kind of weight with which you agree? Do you find any flaw in his actions at all?

Please, explain. Here's your chance to make me understand why a simple man-boy should be given the time of day AND that he's not causing MAJOR problems around here.

You'll probably not catch me on a more open-minded night. Tkae your best shot and REALLY defend him. Acknowledge where I am coming from and use it against me if you wish. But man, to have you post anything that even SMACKS of supporting THIS boy, THIS ONE, is disappointing. You CAN and HAVE offered all kinds of alternate world views. Explain why Wayne should be treated with the kind of respect I give you. And then, if you feel he should be given it, explain why again.

I'll be waiting on this one!

In the interim, I wish to point out that Herb has stated that: "Nothing else matters but fighting terror and getting rightie court appointments."

IMHO, his support for anyone comes down to putting his agenda front and center, no matter what that actually takes.

So if I just suddenly declare " Chickenjuggler is now a conservative and everything I say is right." I will be given credit and rarely, if ever, called out for anything I say or do?

I don't even have to prove anything I say - EVER? I just get a free pass?

How weak is that?

'his support for anyone comes down to putting his agenda front and center..'

Oh my.

Guys, it is really disengenuous to propose that you each don't try to put YOUR agendas front and center.

Of course we each have points of view with which we attempt to persuade.

Herb

Yeah. OK. Fair point.

What about my questions and requests?

And if what you say is true, then why is it that I DO find MANY more times in which you make some sense and I just don't think that about Wayne? If it's all about positions taken, and you two have similar positions, then why does Wayne bother me so much more than you?

Give me your BEST guess. Really. Just say it out loud.

Please.

"So if I just suddenly declare " Chickenjuggler is now a conservative and everything I say is right."

Look.

I don't agree with every conservative position and stated them here plenty of times. Big tobacco is one of them.

With me, it's the anti-Faith hostility that won't go unchallenged.

Our founding fathers were God-fearing men.
So was Abraham Lincoln, arguably our finest president.
The vast majority of Americans believe in God. Atheists are a tiny, vocal minority.

Leftists and atheists can yell all they want.
I choose to side with what the majority of Americans of faith.

It's a free country.

Herb

"..why is it that I DO find MANY more times in which you make some sense and I just don't think that about Wayne."

Ask yourself one question.

Are all atheists alike? All democrats? All independents?

Of course not.

Wayne is a passionate guy. And I think we could all use passion in our beliefs. It's hard to get excited about a moderate democrat, or a moderate conservative. Passion is what makes us glad to be alive.

We all come from different backgrounds here. I'll bet Wayne connects with a lot of people that you or I could never reach.

Viva la Waynester

Herb

Right right. Me too. But my question is;

Do you think that anyone has valid reasons for dismissing Wayne? ( Actual points he makes, aside [ and you may as well mention if you think he makes very many valid points ] ) Can you understand why a person like Wayne, and his STYLE is detrimental ( or at least make it exceedingly difficult ) to have a conversation around here? Are you really " just fine " with the way he thinks and expresses himself?

Or do you think that it ALL boils down to the fact that we don't agree with his content? Do you really think it's his being a conservative that drives us batty?

Which is it?

Now, you'll note that I have not used any profanity. Although I wanted to. But since you dismiss points if they include profanity, I didn't. But if you avoid the questions again, then you'll understand that why I choose to just talk the way I talk. Because if you can't answer those questions as posed, then why should I hold back? It's not like holding back got you to speak like a normal person before. So I would have nothing to lose by just talking the way I talk. But for you, I am talking in the way you SAY you want to be talked to.

TAG!

Thanks Herb you are my man. We do come from different backgrounds here and those leftists think we all think the same and thats just a shame. I for one thank God that we are different. It would be pretty boring if we all agreed on everything.

"Of course we each have points of view with which we attempt to persuade."

Totally.

However, the majority of Americans are not supporting the reductions in rights, violations of our law, war and a batch of others things to get our morality legislated into law.

Advocacy is one thing. Totally ok.

Accepting harm in trade for the chance to get your view legislated is less than honorable.

" "So if I just suddenly declare " Chickenjuggler is now a conservative and everything I say is right."

Look.

I don't agree with every conservative position and stated them here plenty of times. Big tobacco is one of them.

With me, it's the anti-Faith hostility that won't go unchallenged.

Our founding fathers were God-fearing men.
So was Abraham Lincoln, arguably our finest president.
The vast majority of Americans believe in God. Atheists are a tiny, vocal minority.

Leftists and atheists can yell all they want.
I choose to side with what the majority of Americans of faith.

It's a free country."

Great. I'll take that as a " Yes. I would agree with you in that scenario."

Am I wrong to take that as a Yes?

Re: faith hostility

Herb, I just don't want you faith to be my law. That's it, end of story. The rest of it is all good.

It's less than honest to characterize it such, when I've posted volumes here detailing the primary issue being the legislating of morality with only faith as a justification.

Wayne is a spammer and should be banned. His existence here is detrimental to the forum as a whole. I normally wouldn't support such a position, but Wayne's postings have reached a point of being classified as spam.

I think Herb loses a lot of respect here by standing up for Wayne. Herb, are you prepared to tell Wayne he is DEAD wrong on the Cheney issue? Of course not, because you're as partisan is as they come.

Well....here is one now folks. Lets see if we can get an interview.

Muck: Excuse me Mr Troll.....Mr Troll

Troll: You talking to me?

Muck: Yes....Muck Raker with BS Broadcasting...I would like to interview you Mr Troll.

Troll: Umm...guess so but call me Wayne.

Muck: OK will do Mr Waye T Roll.

Wayne: No Just Wayne.

Muck: Fine. Lets start off with some questions sent to me.

Wayne: Umm...sure.

Muck: Is it true that there are no female trolls and that young trolls spring up from the piles of poop that Trolls leave laying all over the place?

Wayne: Why do you ask a question in which you already have an answer in mind? I hate playing that game. I would much rather you tell me what your intent is in asking the question.

Muck: I See.

Muck: Lets try this. What are your thoughts on the cival war in IRAQ? Should the US begin turning over control to IRAQ and exit the country?

Wayne: I wish you would allow me to disagree with you. I guess that is asking too much . If you want to get along with everybody there seems to be a requirement that we hate Bush and America.

Muck: Riiight. OK lets move on shall we. What are your thoughts on the issue of gay marriage becoming legalized and recognized?

Wayne: Like my mom says "don't confuse me with facts my mind is made up." I doubt if facts would do any good. You are too set in your ways to have facts make any difference.

Muck: Hmmmm. Well thank you very much for your time Mr Wayne T Roll. Anything you would like to say in closing?

Wayne: I answer every one of your questions. The problem is that you and the rest of the lefties care only about one thing: MY TOTAL BLIND AGREEMENT! Forget about facts, nothing else matters but that. Why can't you admit thats what you want here?

Muck: OK thats all the time we have now....Thank You For Your Time.

Well there you have it folks.....A perfect example of how a Troll will incite others into inflamed replies by not answering questions.

This has been a special report from the field.

Brought to you by

Muck Raker
BS (Bull Shit) Broadcasting

Remember folks it is against the rules to feed the Trolls.

Have a good night and remember to lock your doors and load your guns!!!

Muck Raker Sigining Off

>>>"Wayne is a spammer and should be banned."

I can't believe you and others persist in this BS. Thread after thread, post after post, Wayne is taunted and provoked into responding. Then, the whining starts for him to be banned.

I've been sitting back watching this from a distance, and it has become obvious that the taunters are more at fault than Wayne. Don't you have anything more worthwhile to do?

Perhaps you should sit closer and you'll see that wayne needs help. Assigning "he said, she said" blame sort of plays into the very thing you're complaining about.

in an anonymous forum such as this one, we can only judge posters by the contents of their posts. People posting nutty comments should expect, at worst, the same type of nutty response from other posters, or at best, find themselves being ignored. There is no "poor wayne" exception rule here.

It would help though, if those in a position to do so, would stop enabling him, and/or offer guidance.

Skep, you assuming your viewpoint is right and his is wrong. This is a typical liberal mindset.

Actually we all do that Deane. You did with your post too!

My first assumption was that his content was poor.

I'll bet there were a coupla other assumptions too...

Just saying.

I don't like banning in this case. Jakman was a clear case of the ban being the right thing to do. No question.

Wayne has been posting here for a long time. Only recently decided to really get after it. I remain convinced it was some directive.

How about a PDXRadio holiday, or something? Heck, I'll take it with him, if that's what it takes.

My problem is this: Reinstate once said he's the real deal. I believe this. That limits my support for a ban. Does not help the problem, but it is what it is.

Hello there folks Muck Raker Here!

I could no longer sit idly buy so I felt the need to come out of retirement to bring you this breaking story.

Thank you for you time and attention!

And Thank You to BS(Bull Shit)Broadcasting for allowing me this special report!

Muck Raker Signing off Now and returning to my Hammock!

I lift my Beer to you all from Phoenix and wish you all luck in your Troll Quest!

Have a Good Day and Remember Lock Your Doors and Load Your Guns!!!

Yours Truly

Muck Raker

"Can you understand why a person like Wayne, and his STYLE is detrimental...or at least...exceedingly difficult...to have a conversation around here? Are you really "just fine" with the way he thinks and expresses himself?"

I'll attempt to honestly address your questions.

There are many 'styles' on this board.

To the majority of Americans, Wayne is far less offensive than Trixter calling people Nazis, along with all the profanity posted by 'progressives' on this board.

It's actually quite bizarre that free speech appears to extend to profanity and name-calling, but not to matters of faith.

"Or do you think that it ALL boils down to the fact that we don't agree with his content? Do you really think it's his being a conservative that drives us batty?"

Wayne goes with his heart, which many liberals purport to understand. There's the disconnect. Given his heart-felt posts, it appears to be his beliefs, not his approach, that's being taken to task.

But it's not really a political issue.

I believe it's because the Waynester is unashamed of the Gospel, and to those of us deep in our own webs of sin, the Gospel is extremely offensive. It says 'change.'

A person of faith sees this as an act of love. For rather than hand out drugs to drug addicts [which has been mentioned here numerous times as a way to 'help solve' the drug and crime problem], a Christian sees that as retreating from evil. That drug addict has intrinsic value, for he or she was created in God's own image.

Far better to show the drug addict that there is hope and let God perform a change in his life. We're all like that drug addict, except many of our problems are more easily hidden. People take drugs for a lot of reasons, including the escape from pain, not necessarily physical. That pain is often deep in one's soul.

Hey, I don't blame people here for disagreeing with me or Wayne. Neither one of us is perfect, and look what people did to our Saviour, who WAS perfect.

Herb

OK.

Thanks.

The only style Wayne has is ignorance. When one continues to post over and over and over that "Dick Cheney served in the military" when clearly the FACTS say otherwise, that is spam. It's like someone continuing to post that the earth is flat.

Care to answer the question on whether Cheney served in the military, Herb? Or will you continue to just dodge obvious lies? How about you be a good christian and correct your brother that so desperately needs it. Allowing him to continue to post lies seems like a sin to me.

"...correct your brother that so desperately needs it. Allowing him to continue to post lies seems like a sin to me."

Since you're so concerned about the salvation of others, you might consider speaking with your brother Trixter about his calling others nazis.

I haven't researched Mr. Cheney's situation and don't know if he served in the military. As second in command to the Commander in Chief, perhaps that's what Wayne meant.

If this is such a source of concern to you, why don't you ask him if that's what he meant?

Herb

Wasn't Dick Cheney Secretary of Defense? Would being in charge of our entire military count? Or, do the libs want him to lie in the mud in a foxhole in order for it to count? Or maybe running around in a battle area with a home movie camera reenacting battle scenes for later political use would be better.

Deane, I never thought you were this dumb. An appointed political position does not count as military service.

Under your definition understanding, Clinton would have been a former 5 star general for being the commander in chief of all military. Do you really want to give that draft dodger Clinton credit for military service?

Nope!

I thought so. Why then give that credit to Cheney?

I guess we're not going to then, are we.

dj sez: "This is a typical liberal mindset."

I think your assuming and generalizing has worn out its welcome. For one thing, based on posts in this forum, there are only 3 true liberals in this forum - me, andrew and reinstate. Everyone else are angry republicans, ex republicans or moderates. heck, I recently posted my ballot choices for nov 7th and I voted down every single money measure -- am I a typical liberal? I think not.

There are all kinds of people in this forum. Only one person is ruining it for EVERYONE while at the same time making his side seem worse than it actually is.

Then there is the Herb troll is just USING someone with a low mental capability to create chaos. If there IS a God, no doubt Herb will be held accountable for abusing a person with lowered mental capacity.

bottom line: wayne lacks elementary discussion skills and lacks even the most simplist of critical thinking skills. These are things that may not even be his own fault (medical/mental problems perhaps compounded with a poor upbringing).


re: cheney. does he have discharge papers? no? then he never served.

Thanks, Skep, from one of the moderates

'...wayne lacks...lacks even the most simplist of critical thinking skills.'

Look. I've never met Wayne. I know little about the man. But I like him because he's passionate and not lukewarm. Isn't that what an exciting discussion is all about? Or maybe you guys would prefer to go with the 'dull as dishwater' routine and discuss the minutiae of tax policy. Right.

If the Waynemeister is so lacking in critical analytical skills, what does that say about those who

1. Cannot hold their own with someone with so-called 'diminished mental capacity'

and

2. Wish to silence him?

Once more, it only makes it appear that the left cannot tolerate dissent in its various forms.

Seriously.

Me thinks thou protesteth too much.

Herbeth

I agree, Herb. I think the leftists are used to running this forum by themselves and can't handle opposing points of view. I don't understand why they like you and not me. We both believe in the same gospel and I notice we are not ashamed of it. I would think the left would admire the convictions we both have. I wish the left would practice the tolerance they love to preach!

Author: Herb
Friday, December 01, 2006 - 10:36 am


"...correct your brother that so desperately needs it. Allowing him to continue to post lies seems like a sin to me."

Since you're so concerned about the salvation of others, you might consider speaking with your brother Trixter about his calling others nazis.

I haven't researched Mr. Cheney's situation and don't know if he served in the military. As second in command to the Commander in Chief, perhaps that's what Wayne meant.

If this is such a source of concern to you, why don't you ask him if that's what he meant?

Herb

-----------------

Why doesn't it bother the left at all that Bill Clinton never served in the military? It sounds like the left is making political affiliation the requirement for military service. No conservatives need apply.

Author: Deane_johnson
Friday, December 01, 2006 - 10:52 am


Wasn't Dick Cheney Secretary of Defense? Would being in charge of our entire military count? Or, do the libs want him to lie in the mud in a foxhole in order for it to count? Or maybe running around in a battle area with a home movie camera reenacting battle scenes for later political use would be better.

--------
It doesn't matter, Deane. The left here thinks political affiliation is a requirement for political service. Why don't they care that Clinton never served?

Wayne, I don't hate you and I am glad you and Herb are here to have interesting discussions, but what gives Herb the edge over you is that he can accept facts that are facts and knows the difference between opinion and facts. I for one have no problem with you giving respect to Cheney with your "belief" that he is a military veteran, but accept it as fact that technically he really is not. OK?

military service is what I meant, not political service.

?

WW:
"I think the leftists...can't handle opposing points of view.

And:

"I don't understand why they like you and not me."


You ARE NOT serious, are you, Wayne?

If you ARE serious, then you really truly don't and/or can't understand the HUNDREDS of posts people have taken the time to write to you regarding both of the above concepts.

I really truly think WE, as a group, need to try harder to make a concerted effort to stop responding to Wayne on this side of the board. He is truly mentally not capable of processing most of the posts here.


Wayne, if you tell me that you are mentally disabled in some capacity, I will never pick on you again. Are you?

I am serious. You have the silly notion that only liberals are capable of serving in the military. Why doesn't it bother you that Clinton never served at all? You did everything but answer my question. Again I wonder if you are really a female at all, mrs M. You insult just like a male!

1. I'm not a true liberal. I'm more of a moderate that leans left. I would classfiy myself as a social liberal and fiscal conservative. I think MAX is a collosal waste of money, I don't back affirmative action, and I don't care for hippie protests all that much.

2. Dick Cheney NEVER served in the military. It takes all of 3 seconds to research this. Playing dumb on this subject is makes you look dumb, Herb.

3. I'm not bothered that Clinton didn't serve, after all, I've never served either, so who am I to criticize him. But, I am bothered that Wayne continues to state the Cheney did serve as a fact, when he didn't. Political affiliation has nothing to do with the facts of this matter.

4. Freedom of speech does not apply to this forum. We all post here with the approval of the owner of this site.

5. Wayne's continued spam has devalued this forum to the point where I believe he should be banned. His posting history proves this, and it has nothing to do with his beliefs. If that was the case, I'd ask to have Herb be banned as well.

6. Wayne's last post at 1:23 says it all. It's a lost cause to deal with him, as he is a mental midget. As hard as it is to ignore his assenine posts, we must ignore him if he isn't banned.

Wayne.....
It is really quite simple.
Please Read:

Oftentimes a given country's Commander-in-Chief need not be or have been a commissioned officer or even a veteran, and it is by this legal statute that civilian control of the military is realized in states where it is constitutionally required.

By definition even the Commander in Chief is still only considered a Civilian Commander of the armed forces. So this would also apply to any other elected civilian in charge of military operations who has never gone through basic or worn the uniform.

I cannot agree with you that Cheney was ever in the military when by his own words he has said, and I quote him, "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."

A elected official is not considered as serving in the military he is officially a civilian in charge of the military unless he at one time in his life wore the uniform in service of this great country.

Wayne...I can see your point of view and that you feel that the commander in chief is a military commander. From your personal point of view that is what you beleive to be true.

My personal point of view is that he is in fact a civilian leader in charge of the military. This also applies to Cheney and any other official in charge of military units.

If I were to be standing on your side of the fence I would tell you I agree with you.

Can you jump over to my side of the fence and say that from here you would agree with me from this side?

Author: Reinstatepete
Friday, December 01, 2006 - 2:04 pm


1. I'm not a true liberal. I'm more of a moderate that leans left. I would classfiy myself as a social liberal and fiscal conservative. I think MAX is a collosal waste of money, I don't back affirmative action, and I don't care for hippie protests all that much.

2. Dick Cheney NEVER served in the military. It takes all of 3 seconds to research this. Playing dumb on this subject is makes you look dumb, Herb.

3. I'm not bothered that Clinton didn't serve, after all, I've never served either, so who am I to criticize him. But, I am bothered that Wayne continues to state the Cheney did serve as a fact, when he didn't. Political affiliation has nothing to do with the facts of this matter.

4. Freedom of speech does not apply to this forum. We all post here with the approval of the owner of this site.

5. Wayne's continued spam has devalued this forum to the point where I believe he should be banned. His posting history proves this, and it has nothing to do with his beliefs. If that was the case, I'd ask to have Herb be banned as well.

6. Wayne's last post at 1:23 says it all. It's a lost cause to deal with him, as he is a mental midget. As hard as it is to ignore his assenine posts, we must ignore him if he isn't banned.

-----
why do liberals have such a hard time admitting they are liberal? Would you tell me, Herb? Its as if being a liberal is something to be ashamed of and yet the views here aren't hardly conservative. Cheney never served in the military? Thats an outright lie. You have your mind made up thats the truth and nothing can change it Pete. My mother is right. Your last statement says it all. Its agree or else. Why do you insist on my blind agreement?
Why do you have the notion that only liberals can serve our country? And why doesn't it bother you that Clinton never served at all? there is an obvious double standard here. If a liberal never serves it doesn't matter. Only if a conservative never serves is it an issue at all. Cheney was chief of staff under Bush41 and that is military service. Of course Wesley Clark did the same thing. Why is his considered military service and Cheney's is not? It shows the double standard. Conservatives never have served in the military. You liberals are amazing.

PS. if you have never served at all Pete, then who are you to criticise my service? Or Cheneys?

Or mine. Hey, I've never served either - who are you to question my service?

Wayne, I've never served in the service.

Therefore, I have served in the service. Please don't question it.

I'm off to POKER NIGHT!!!

Have fun. I don't care if you served or not, CJ, I just don't like it when someone who has never served at all critizes someone elses service. I think thats a bit hypocritical. I am going out too. Our group is going ice skating and I am no skater but will watch people.

Hey its Friday PM head to a bar and have a few drinks relax......

"Why do liberals have such a hard time admitting they are liberal? Would you tell me, Herb?"

It's a good question, because liberals will call themselves democrats, 'progressives,' even left wing. But the term 'liberal' conjures up a fearful notion in them.

It's kind of the same with conservatives who quickly add that they're 'pro-choice.' Or they'll insist that they're 'actually conservative when it comes to fiscal issues, but "'progressive' on social issues."

Bologna. By insisting on their particular nuance, they're only trying to appear more palatable. Lay it out there, I say. Don't be a weenie. Anything else is too PC for me. Don't intend to offend, but at least be honest enough to be truthful about where you stand.

I'm a Nixon man, so to me, I recall that liberals were yippies and druggies who burn flags.

However, Jesus was a liberal. Compared to Him, the people calling themselves liberal now are mere poseurs. I don't know if they'd have the guts to use a whip to kick money-changers out of temples. Neither would many conservatives.

Herb

Well, I've never had a problem with it. Liberal is not a dirty word.

The different qualifiers are perfectly accpetable. Nobody fits into the two little boxes. That's all the pro-choice, progressive, fiscal, etc... stuff.

Better to just articulate what you think, avoid the labels. This way, others learn something of value.

"I'm a Nixon man, so to me, I recall that liberals were yippies and druggies who burn flags."

By today's standards of what the GOP has, Nixon would have been considered ... well, not a liberal, but quite progressive. A moderate to be sure.

People far to the left scare and irritate me as much as people far to the right. The thought of socializing everything under the sun under one central government, especially health care, pisses me off as much as raping and pillaging our environment and starting illegal and unjustified wars all to placate your big corporate bigwigs.

I am sure there are many liberals in here who are turned off by the actions of some to the extreme left, such as Ted Kennedy ... much like I personally am turned off by the actions of Dubya, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and the like.

Oh Wayne....

You didn't answer my post....This is a character test....It will prove to me what kind of person you are....Here is a cance for you to show me!

Still waiting....

What answer do you want? I can't answer you unless you tell me.

Wayne...I can see your point of view and that you feel that the commander in chief is a military commander. From your personal point of view that is what you beleive to be true.

My personal point of view is that he is in fact a civilian leader in charge of the military. This also applies to Cheney and any other official in charge of military units.

If I were to be standing on your side of the fence I would tell you I agree with you.

Can you jump over to my side of the fence and say that from here you would agree with me from this side?

I'm not asking you to not believe what you do but can you agree with me on what I believe?
.

I can't say that Cheney never served in the military because thats not true no matter what the conviction might be that no conservative can serve in the armed forces. Why doesn't it bother anyone that Clinton never served? Do you consider mr. Clark's service military service and Cheney's not? Why the double standard? Can a conservative serve in the armed forces? The drift I am getting from the liberals is no.

Maybe "someone" should just ask Cheney's office; here is his email address:

vice_president@whitehouse.gov


And as far as "Drift"?

YOU, sir, are a drift. And adrift. Feel free to ask Mr. Merkin or my father if conservatives can serve our country. They'll set you straight, real fast. Although both are absolutely 100% disgusted by the Resident Bush regime, they are both lifelong R's.

BTW, you did NOT serve. I'd so Loooooove to know that little 3 or 4 digit "reason" code on your discharge paper. It can't be good.

I dare to disagree. Who are you to question my service at all or Cheney's service? especially if you have never served in the military a day in your life? Why do you think only liberals can serve in the military? Has a conservative served in the army? Rather than trash me like a man why don't you answer my question "Mrs" Merkin?

HOLY SHIT!
I left for a little while and come back to this crap all over again!
JHC on a popscicle stick!!!
This is FUCKING BULLSHIT!

JHC! Wayne!

Trixter is right. And if Trixter took a break, that's something!

Welcome back Trixter!

Mrs M told you who she was. She never made any representation that could be characterized as "only liberals can serve". Of course conservatives serve and will continue to serve in the military. Her being married to one, and a child of another more than answers that little bit, don't 'ya think!

IMHO, you probably should step up, act like the man you claim to be and pay attention before you shoot your mouth off to one of the longest term residents of this forum, who did take the time to think before she said anything to you.

Finally, putting "Mrs" in quotes is belittlement that is on par with your own unfouonded claim in this little exchange. Again, why not be the man you claim to be and deal it straight huh?

That person trashes me like a man and it makes me question whether she is a female at all. I know many females and I haven't met one who is as unladylike as "she" is. I wish if she were a woman she would act like one. Swearing the way she does is something I would expect from a man. I suspect the use of "Mrs" is probably her way to get her treated like a woman.

And why did Trix have to come back at all? He can't make any point at all. His only method of talking is swearing. Can't he realize that proves my point? I thought there were rules against foul language here? Why does the moderator ignore them? Can't it be seen that others might be reading this that might be offended? Its about time people started caring about the language they used.

WW IGNORANTLY said>>>
And why did Trix have to come back at all?

Thanks Wayne! Your a fine COMMIE! You and Castro would be good friends.....
Wayne you haven't EVER made one GD point since logging on for the first time!

WW said>>>>
Its about time people started caring about the language they used.

Without the foul language you still INSULTED me and that's just as bad as CUSSING your IGNORANT ASSHOLE!

Wayne...

You failed my test miserably....

You used nothing but double talk to a very easy question....

I could see it and agree if I had your same point of view, explained mine and asked that if you were to agree with my point of view from my side.

YOU FAILED

You are full of CRAP
You cannot answer even one question without a question in return or finger pointing at someone who did not insult in the question asked of you.

You sir also are putting words in peoples mouths when they never said anything of the sort that dribbles out of your posts....in my mind that is bearing false witness and one of God's Commandments that you are pooping all over....HYPOCRIT

Go F yourself.....I tried to figure you out and ask you to simply agree with one thing from MY POINT OF VIEW....not convert to it and I get bashed from you in return.

If religion means being like you then I would rather grow horns and carry a pitch fork.

I tried giving you the bennefit of the doubt now i know there is no bennefit to talking with you.....BTW.....Am a moderate not a liberal so for you to call me one is a lie you piece of HYPOCATIC BIBLE THUMPING dork!!!

Have a nice Life Wayne and see you in Hell in the afterlife....

What you really mean is that I didn't give you an answer you agreed with. The problem is that you can never accept the fact that there are people who look at life differently than you do. I think your problem is that you need some of the "Bible thumping" to be part of your own life. I am not planning on Hell I am planning on spending my eternity with Jesus.

No, what he means is that you are wrong all the time. Not anything else. You are just wrong all the time.

And I agree with him.

Thanks for being a straight forward NAZI Wayner...
You've shown you true colors...
Hitler really was YOUR idol!

It never fails.

Trixter can't discuss in a civil manner, so he calls others nazis.

It's pathological.

Herb

Oohh! A little profanity here and there and the world might come crumbling down.

You guys are complete and totaly holier than thou weenies.

How about answering some questions directly and people will find far less reason to express themselves with profanity.

Remember when I said it hurts? Nearly every time you see the profanity here, somebody is hurting.

Reading the often useless discourse here is a whole lot like stubbing one's toe.

Until this happens on a regular basis, neither one of you has the high ground where discourse is concerned.

It never fails.

Trixter can't discuss in a civil manner, so he calls others nazis.

It's pathological.

Herb
----
He can't say anything without insulting or profanity. I wonder if he might have been temporairly banned because of it? If thats the case he sure didn't learn anything.

thor: Chickenjuggler
Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 8:05 pm


No, what he means is that you are wrong all the time. Not anything else. You are just wrong all the time.

And I agree with him.

---
Its not a matter of being wrong its a matter of disagreement. You see to Trix disagreement and being wrong are one and the same. Why is he so above disagreement? Why are you for that matter?

Wayner you don't call ayone a COMMIE??
A Pinko COMMIE????

LOL!

You use Nazi and I will use Commie, bud.

Sounds good to me....

So we agree???? U insult people???

I'm not above disagreement at all.

Again, my posting history shows that to be an absolute fact. Yours?

Magic 8 ball says: Doubtful.

If you meet your burden, I'm gonna listen.

Agree to disagree, agree, point taken, given?

The whole works buddy.

Author: Trixter
Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 9:09 pm


Sounds good to me....

So we agree???? U insult people???

----
fair enough. You stop insulting and I will too.

Sounds good!

YAY.....If we stop insulting Wayne he will quit posting....cause his posts are an insult to my Dog's intelligence!

Woof!

Ya...he craps around the yard a lot less than Wayne does in this forum!!!LOL

Author: Joamon4sure
Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 10:56 pm


YAY.....If we stop insulting Wayne he will quit posting....cause his posts are an insult to my Dog's intelligence!

-----
I won't stop posting. You and the rest of the liberal secularists want the board all to yourselves but thats not happening.

Yeah, because if you stopped posting, what would happen?

You and the rest of the liberal secularists would have the board to yourselves. Thats what you want isn't it?

And what would happen if we had the board to ourselves?

(Reads with great interest!)

And what's a liberal secularist? Is that someone who is a liberal but doesn't believe in God?

I believe in God. Am I still whatever label you have for me today? Even though it doesn't apply?

I wish you would stop lying about me Wayne...I have told you repeatedly that I am a moderate and not a liberal you Hypocritical piece of Troll Crap! Quit bearing false witness against me and others by putting words in our mouths that we did not say.....Burn in Hell Hypocrit!!!!
What other commandments do you feel free to crap all over!!!

Seriously!

It's Wayne against the world! If we don't share his vision of God, we are all [insert label of doom here]!

Get a life ---> a real one Wayne!

You've got on this board, all kinds buddy. The full spectrum is here. Isn't it kind of rash to just label everyone in such a general way?

#9 Does not apply to Wayne I guess......

9. Do not give false testimony against another.

I dunno Joamon, I think you better bow down right now. Suck it up and admit to being the flaming liberal you are.

If you pray hard, you might make things right before you topple over.

Get busy you sinner!

Don't have to...i'm a Catholic.....so long as I repent and ask forgiveness just before kicking off I will be saved!!!

Hey, I'm the only true liberal here so I want ALL of you GONE so I can have this board for myself!

Yep, that's YOU Wayne, DD and Herb. Definately CAPS-USING Trixter -- OUT! KSKD/KBBT, you and Jo are history too. Mrs M, you don't fool me anymore -- get outta here! Reinstate -- take your Rose elswhere! Chickenjuggler -- take your juggling to Hannityonline.

Everybody out! I want this whole damn board to myself.

Now go!

Beat it!

Vamoose!

Jo, take your dog too.

Can't...he's glued himself to Wayne's leg right now!!!!!

I ain't going near that without rubber gloves!!! No way....sticky goey mess!!!

I'm crushed!

I thought I was pretty damn liberal!

Guess I better redouble my efforts then.

Author: Joamon4sure
Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 11:30 pm


I wish you would stop lying about me Wayne...I have told you repeatedly that I am a moderate and not a liberal you Hypocritical piece of Troll Crap! Quit bearing false witness against me and others by putting words in our mouths that we did not say.....Burn in Hell Hypocrit!!!!
What other commandments do you feel free to crap all over!!!

----
Then why do you post like a liberal for petes sake? What do you care about the 10 commandments anyway? The first one is the one you need to work on: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

All right, that's it.

The cat's outta the bag.

Preacher Wayne here is all about suppressing anything but his interpetation of god's will.

This is where it all starts. You wanted to know how terror starts?

Look in the mirror Wayne. There is is right there.

The person you just accosted (however you spell it) has done exactly nothing but come here and try and enjoy the others. You really need to take that back Wayner.

"Author: Kbbt
Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 11:38 pm


I dunno Joamon, I think you better bow down right now. Suck it up and admit to being the flaming liberal you are."


Oh i'm flaming all right.....check me out....
http://thecia.com.au/reviews/g/images/ghost-rider-poster-0.jpg

I"M COMING FOR YA WAYNE...TAKING YOU TO HELL!!!!!

Man...here we go again!!

Wanye crapping all over #9 again....
Do not give false testimony against another.

I never said I did not beleive in the one God....just not your twisted version. Also I never ever said I walked that straight path. My path right now...well it ain't looking to good....but you my freind claim the straight path and last I knew Hypocrisy was the #1 Sin followed closely by destroying God's work in taking your own life!!! IF YOU TALK THE TALK THEN WALK THE WALK HYPOCRIT!!!!!

You and the rest of the neo-CONer secularists would have the board to yourselves. Thats what you want isn't it?

Wayner wants EVERYONE to think as him!
NO room for free thinking!
NO room for anything but ULTR-RIGHT thinking!

You want everyone to agree with you, Trix. Nobody can be a conservative on this forum without facing bashing from you and the other libs. And the last I checked there are only 2 conservatives on this forum, me and Herb.

Then go to the RNC or Insannity's site. It's 300 neo-CONers and 1 Liberal there.....
You can listen to them talk about killing everyone in the world that doesn't agree with the Bush administrations policy's.

"You wanted to know how terror starts? Look in the mirror Wayne."

That is absolutely ridiculous and if you cannot see the difference between followers of Jesus Christ and terrorists, there's very little else to discuss here.

You lose all credibility when such absurd comments are made.

Herbert

Herb said>>>>
You lose all credibility when such absurd comments are made.

Your statement could be used for yourself....

I'm not equating followers of Christ with terrorists.

YOU ARE.

Herb

I am???
WHERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Author: Trixter
Sunday, December 03, 2006 - 6:59 pm


Then go to the RNC or Insannity's site. It's 300 neo-CONers and 1 Liberal there.....
You can listen to them talk about killing everyone in the world that doesn't agree with the Bush administrations policy's.

---
You are taling about yourself if you claim you are a Republican which I doubt. You aren't for any of the things the GOP is for.

I don't think I've read anyone here equating followers of christ with terrorism. The charge is that there is a connection to terrorism and religion.

WHO SAID I'M NOT FOR WHAT THE GOP IS FOR????

I'm NOT for what the secular EXTREME REICH wing of the Republican (DUHbya and Co.) wants! NEVER have and NEVER will be! Does that make me Lib? NO WAY!
Just because I don't think like you I'm a Liberal? That's great! The next thing your going to tell me is I have to go to YOUR Church instead of mine......

You aren't for anything the GOP is for. who was the last Republican you voted for? I bet it was,t Reagan! You probably are pro choice, anti 2nd ammendment, think criminals need only 3 months probation and are against any tax relief. Am I right? On what grounds are you a Republican at all?

Author: Reinstatepete
Sunday, December 03, 2006 - 7:38 pm


I don't think I've read anyone here equating followers of christ with terrorism. The charge is that there is a connection to terrorism and religion.

----------
There is no connection between religion and terror. Religion is nether good nor bad. Religion is only as good as men make it. As long as men are evil there will be terror. God doesn't produce terror.

DUHbya Sr.

(why oh why am I getting involved in this...?)

"There is no connection between religion and terror" - You need to make the case on this one, which I believe you attempt to do with the following statements.

"Religion is nether good nor bad. Religion is only as good as men make it." - If religion is as good/bad as men make it, then any particular religion can be good or bad. Sounds like you believe that religion can be used for good purposes, or for bad purposes, depending on how men 'make' it. I agree.

"As long as men are evil there will be terror." - Duh!

"God doesn't produce terror." - First of all, I thought you were talking about religion (which you say is made by man), not God, so this statement does nothing to forward your argument about religion, terror and man. Secondly, though I am no Bible scholar, I thought that God was pretty good at smiting people. And what about the flood, etc? In short, I think if you tick off God enough, he is capable of producing a ton of terror.

Author: Edselehr
Sunday, December 03, 2006 - 8:15 pm


(why oh why am I getting involved in this...?)

"There is no connection between religion and terror" - You need to make the case on this one, which I believe you attempt to do with the following statements.


I didn't make the statement that religion caused terror, Pete did. The burdon of proof is on him not me. He made that point without any attempt to base it on.


"Religion is nether good nor bad. Religion is only as good as men make it." - If religion is as good/bad as men make it, then any particular religion can be good or bad. Sounds like you believe that religion can be used for good purposes, or for bad purposes, depending on how men 'make' it. I agree.

Thats good. Religion is neutral and neither causes good or evil. What causes evil is the heart of man. I am glad we agree here.I think people who say religion causes terror probably had a bad experience in a church. Maybe a girl dumped him or something.


"As long as men are evil there will be terror." - Duh!

"God doesn't produce terror." - First of all, I thought you were talking about religion (which you say is made by man), not God, so this statement does nothing to forward your argument about religion, terror and man. Secondly, though I am no Bible scholar, I thought that God was pretty good at smiting people. And what about the flood, etc? In short, I think if you tick off God enough, he is capable of producing a ton of terror.


I assure you if I tick God off at all he will let me know somehow. I don't feel guilty of anything. All I have done is share what I believe to be the truth from the Bible. If it turns people off its probably because they don't want to deal with absolute truth. You see people want the truth to be relative which is part of the new morality which my pastor talked about this morning in fact. But truth I believe has to be absolute to be worthwile. Otherwise if truth were relative what kind of truth do we have at all, do you understand what I mean here?
By the way welcome to the forum and I hope we can have some meaningful dialouge. You seem reasonable to me.

"You wanted to know how terror starts? Look in the mirror Wayne."

Just because you delete it, doesn't mean I can't cut and paste YOUR above post.

Nice try, Trixter. Wayne is right. You're aptly named. Perhaps that's why you spew such anger at him. He's apparently got your number.

Herb

Herb throws an INSULT>>>
Nice try, Trixter. Wayne is right. You're aptly named. Perhaps that's why you spew such anger at him. He's apparently got your number.

503-319-0954????
If my caller ID says "Wayne's House of Pain" I'm NOT answering....

Herb...
Your CONTINUING INSULTS will get you NOWHERE!

He didn't insult. Being a conservative is an insult to you.

"I think people who say religion causes terror probably had a bad experience in a church.

Maybe a girl dumped him or something."

(jaw hits floor)


OK, folks, we've officially hit the lowest-possible-rock-bottom point of WW's absolute lunacy and mental illness.

That is so ridiculous, I'm astounded by the sheer F---ing stupidity of it.


P.S. Dear God, I'm very sorry for swearing...and could you please smite WW before Jesus's birthday? That'd be the truly great gift of the season.

Thanks!

Wayne says:


"I didn't make the statement that religion caused terror, Pete did. The burdon of proof is on him not me. He made that point without any attempt to base it on." - But you refute his statement, which I think is overbroad, with your own statement of "There is no connection between religion and terror" which is equally overbroad. If Pete says that religion causes terror, you need to argue that it does not. Doesn't mean there are not other connections between religion and terror. By saying there are *no* connections between the two you are introducing a new idea that you are responsible for defending.




"Religion is neutral and neither causes good or evil. What causes evil is the heart of man. I am glad we agree here.I think people who say religion causes terror probably had a bad experience in a church. Maybe a girl dumped him or something." - I'm not sure we do agree. You say the heart of man causes evil. You also say that religion is as good/bad as men make it. But, religion cannot exist beyond man's participation in it. To refer to religion outside of man's participation in it is meaningless, because religion without man is meaningless. It's not neutral, it's just irrelevant.


"I assure you if I tick God off at all he will let me know somehow. I don't feel guilty of anything. All I have done is share what I believe to be the truth from the Bible. If it turns people off its probably because they don't want to deal with absolute truth." - Wayne, it's time for you to walk for a moment in the shoes of those who disagree with you, and frankly for those who disagree with you to walk in yours. You cleary have a sense of the world and universe that works for you, and that gives you meaning and comfort. I'm generally cool with that, because everyone has to have that (it's like an 'operating system' for reality). But if others feel strongly about what they feel is the "truth" you have to understand their conviction might be at least as strong as yours, even though you recognize their beliefs as wrong. I believe that Herb recognizes and accepts this, but you often seem unwilling to accomodate the passion in others for what they believe. Toning down the rhetoric on both sides is a good way to start some possible, actual communication.

"You see people want the truth to be relative which is part of the new morality which my pastor talked about this morning in fact. But truth I believe has to be absolute to be worthwile." - I would imagine that many people of different religion than you, or perhaps of no religion, believe in their own set of "absolute truths" that they hold to as dearly as you do yours. I think the argument you want to make is not so much about relative truth, but rather truth based on observable evidence v. truth based on faith.

"Otherwise if truth were relative what kind of truth do we have at all, do you understand what I mean here?" - Oh yes I do. Philosophers throughout the ages have asked that exact question, and come up with many different answers. You have chosen the Bible as your main source of truth, and that's a great place to start. If you are serious about exploring the subject further, I recommend you continue your exploration into the great philosophers.

"By the way welcome to the forum and I hope we can have some meaningful dialouge. You seem reasonable to me." -I've been lurking and posting sporadically for a few years now, and it's rare when I can find the time to post. And I try to be reasonable when I can - but don't we all?

p.s. I'll try a different highlight color next time, green desn't seem too readable.

Those who find the green hard to read can simply "select" the text.

(Okay, I've posted way too much today for someone who claims to not be posting.)

Author: Edselehr
Monday, December 04, 2006 - 12:26 am


Wayne says:


"I didn't make the statement that religion caused terror, Pete did. The burdon of proof is on him not me. He made that point without any attempt to base it on." - But you refute his statement, which I think is overbroad, with your own statement of "There is no connection between religion and terror" which is equally overbroad. If Pete says that religion causes terror, you need to argue that it does not\


Since Pete made the statement that religion causes terror then he needs to prove that it does. I responded to him. The burdon of proof is on him not me. I said that religion is neutral. Why should I have to prove that?

Doesn't mean there are not other connections between religion and terror. By saying there are *no* connections between the two you are introducing a new idea that you are responsible for defending.

Again Pete needs to show the connection between religion and terror. He probably says that because he went to church and maybe a girl dumped him and he has blamed God ever since then. He can't think of anything good that comes from religion. Its a bit outrageous to say religion causes terror, don't you think thats true? How can faith in God cause terror? Evil causes terror


"Religion is neutral and neither causes good or evil. What causes evil is the heart of man. I am glad we agree here.I think people who say religion causes terror probably had a bad experience in a church. Maybe a girl dumped him or something." - I'm not sure we do agree. You say the heart of man causes evil. You also say that religion is as good/bad as men make it. But, religion cannot exist beyond man's participation in it. To refer to religion outside of man's participation in it is meaningless, because religion without man is meaningless. It's not neutral, it's just irrelevant.


Then if religion is irrelievant then how can it cause terror? I think we agree that religion is as only as good as the people who make it. What I don't understand is how religion can intrinsicly cause terror. we are evil not religion, they are the ones who cause the problem, not God

"I assure you if I tick God off at all he will let me know somehow. I don't feel guilty of anything. All I have done is share what I believe to be the truth from the Bible. If it turns people off its probably because they don't want to deal with absolute truth." - Wayne, it's time for you to walk for a moment in the shoes of those who disagree with you, and frankly for those who disagree with you to walk in yours.

do you think that people really care about walking in my shoes? The way people trash me and swear at me It makes me think it is a one way street. I have to walk in their shoes but they don't have to walk in mine. Thats a bit unfair if that is what you are driving at. I hope it is not the case.

You cleary have a sense of the world and universe that works for you, and that gives you meaning and comfort. I'm generally cool with that, because everyone has to have that (it's like an 'operating system' for reality). But if others feel strongly about what they feel is the "truth" you have to understand their conviction might be at least as strong as yours, even though you recognize their beliefs as wrong. I believe that Herb recognizes and accepts this, but you often seem unwilling to accomodate the passion in others for what they believe. Toning down the rhetoric on both sides is a good way to start some possible, actual communication.
Herb and I both believe in absolute truth and I believe we both believe in the same truth. Both sides need to tone down the insults here in order for there to be any honest communication. I get the feeling that the other side doesn't want that at all. They seem to care about only one thing: The truth is relative and not absolute. They think if they insult and swear long enough they will convert me. There can't be any dialogue with that being the case.

"You see people want the truth to be relative which is part of the new morality which my pastor talked about this morning in fact. But truth I believe has to be absolute to be worthwile." - I would imagine that many people of different religion than you, or perhaps of no religion, believe in their own set of "absolute truths" that they hold to as dearly as you do yours. I think the argument you want to make is not so much about relative truth, but rather truth based on observable evidence v. truth based on faith.


Of course faith is involved. But faith is important in the search for truth. The problem isn't understanding different religions. I try to do that. The problem is that people insist that truth can never be absolute but only relative. Thats what I am reacting to here. If truth is relative then there is no morality and anything goes

"Otherwise if truth were relative what kind of truth do we have at all, do you understand what I mean here?" - Oh yes I do. Philosophers throughout the ages have asked that exact question, and come up with many different answers. You have chosen the Bible as your main source of truth, and that's a great place to start. If you are serious about exploring the subject further, I recommend you continue your exploration into the great philosophers.


I have sudied the other religions and am interested in philosophy. I find I learn a lot that way.I can believe in the Bible but still learn about what people think.

"By the way welcome to the forum and I hope we can have some meaningful dialouge. You seem reasonable to me." -I've been lurking and posting sporadically for a few years now, and it's rare when I can find the time to post. And I try to be reasonable when I can - but don't we all?

p.s. I'll try a different highlight color next time, green desn't seem too readable.

I hope you can find time to post. I imagine you are busy. I hope we can be more reasonable than some of those people who know of no way to make a point other than insulting and swearing.
I suggest blue or red as a highlighting color. There is a list of the different colors we can use

Muck...Muck...Mucking out the CRAP....man it's getting deep in here........Crap...Crap...Crap.....no end of Crap in here anymore!!!!

If the 9/11 hijackers aren't a good enough example of how religion can cause terrorism, I don't know what is.

In the immortal words of General George S Patton:

No poor dumb son of a bithch ever won a war by dying for his country...he won it by making the other poor dumb son of a bithch die for his!!!!!

Great words of wisdom to LIVE by!

Japan had the Kamikaze and Irag has the Suicide Bomber....same thing....one boom then dead. Give a U.S. Marine a rifle and point him at the enemy and you are all set! Give thousand's of them rifles and there ain't no stopping them!!!

Author: Reinstatepete
Monday, December 04, 2006 - 12:41 pm


If the 9/11 hijackers aren't a good enough example of how religion can cause terrorism, I don't know what is.

-----
How are they religious at all? They were evil and their evil was why they did what they did. It had NOTHING to do with religion! Evil is what causes terror. Do you think there is evil in the world at all? And I don't just mean with Christians. Thats probably what your answer will be.

An English farmer, Osama bin Laden, and an George W. are walking
together one day. They come across an antique lamp and a genie pops out
of it. "I will give each of you one wish," says the genie.

The Englishman says, "I am a farmer, my dad was a farmer, and my son will
also farm. I want the land to be forever fertile." Pooooof!
With the blink of the Genie's eye, the land was forever made
fertile for farming.

An amazed Osama Bin Ladin declared, "I desire a wall around Afghanistan,
Iraq, and Iran so that no infidels, most particularly Jews or Americans,
can enter our sacred Islamic states." Pooooof! Another blink and there
was a huge wall around those countries.

The George W. says, "Before I make a wish, I am very curious.
Please tell me more about this wall."

The genie explains, "Well, it's about 5000 feet high, 500 feet thick,
and completely surrounds the three countries. Nothing can get in or out
-- it's virtually impenetrable."

Satisfied, George W. replies, "Great, now fill it with water."

How are the hijackers religious at all? Listen to the cockpit recorder on flight UAL 93 and count how many times they say "Allah is the Greatest" right before the plane crashes into the ground.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0412061hijack9.html

Since you're too dumb to look it up, I'll answer the question for you.

NINE TIMES!

Seems pretty religious to me. In fact, I don't think there is any other way to convince people like this to do evil other than religion.

They weren't religious at all Pete. Just because you mention God doesn't make you religious. Thats like saying if you are born in a garage that makes you a car. Where does the Koran permit murder? Would you show me?I still want to know if you think there is evil at all in the world?
Or is evil limited to Christians? I wouldn't be surprized if you thought that way.

I feel that the 9/11 hijackers were at about the same level of religious conviction that you are, Wayne.

I just don't see that much difference between them and you.

I can easily see you resorting to violence to defend what you believe in, if provoked or even commanded to it by Mr. Ebel or even God, since he talks to you so much.

Of course I think there is evil in the world, and religion plays a part in people commiting acts of evil, because it convinces people of things that would otherwise be crazy. Why do you think they said "Allah is the greatest" right before they flew a plane into the ground and killed everyone on board including themselves?? Because they thought they were doing good in the eye of THEIR god and figured life would be great after death, due to their religious beliefs.

If you don't think the hijackers were religious, I've got some land in New Orleans I'd like to sell you!

"How are the hijackers religious at all?"

By equating one's goodness to religiosity your error in logic is breathtaking.

Instead of looking at the degree of fanaticism, one need only look at what a religion teaches.

Christ did not teach His followers to kill themselves with innocents.

Herb

They weren't religious, Pete. Just because one mentions Allah doesn't make anybody religious. Have you ever read what those people believe? It doesn't have much to do with anything I have heard of in Moslem tradition. Does the Koran mention anything about getting 72 virgins whe one dies? Does it okay one to commit the suicides that people commit when they strap bombs around themselves? I don't think so. Those people are madman. I don't see how they can be religious. No religion says that murder of any kind is okay. I have studied the different religions and haven't seen one that does. Can you show me one? Don't you think its possible they might have been hiding behind Islam? You see what causes terror is evil. Religion is neither good nor bad. Religion is only as good as the people who make it. Can we agree on that?

"Christ did not teach His followers to kill themselves with innocents."

Apparantly some people of Islamic faith don't abide by that rule, and they are just as religious as anybody, so my assertion that there is a link between religion and terror is correct.

Don't confuse "religion" with "christianity". There are tons of other religions other than the one you practice, and those people are just as "religious" even though they strap on the dynamite and blow people up. They do it in the name of THEIR god just like you preach your crap on this board in the name of yours.

My point is that religion is just an idea thats neither good nor bad. People can take one religion and make it say quite a different thing than what it was meant to say. I don't think that Moslems believe that killing onesself by strapping a bomb will get them 72 virgins. Thats not something that I have ever seen in the Koran. People can be evil and they will do anything they can to accomplish that evil even if that means hiding in a mosque so that the troops won't go in there.

"...they are just as religious as anybody, so my assertion that there is a link between religion and terror is correct."

Wrong.

Again.

You're smearing the Christian faith by using the fanatacism of a totally different belief system.

It's like saying that since Stalin and FDR were both world leaders, FDR is evil because Stalin was. They both were politicians, right?

Once more.

Killing innocents is not what Christ taught. If you have a problem with religion, go deeper.

Herb

Wayne, I've read your last few posts and here is what I hear you saying:

1) Religion is neutral, neither good nor bad.
2) Man is what makes religion good or evil.
3) People who claim to be religious and do evil things are not truly religious.
4) Anyone who claims to do anything evil in God's (or Allah's) name is not truly religious.

I can see why people get frustrated with you, Wayne. Your arguments are filled with non sequitors. You concede in (2) above that religion can be made evil by evil people. But in (3) and (4) you say that evil people cannot be religious by default, because (I assume this is what you would say) being religious means following God, and God is good.

I'll repeat the point I made earlier, which I think you missed: God is God, but religion is a creation of man, a way to make sense of God's messages. So when you talk of "religion being neutral when man is not involved" I defined that as a meaningless/irrelevant statement, because man is ALWAYS involved. Religion cannot exist without man, so your "Religion is neutral" statement is meaningless since man is never neutral. In other words, the followers define the religion, not the other way around.

That is why so many people on this board are saying that the 9/11 terrorist were religious fanatics. They created their own version of Islam (based on the one from the Koran but deviating from it), perverted it, and used it as a justification to themselves for their actions.

Remember this scary truism: most people who do evil things don't see their actions as evil; they find some way to justify their actions to themselves and their group. This doesn't mean that they are right - far from it. They just *think* they are right.

I would say that the 9-11 instigaters had taken a religion and twisted it around so much that it had ideas that had nothing to do with Islam. People are evil and not religion. People are so evil they will do anything to accomplish it and they will do anything to justify their actions. Religion by nature doesn't cause terror. What causes terror is the evil hearts of men. Can you show me one religion that permits men to kill?
As long as there is evil in the world there will be terror. What true religion is supposed to do is provide hope and meaning to life. What terror does is the exact opposite of that.

"Remember this scary truism: most people who do evil things don't see their actions as evil; they find some way to justify their actions to themselves and their group."

And what is scarier is that they more often than not use religion to justify their actions.

Or, as the bumper sticker says, "Jesus loves you. Everyone else thinks you're an asshole."

Religion wasn't meant to be used that way. It was meant to give hope and meaning to life. I think some people would ban religion completely from the earth.

Edselehr, thank you.

Herb, you're wrong.

Wayne, you're an idiot.

Brianl, you're right.

End of story.

Its a shame that you don't know how to reason with anybody you don't agree with.

Since the topic among everyone here, including atheists, is already on the issue of religion, I'll weigh in. I listened to your treatises, so don't say I'm pushing anything down your throats.

Religion is man's feeble attempt to reach God.

With Christ, God came to man.

It's not about religion. It's about a relationship.

Herb

Good for you. That doesn't change the fact that there are links between religion and terrorism.

Which religion permits murder,Pete? You haven't answered my question.

Amen Herb!

I have answered your question, Dumbo. No religion permits murder from what I know, but that doesn't change the fact that people murder in the name of religion every day. Osama Bin Laden believes he is doing what his god wants him to do. He's religious, and he's a terrorist.

"Osama Bin Laden believes he is doing what his god wants him to do. He's religious, and he's a terrorist."

Eric Rudolph believed he was doing what his god wanted him to do. He's religious, and he's a terrorist.

As were the fine people who aided him for 5 years.

It's not religion that causes terror.....it is how people perceive or interprut it and then apply it in ways that it was never intended to be. Saying religion causes terror is like saying guns kill. Guns don't kill people do. Religion does not cause terror people do. Religion can be twisted and contorted or manipulated so as to put an evil spin on it and then use the weak minded to carry out those intents. PEOPLE twist the words so that it becomes a cause and to die for that cause they beleive to be the ultimate salvation. Don't blame religion...blame those responsible for twisting something good into something evil!!!

Muck

"Don't blame religion...blame those responsible for twisting something good into something evil!!!"

I don't think any of us BLAME religion, we just adknowledge the use of it to justify their evil deeds.

I agree with that!! I did not mean to imply people did beleive that, just a direct counter to "Religion Causes Terror"!

Wayne asks,

"Can you show me one religion that permits men to kill?"

I lifted the following from gotquestions.org:

"Question: "What does the Bible say about the death penalty / capital punishment?"

Answer: The Old Testament law commanded the death penalty for various acts: murder (Exodus 21:12), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), bestiality (Exodus 22:19); adultery (Leviticus 20:10); homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13), being a false prophet (Deuteronomy 13:5), prostitution (Leviticus 21:9) and rape (Deuteronomy 22:24-25), and several other crimes... Ultimately, each and every sin we commit should result in the death penalty (Romans 6:23)."

I don't imagine there is any religion that doesn't allow in some particular circumstances for a man (or men) to take the life of another man (or woman). But once you open that door, all one has to do is justify that a person meets the criteria (whatever that might be) of "deserving to be killed" and then the religion will sanction it.

Also,, you keep saying that "people are evil and not religion". I believe if good people create a religion for themselves, then the religion is good. If evil people create a religion for themselves, then that religion will be evil. Religion is a construct of man, it's a way to worship God. Just because God may be good does not mean that religion is. I think this is the main point of disagreement between you and many others on this board.

I never knew that any true religion ever supported Terror and Destruction as a means and a way to reach the afterlife with honor. Someone over the centuries has twisted what was into what it is now in order to support their cause. I do not view Terror and Destruction as an act any religion ever embraced and therefore feel that these supposed religions that do are not religions at all but are indeed the Ideals of Fanatics that have perverted what was good into something evil. This again is the result of man and not religion!

I don't blame religion, but to say that there is a link between Darwin and terror while completely overlooking the links between religion and terror is quite disingenuous.

Actually, since evolution posits progression, why haven't we yet progressed beyond war?

Man is so smart, after all to have created the nuclear bomb.

So if we're evolving, why can't..or won't..we feed the starving?

Hint: While knowledge has increased, mankind hasn't changed. Daniel 12:4

We have the ability. We don't have the heart.

Herb

Hey Pete.....I can see your side and can appreciate it. I also have my own views and so therefore I will agree with you to disagree with you on this one and just move on to another subject.

Have a good one dude!!

Therefore...(?)...evolution is now completely debunked?

I'm asking that earnestly. Is that what you are getting at? I don't want to put words in your mouth Herb. But is that what you are getting at?

No worries muckraker. I think you get it overall anyway...

HERB: "Actually, since evolution posits progression, why haven't we yet progressed beyond war?" etc...

Evolution (and Darwin's origin of species) is a biological theory, not a social one. The questions of why people go to war cannot be answered by evolution.

Author: Darktemper
Tuesday, December 05, 2006 - 6:54 am


It's not religion that causes terror.....it is how people perceive or interprut it and then apply it in ways that it was never intended to be. Saying religion causes terror is like saying guns kill. Guns don't kill people do. Religion does not cause terror people do. Religion can be twisted and contorted or manipulated so as to put an evil spin on it and then use the weak minded to carry out those intents. PEOPLE twist the words so that it becomes a cause and to die for that cause they beleive to be the ultimate salvation. Don't blame religion...blame those responsible for twisting something good into something evil!!!

Muck

----
Right on. Thats exactly what I was trying to say.

Author: Edselehr
Tuesday, December 05, 2006 - 11:14 am


HERB: "Actually, since evolution posits progression, why haven't we yet progressed beyond war?" etc...

Evolution (and Darwin's origin of species) is a biological theory, not a social one. The questions of why people go to war cannot be answered by evolution.

----
But it has social implications doesn't it? Certainly the "survival of the fittest" does.

Author: Edselehr
Tuesday, December 05, 2006 - 7:32 am


Wayne asks,

"Can you show me one religion that permits men to kill?"

I lifted the following from gotquestions.org:

"Question: "What does the Bible say about the death penalty / capital punishment?"

Answer: The Old Testament law commanded the death penalty for various acts: murder (Exodus 21:12), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), bestiality (Exodus 22:19); adultery (Leviticus 20:10); homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13), being a false prophet (Deuteronomy 13:5), prostitution (Leviticus 21:9) and rape (Deuteronomy 22:24-25), and several other crimes... Ultimately, each and every sin we commit should result in the death penalty (Romans 6:23)."

I don't imagine there is any religion that doesn't allow in some particular circumstances for a man (or men) to take the life of another man (or woman). But once you open that door, all one has to do is justify that a person meets the criteria (whatever that might be) of "deserving to be killed" and then the religion will sanction it.

----
but the reason that happens is because there was evil in the land and God told Israel to wipe out the evil. That is a theme that goes on a lot in the old testament. You see God didn't want Israel to partake in the sins that were going on by the inhabitants of the land who lived there before Israel came in. Some of the sins were pretty bad too.

The verses you mentioned were because of the same reason. God called Israel to be a holy nation. The word holy means set apart. As you probably know many Jews disobeyed God in that regard and took part in the sins God told them not to committ and the result was captivity in Assyria and Babylon.

Author: Darktemper
Tuesday, December 05, 2006 - 6:54 am


It's not religion that causes terror.....it is how people perceive or interprut it and then apply it in ways that it was never intended to be.
--------------

If a religion can cause people to do good things, then a religion can cause people to do bad things. If religion is not a set of dictates for people to behave a certain way, then what is it? And don't say that if the dictates are evil then the religion really isn't a religion. I think almost everyone here agrees that religion can be perverted, so what you end up with is a perverted religion, but it's still a religion. If you believe otherwise, then you are saying that only one religion can rightfully call itself a religion, the rest are non-religions because they differ from it. By definition, any deviation could be classified as a 'perversion'.

"Religion is man's feeble attempt to reach God.

With Christ, God came to man.

It's not about religion. It's about a relationship.

Herb"

This works Herb. I like it. (and I'm not religious)

The whole point of religion, or at least true religion, is to produce good in mankind and not evil. What causes evil is the heart of man not religion. Men are quite capable of twisting a religion to make it say what they want it to say. That was the case of the 9-11 instigaters.DarkTemper said it well. We can't say religion causes terror anymore than we can say that guns are the things that kill and not the people that use them. Guns don't work by themselves people have to pull the trigger.

Wayne, I'm going to take your response below as an admission that there is at least one religion that permits men to kill. You never refute the passages cited, you just explain them. And if terrorism comes from fundamentalists, then these are the exactly the kind of passages they will cite to justify their actions. Fundamentalists take their holy scriptures literally, there is no room for interpretation, so passages like these could justify killing.

-------------------------------------------------

Wayne asks,

"Can you show me one religion that permits men to kill?"

I lifted the following from gotquestions.org:

"Question: "What does the Bible say about the death penalty / capital punishment?"

Answer: The Old Testament law commanded the death penalty for various acts: murder (Exodus 21:12), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), bestiality (Exodus 22:19); adultery (Leviticus 20:10); homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13), being a false prophet (Deuteronomy 13:5), prostitution (Leviticus 21:9) and rape (Deuteronomy 22:24-25), and several other crimes... Ultimately, each and every sin we commit should result in the death penalty (Romans 6:23)."

I don't imagine there is any religion that doesn't allow in some particular circumstances for a man (or men) to take the life of another man (or woman). But once you open that door, all one has to do is justify that a person meets the criteria (whatever that might be) of "deserving to be killed" and then the religion will sanction it.

----
but the reason that happens is because there was evil in the land and God told Israel to wipe out the evil. That is a theme that goes on a lot in the old testament. You see God didn't want Israel to partake in the sins that were going on by the inhabitants of the land who lived there before Israel came in. Some of the sins were pretty bad too.

The verses you mentioned were because of the same reason. God called Israel to be a holy nation. The word holy means set apart. As you probably know many Jews disobeyed God in that regard and took part in the sins God told them not to committ and the result was captivity in Assyria and Babylon.

"We can't say religion causes terror anymore than we can say that guns are the things that kill and not the people that use them. Guns don't work by themselves people have to pull the trigger."

----------------------

To overextend the analogy:

There is a big difference between pulling the trigger on a Daily air rifle, and pulling the trigger on an AK-47. If the religion is designed to allow (give permission) for massive and fatal attacks against others in the name of God, then followers will use it. If the religion doesn't "arm" the follower with such tactics, then the religion is less likely to spawn terrorism. Yes, ultimately each individual is responsible for his/her own actions, but if a goal of any religion is to lead a holy life, and a religion allows its followers to kill and remain holy, then what motivation do they have to do otherwise? In short, religion *is* a factor in terrorism.

What we have here is a multi-part impass. We have varying thought and beleifs on this and who is to say which is correct or incorrect. I can appreciate all sides of this but one statement just made seems to make sense in that if a person has only known whatever twisted version of whatever religion they claim then that person is indeed involved in a religion. If that religion supports terror as a holy right then it is a religion...is it one that we believe to be a true religion.....NO. But from there point of view ours is not a true religion either.

So lets just agree to disagree on this one as there can be no clear winner in this arguement. No since in pushing this as in other threads and wind up so frustrated over it that it ends in MUCK slinging!!!!

Ewwww...pointed a finger at myself there.....guess i've been a little critical of late....just got mad when I spilled my JD I guess!

Author: Edselehr
Tuesday, December 05, 2006 - 1:37 pm


"We can't say religion causes terror anymore than we can say that guns are the things that kill and not the people that use them. Guns don't work by themselves people have to pull the trigger."

----------------------

To overextend the analogy:

There is a big difference between pulling the trigger on a Daily air rifle, and pulling the trigger on an AK-47. If the religion is designed to allow (give permission) for massive and fatal attacks against others in the name of God, then followers will use it. If the religion doesn't "arm" the follower with such tactics, then the religion is less likely to spawn terrorism. Yes, ultimately each individual is responsible for his/her own actions, but if a goal of any religion is to lead a holy life, and a religion allows its followers to kill and remain holy, then what motivation do they have to do otherwise? In short, religion *is* a factor in terrorism.

-----
But religions like that are man made. What people will do is take a religion like Islam and make it say what it doesn't say. I have studied Islam and I know of no place where it allows for suicide bombing. Certainly the Bible doesn't allow that. Men are the evil part and not religion. thats neither good nor bad. Religion is only as good as the people that make it.

Well...I can see where he is coming from Wayne....Bad religion is still religion whether we feel it to be real or not there obviously is someone that does and is willing to die for it. I think what he is trying to say that no matter what the intent of the religion or how much it has been twisted and is no longer the religion it was meant to be...people beleive in it. I unterstand a little better the points he makes and do not like the outcome but the simple fact is these people beleive in it! does not make it right but there it is! They are just "TOOLS" to be used as those who twist the truth see fit!

Darktemper - I think we have a meeting of the minds.

I pass the baton to you. See if you can help Wayne get the point of my statement.

Religion is still religion no matter what men do with it. Thats my point. Its only an idea. Of course people are capable of taking an idea and twisting it around so it doesn't make a lot of sense anymore. I wish I could say that happens in non Christian circles, but I have seen that happen in former churches that I was part of. People can be so evil. I agree with your point.

The base of the debate is this: Is there a link between religion and terror? I think it's been proven here that one exists, beyond a reasonable doubt.

It has not been shown that at all. Only in your made up mind is there any link at all Pete. Only in your bad experience in a church a long time ago is there any link at all between religion and terror. Evil causes terror, not religion.

Wayne, I've never had a bad experience in a church. Regardless, the link is there, and you're just too blind to accept it. If you can prove to me that the hijackers of 9/11 had no religious convictions on what they were doing, then I'll concede. Otherwise, you're wrong, as usual.

Pete said>>>>
I think it's been proven here that one exists, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Hummmmmmmmm

Author: Reinstatepete
Tuesday, December 05, 2006 - 4:50 pm


Wayne, I've never had a bad experience in a church. Regardless, the link is there, and you're just too blind to accept it. If you can prove to me that the hijackers of 9/11 had no religious convictions on what they were doing, then I'll concede. Otherwise, you're wrong, as usual.


---------
Its not a matter of being blind its a matter that religion doesn't cause evil anymore than a gun causes a murder. Those 9-11 instigaters hijacked a religion. I have studied the Koran, have you? There is nothing in there that I have seen that permits anyone to strap a bomb on himself and expect 72 virgins in heaven. People like that twist what is an innocent idea and have made it something that it was never intended to be.

I offer this....

The other Half.....

A person is raised with this perverted form of religion as the only one they know.
They are preached to that this is the only way to salvation.
They are not allowed to beleive any other way and to do so is a sin.
Therefore I do this in faith of my religion that upon completion I will have eternal salvation.

Sounds like a religion to me....albeit twisted beyond any sense of one but the only one these people are allowed to have so from there point of view we are the sinners and do not have God on our side!

It's all in your point of view and what you beleive to be right and just.

Don't we all think we have the corner on truth? In that sense aren't we all religious?

Pretty MUCK.....

Much


LOL

I think you have the corner on ignorance.

Wayne says, "I have studied the Koran, have you? There is nothing in there that I have seen that permits anyone to strap a bomb on himself and expect 72 virgins in heaven."

-----------

The Quoran is to Islam as the Bible is to Catholicism. Does reading the Bible give me full understanding of Protestantism? Does the Bible tell me how to be a Baptist? Jim Jones based the People's Temple on the Bible; where in the Holy Book do I find that kool-aid recipe?

I give these examples to make the point that the Holy Book used by a religion is not the Religion. You cannot read the Quoran and fully know what a Shi'ite, or a Sunni, believes. Likewise, you cannot divine all the dogmas of Roman Catholicism from the Bible.

Please stop confusing your understanding of the Quoran as an understanding of Islam, or any of Islam's sects. Surely the two are strongly connected, but often the beliefs embedded in the religion are much more powerful and influential than the words in the Book. Just look at Jonestown.

Wayne says, "Don't we all think we have the corner on truth? In that sense aren't we all religious?"

"Yes. and No." says the athiest.

Author: Edselehr
Tuesday, December 05, 2006 - 10:27 pm


Wayne says, "I have studied the Koran, have you? There is nothing in there that I have seen that permits anyone to strap a bomb on himself and expect 72 virgins in heaven."

-----------

The Quoran is to Islam as the Bible is to Catholicism. Does reading the Bible give me full understanding of Protestantism? Does the Bible tell me how to be a Baptist? Jim Jones based the People's Temple on the Bible; where in the Holy Book do I find that kool-aid recipe?

I give these examples to make the point that the Holy Book used by a religion is not the Religion. You cannot read the Quoran and fully know what a Shi'ite, or a Sunni, believes. Likewise, you cannot divine all the dogmas of Roman Catholicism from the Bible.

Please stop confusing your understanding of the Quoran as an understanding of Islam, or any of Islam's sects. Surely the two are strongly connected, but often the beliefs embedded in the religion are much more powerful and influential than the words in the Book. Just look at Jonestown.

------
Actually many Catholics do believe in the same Bible that I do so thats a bit unfair of a comparison. And I would say the Koran is essential to Islam. And it nowhere permits anyone to kill. Would you show me where that is the case? And I don't consider Jim Jones a Christian at all. Have you ever read what his beliefs were? They were not Christian.

Author: Edselehr
Tuesday, December 05, 2006 - 10:28 pm


Wayne says, "Don't we all think we have the corner on truth? In that sense aren't we all religious?"

"Yes. and No." says the athiest.

---
Are you pretty sure that your views are right?

Author: Reinstatepete
Tuesday, December 05, 2006 - 10:26 pm


I think you have the corner on ignorance.

----
And you have the corner on unbelief.

Whatever, military reject.

Wayne says, "Actually many Catholics do believe in the same Bible that I do so thats a bit unfair of a comparison. And I would say the Koran is essential to Islam. And it nowhere permits anyone to kill. Would you show me where that is the case? And I don't consider Jim Jones a Christian at all. Have you ever read what his beliefs were? They were not Christian."

--------------------------

My post is not directed toward, and is in no way about you. Your faith is not an issue of this discussion. Please focus on the topic.

I said the Quoran is essential to Islam, too. We agree on that.

I'm willing to concede that the Quoran does not sanction killing. My point is that the Quoran doesn't have to sanction killing if the religion does sanction it. Most religions require behaviors not mentioned in their holy book. Even many Bible-based religions allow (and promote) actions not mentioned in the Bible. What matters is what the religion dictates, not what the holy book dictates. They are often not the same thing.

Doesn't matter whether you personally think Jim Jones was a Christian or not. He and his 900+ followers thought he was, and obeyed the dictates of the religion he formed. How could such a good book as the Bible (and the Quoran, which he also used, among others) be the basis for such an evil act?

This was a religious cult that was based in a (clearly perverted) interpretation of the Bible. People don't follow books, they follow religions.

I don't think what Jim Jones followed was any religion. I don't know of any religion that would permit committing suicide. Its a pretty perverted idea I would say.

Religion is not always related to God......sure it is associated with him but not always related to him.

Examples:
I religiously brush my teeth 3 times a day.
I religiously shower every day.
I religiously change the oil in my cars.
I religiously go to work every day.

These are not religions of God but religious actions....big difference.

In this light yes religion can cause terror but that religious beleif or action is not necessarily directly related to A religion or even GOD. It is a religious action to smite at ones enemies.

A terrorist may have religion and beleive and also act religiously in the actions of terror over those they perceive to be their enemies. See the difference between the two.

The soldier religiously cleaned his rifle.

Get it.....

Hope So

Wayne religiously shows his ignorance in this forum.
Wayne religiously lies in this forum.
Wayne religiously fails to back up his points.
Wayne religiously dodges questions.
Wayne religiously makes a fool out of himself.

You religiously show your unbelief. Merry Christmas to you too.

Author: Darktemper
Wednesday, December 06, 2006 - 4:42 am


Religion is not always related to God......sure it is associated with him but not always related to him.

Examples:
I religiously brush my teeth 3 times a day.
I religiously shower every day.
I religiously change the oil in my cars.
I religiously go to work every day.

These are not religions of God but religious actions....big difference.

In this light yes religion can cause terror but that religious beleif or action is not necessarily directly related to A religion or even GOD. It is a religious action to smite at ones enemies.

A terrorist may have religion and beleive and also act religiously in the actions of terror over those they perceive to be their enemies. See the difference between the two.

The soldier religiously cleaned his rifle.

Get it.....

Hope So

----------
I think you just now proved my point. People can define religion any way they want to and they will define it that way. There is a big difference between man made religion and true religion.

Wayne says,"I think you just now proved my point. People can define religion any way they want to and they will define it that way. There is a big difference between man made religion and true religion."

---------------------------

And there's the impasse. I believe religion is a construct of Man, a system of actions and beliefs in order to try and be as holy as possible. You believe that there is only One, True religion and the rest are man-made, false religions.

Well, we'll never find agreement then.

But there is a final question to address. Assuming you are right, and that there is such a thing as "true religion", then what is true religion? I think everyone knows the answer. If you ask anyone that question, they will give a correct response:

"The one I believe in, of course."

Nail

Hitting

Hammer

With

On

The

Head

Author: Edselehr
Wednesday, December 06, 2006 - 11:16 am


Wayne says,"I think you just now proved my point. People can define religion any way they want to and they will define it that way. There is a big difference between man made religion and true religion."

---------------------------

And there's the impasse. I believe religion is a construct of Man, a system of actions and beliefs in order to try and be as holy as possible. You believe that there is only One, True religion and the rest are man-made, false religions.

Well, we'll never find agreement then.

But there is a final question to address. Assuming you are right, and that there is such a thing as "true religion", then what is true religion? I think everyone knows the answer. If you ask anyone that question, they will give a correct response:

"The one I believe in, of course."
-------
Of course I believe that the faith I believe in is the one true faith. But isn't it true that we all are a bit set in our ways? I have seen as much of that in non-believers as I have in believers. I say that believing that we are right is probably a human thing to do. Who doesn't think that way? Certainly nobody on this board that I have seen. But you may be right about having an Impasse. Human nature causes terror not religion. Religion can't cause terror anymore than a car can drive by itself!

But it can be a religious act of terrorism from a person who religiously perpatrates terror and still have nothing to do with any religion.

right?

One can define religion any way he wants to so in that sense you are probably right.

Dan has sure closed a few threads I noticed.I appreciate that action.

Some were out of hand and this one may be next. Hey...just think about taking the first step once in a while....you have nothing to lose. I started out hard and mean...but maybe at the end...maybe...thought you might make a move and try to take the first step in that situation.....just think about it for the future.....what would it hurt you...nothing...

Here let me show you...

Wayne and Herb

I started out with insults and rudeness.....all because we did not see eye to eye on some issues.....I am sorry for that.

It is after all OK to agree to disagree!

See...that was pretty easy...that said have a good Holy Day yourself!

You sure did but you came around to the point that I have grown to respect you even though you and I probably won't agree on very much. what you have done is put yourself in the other person's shoes. I hope that I can do the same thing. Its easy to say I am sorry to somebody who is decent. But when somebody takes pleasure in trashing people he disagrees with and then demands an apology thats something different. Some people are so set in their ways its amazing. I am set in my ways too.

Yep.

Group hug time!

I, for one, as a newcomer, can't understand this kindergarten discussion that always involves "Wayne". Why not get back to the issues? Wayne has a right to say what he wants, but he is not GOD. Why do so many react to him? Reacting to his posts just multiply his impact. Why not state your opinion, leave Wayne out of it, because afterall, your opinion is not lessened by "Wayne". I will contribute, but if this forum becomes Wayne vs. the World, then I will politely sign-off.

Welcome Red....

Wise words to move forward with.

Welcome to the forum.....Good to have you!

I had a 69 Ford Mustang once....it was a killer ride! Sure do miss my old fastback!

Very wise words, Red! I didn't think I had that much of an impact. I certainly am not God and I wish people would stop thinking I am.

"Wayne has a right to say what he wants..."

That's where it gets bogged down. Some on this board don't believe Wayne has a right at all.

Glad you agree, like the many supporters of free speech here who may disagree with one another at times, but at least attempt to do so in a civil manner.

Herbert Milhous Nixon the IInd

I am so glad the call out threads have been shut down.

But it doesn't excuse you from LYING in the forum. Why have you been lying here?

Neither does it excuse you from insulting everyone you don't agree with. You need to realize that not everyone in the world shares your moral relativism. Insulting people is not the way to convert someone to your side. Thats what you are interested in. You accuse me of forcing and yet you are doing the exact same thing.

I might add if you want any apology at all from me you have to be willing to forgive. Do you forgive those who wrong you? What good is any apology without forgiveness?

This is my thread...you two go somewhere else and argue....I don't want it shut down!!!!!

NOW....GO

Free speech does not apply to this forum. Each poster is afforded a priviledge that can be taken away from the owner. Wayne has a right post here, but when his posts approach the level of spam, that's were the line is crossed. In my book, banning Wayne would be a benefit to the entire board.

Lets make up our own rules.

The person who starts the thread lays the rules for discussion regarding that thread in the first post. The creater of the thread will be considered it's personal moderator and has the right to ask a person to stay on topic (which there really is not one for this thread) or he will be asked not to post in that thread. This will of course be a self policing of the forum and we have no means to ban anybody but it would make for some quality conversations if each thread had basic ground rules for discussion in it that the creator intended it for.

That way it is clear the topic for discussion in that thread with the creator responsible for keeping that thread on target and not letting it wander as so many have. If you want to take a tangent then start a new thread of your own but keep the original thread on topic!!!

What do ya say...sound reasonable???

Many of us have taken breaks from the board, only to return to the same old shit from Wayne. In fact, it just keeps getting worse and worse.

Maybe we could, as an experiment, see what it's like if Wayne just, you know, took a break for a couple weeks. Maybe it would be a better place to visit. Maybe it wouldn't.

I would love to see it tried though. It's just one constant distraction. Always needing to show him where he is mistaken so the rest of us can continue on with the conversation. The endless butting in with just plain wrong information is inhibiting all kinds of stuff in here.

Now yeah, we're not talking about a cure for cancer in here, I know. But SHIT.

Yes, I could ignore him. But his crap is so everywhere in here that I would just assume leave if that's my only option. But I don't WANT to leave. That's just it.

So Wayne, whatddya say? Will you take a break from here for a couple weeks and see what happens? Not forever. Just for a while. I will too, right after you, if you do. Just to show that I'm not above trying something new for the possible benefit of furthering some kind of adult conversations here.

If not that, hey Dan, it's your board. What's your take on this? Are the rest of us the ones who need to change? Does it even phase you?

You should take a break,CJ. You obviously don't believe in free speech except for those you agree with. You need to find a forum that only has people on it that you agree with. You need to realize that not everyone shares your views of moral relativism. You want me to leave because I believe in absolutes. I am not the only one in the world that believes in absolutes.
This should not be a forum only meant for liberals who think there is no morality. I can't believe that you don't think I have any right to speak my mind. Can't we be adults and agree to disagree? Or is that asking too much? I guess so.
You and Pete keep saying you want to ignore me.Why don't you do that? The rest of us would be happier if you did and so would I.

Well I guess a blow job is out of the question then.

OK. Maybe you are right. I know that's a phrase you don't understand. That's ok.

Do I have the right to speak my mind?

Who u talking to?

Who ever will listen. CJ doesn't seem to think I have the right to disagree with him

Nobody wants to listen, so you'd be better served to hand out at the retard forum since you fit in better with that crowd.

I think you had better wise up or you will be next.

"I think you had better wise up or you will be next."

OK, Dan, how about banning Wayne for making threats? Is that not reason enough?

Q: "Do I have the right to speak my mind?"


A: "Yes, if you have one"

No believer in free speech.

No believer in free speech. You are really one bitter person Mrs. M. You really need Jesus as your savior.

*Plonk!*

The Mr. Merkin is one lucky guy indeed!

Love 'ya!