Where are the Christians?

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by scandium

Quite the contrary, I do not act like it is anything new.

Indeed I do.

What makes you think any of the Muslim leaders could?

What I see is you pull some anti christian thing that is complete crap, and you then have an argument and boil over that argument and continue that argument by avoiding the questions and answers to those questions. So what gives? And, to top it off, you keep doing it over and over, regardless that people give you logical answers to your questions in return. Seems to me that you have some sort of agenda. Care to share with the rest of us?

-S

[scandium]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

What I see is you pull some anti christian thing that is complete crap, and you then have an argument and boil over that argument and continue that argument by avoiding the questions and answers to those questions. So what gives? And, to top it off, you keep doing it over and over, regardless that people give you logical answers to your questions in return. Seems to me that you have some sort of agenda. Care to share with the rest of us?

-S

You couldn't have even read the article, any of it, beyond the headline, or you wouldn't even be asking that. Read the article and you will see yourself how silly your accusation that I have some sort of an "anti-christian" agenda is (which the article I linked to is in no way shape or form).

Please, if you're going to call me a heretic and start the inquisition, then at least do me the curtesy of actually reading your alleged evidence first that proves that I am the anti-christ

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

What I see is you pull some anti christian thing that is complete crap, and you then have an argument and boil over that argument and continue that argument by avoiding the questions and answers to those questions. So what gives? And, to top it off, you keep doing it over and over, regardless that people give you logical answers to your questions in return. Seems to me that you have some sort of agenda. Care to share with the rest of us?

-S

Thank God the agenda for sale ain't selling.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Thank God the agenda for sale ain't selling.

Agreed. The results when one airs an opinion contrary to the dominant one is a very real threat to a fragile mind or weak character. This is why the current U.S. President surrounds himself with sycophants, appears only before pre-selected audiences composed only of the party faithful, and doesn't read newspapers.

[NeonSamurai]

Ooo tempting to comment on that last sentance, but ill be good

[Sea Demon]

Agreed. The results when one airs an opinion contrary to the dominant one is a very real threat to a fragile mind or weak character. This is why the current U.S. President surrounds himself with sycophants, appears only before pre-selected audiences composed only of the party faithful, and doesn't read newspapers.

A mind full of Michael Moore and Internet conspiracy theories is a shame. Sometimes the minority opinion is the minority view for a reason. Most likely because it lacks any semblance of reality. People hear you, they just aren't buying.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

A mind full of Michael Moore and Internet conspiracy theories is a shame. Sometimes the minority opinion is the minority view for a reason. Most likely because it lacks any semblance of reality. People hear you, they just aren't buying.

And what do you think it is I'm selling? You'd be hard pressed to find anything I've stated here based, or linked to, either Michael Moore or internet conspiracy theory because I've never done that.

First I'm a heretic then I'm an internet conspiracy nut eh? You really are fishing.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by scandium

Agreed. The results when one airs an opinion contrary to the dominant one is a very real threat to a fragile mind or weak character. This is why the current U.S. President surrounds himself with sycophants, appears only before pre-selected audiences composed only of the party faithful, and doesn't read newspapers.

Has nothing to do with that. But you try and twist it that way anyway, but no ones buying. The simple fact is, you have an article that you can't defend, and it is along the same lines of other threads you have posted in in which you also failed to defend this same idea, yet you continue your twist of incorrect fact in the face of overwhelming logic. You have gone beyond weak mind and character of yourself by beating a dead horse with only pride (and hidden agenda) as your only fight left - and this is after you have lost, and everyone is just standing around watching you make a fool of yourself.

The funny part is the article you are taking from is from a man with an agenda of his own that my family has met one on one personally! It is strictly a politcal motivated article! Attack Bush allows you to sway democratic votes to your side. We like Buchanan since he upsets the party vote, but that is all we like him for.

I am sorry, i am about to start laughing, but I will keep my composure. The attack on Bush also pathetic since all evidence is to the contrary! He hits the press room all the time with frothing press people ready to tear him up! Too funny! The only people he won't meet is the NAACP, which I wouldn't either if they associated the dragging of a black man, and his subsequent death as related to me in some way.

But, by all means, please continue since this is getting rather entertaining... I'll just stand on the sidelines to watch what happens like everyone else! I'm sure the slinging tomatoes will continue to pummel you.

-S

PS. One thing of note, you have entered into a forum where the party line is never the path followed. You are surrounded by people who all have their own opinions and they all have their own original thoughts. But you can keep billing it some other way if you want since it makes little difference.

PPS. Sorry for being so harsh, but I am just calling it like I see it.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Has nothing to do with that. But you try and twist it that way anyway, but no ones buying.

You know you keep throwing around this "it and "that" but nothing I can read in what you've quoted refers to whatever it is that I'm supposed to be selling, other than that whatever it is its supposedly related to Michael Moore, internet conspiracy theories, and the anti-christ. Maybe I'm not trying to sell anything, maybe you just forgot to take your medication today

The simple fact is, you have an article that you can't defend, and it is along the same lines of other threads you have posted in in which you also failed to defend this same idea, yet you continue your twist of incorrect fact in the face of overwhelming logic.

Defend it against what? Nobody's even read the article so what is it I'm supposed to defend?

You have gone beyond weak mind and character of yourself by beating a dead horse with only pride (and hidden agenda) as your only fight left - and this is after you have lost, and everyone is just standing around watching you make a fool of yourself.

See above. And I'm not the one beating a dead horse, given that wiuthout even reading the article the thread is about, you never the less saw fit to hijack the thread to berate me on this supposed agenda which you can't even seem to pin down (perhaps because it isn't there). My impression of you so far, just in this thread, is that you are so hysterically fearful of whatever the article might contain that rather than simply debate the merits of it, you instead try and discredit it by shooting the messenger. Yet I have the weak mind?

The funny part is the article you are taking from is from a man with an agenda of his own that my family has met one on one personally! It is strictly a politcal motivated article!

Which you haven't even read.

Attack Bush allows you to sway democratic votes to your side. We like Buchanan since he upsets the party vote, but that is all we like him for.

Okay now you're just coming completely unglued. As I am not American, I have no "side" to sway votes to; And I poke fun at Bush from time to time because, believe it or not, he's a bit of a laughing stock outside the US and a lot of us foreigners make fun of him. And in a way, its his own fault: I used to laugh at Baghdad Bob as he is by far the funnier of the two, but now there is no longer a Baghdad Bob to laugh at so I have to settle for Bush.

I am sorry, i am about to start laughing, but I will keep my composure. The attack on Bush also pathetic since all evidence is to the contrary! He hits the press room all the time with frothing press people ready to tear him up! Too funny!

Its good to know I am not the only one laughing at this exchange, because the idea of Bush taking really confrontational questions in a Parlimentary style debate just cracks me up. I have seen your Washington press in action and the word that comes to mind to me is actually "docile". Trained puppies afraid to lob anything heavier than softballs lest they embarass the Pres and get shut out of further access to him.

The only people he won't meet is the NAACP, which I wouldn't either if they associated the dragging of a black man, and his subsequent death as related to me in some way.

No idea what you're talking about here.

But, by all means, please continue since this is getting rather entertaining... I'll just stand on the sidelines to watch what happens like everyone else! I'm sure the slinging tomatoes will continue to pummel you.

*shrug* I put out my point of view and if I get some good debate out of it, and I usually do, then that's all I'm interested in. As to slinging tomatoes, I could care less. Fire away.

[Skybird]

You are too convinced of your article, Scandium. You assume that everyone reading it must see it that way. And if someone does not see it that way and does not agree, then he hasn'T red it. The possebility that people, or me, have red it, but simply are not only not convinced, but turned away by it's suggestive language and massively biased direction does not seem to be on your mind.

You also have defined WHAT goal Israel may go for, but told us only HOW it may NOT do so - we still wait for the answer HOW it should go for it instead. Is this another question you will not answer - while holding others guilty of ignoring your questions for whom answers has been given since long, and often repeatedly? Don't tell us what restricts Israel - tell us what it should do to get rid of the threat by Palestinian terror.

Simple truth is - you don't like what is going on right now. Same for me. But you do not have a realistic alternative to offer that goes beyond the heart-warming daydreaming of the UN and the EU and that could work not only in dreams, but in the grim world that we have. The only world.

[jumpy]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You also have defined WHAT goal Israel may go for, but told us only HOW it may NOT do so - we still wait for the answer HOW it should go for it instead. Is this another question you will not answer - while holding others guilty of ignoring your questions for whom answers has been given since long, and often repeatedly? Don't tell us what restricts Israel - tell us what it should do to get rid of the threat by Palestinian terror.

Simple truth is - you don't like what is going on right now. Same for me. But you do not have a realistic alternative to offer that goes beyond the heart-warming daydreaming of the UN and the EU and that could work not only in dreams, but in the grim world that we have. The only world.

Well I'm sure if Scandium (or anyone else for that matter) had the 'final solution' -perhaps a bad turn of prase there I shall rephrase - or the ultimate answer to all of the troubles in the ME/Israel/Palestine etc then he wouldn't be sitting here endlessly debating the issue with you lot.
Imho I think punnishing the majority for the misdeeds of the apparent few is a totaly BS way to achieve a peaceful resolution the the current debacle - that's all well and good when attempting to control an unruly classroom full of kids hehe, but in that instance nobody is going to get blown up by a 5oolb laser guided bomb, are they?

hello, pot? this is kettle...

Pffft, asside from bludgeoning civillians with artillery and air to ground missiles and bombs, and breaking international law prohibiting the targeting of essential civillian infrastructure and carrying out the threat to turn the clock back 20 years in Lebanon, what is the IDF doing right?
Sadly I have no more idea on how to realistically solve the problem which has been festering away over there for decades and longer, than any of the rest of you people. Does that mean I should just forget about it, sweep it under the carpet away from consideration and the light of day? Resign the issue to parriah status only worthy only of distain and ridicule should anybody see fit to instigate discussion, regardless of merrit? No.

The article itself (at least to me) did not seem overly pedantic or selfrightious; unlike some of the posts appearing here :rotfl:

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by scandium

You know you keep throwing around this "it and "that" but nothing I can read in what you've quoted refers to whatever it is that I'm supposed to be selling, other than that whatever it is its supposedly related to Michael Moore, internet conspiracy theories, and the anti-christ. Maybe I'm not trying to sell anything, maybe you just forgot to take your medication today

Defend it against what? Nobody's even read the article so what is it I'm supposed to defend?

See above. And I'm not the one beating a dead horse, given that wiuthout even reading the article the thread is about, you never the less saw fit to hijack the thread to berate me on this supposed agenda which you can't even seem to pin down (perhaps because it isn't there). My impression of you so far, just in this thread, is that you are so hysterically fearful of whatever the article might contain that rather than simply debate the merits of it, you instead try and discredit it by shooting the messenger. Yet I have the weak mind?

Which you haven't even read.

Okay now you're just coming completely unglued. As I am not American, I have no "side" to sway votes to; And I poke fun at Bush from time to time because, believe it or not, he's a bit of a laughing stock outside the US and a lot of us foreigners make fun of him. And in a way, its his own fault: I used to laugh at Baghdad Bob as he is by far the funnier of the two, but now there is no longer a Baghdad Bob to laugh at so I have to settle for Bush.

Its good to know I am not the only one laughing at this exchange, because the idea of Bush taking really confrontational questions in a Parlimentary style debate just cracks me up. I have seen your Washington press in action and the word that comes to mind to me is actually "docile". Trained puppies afraid to lob anything heavier than softballs lest they embarass the Pres and get shut out of further access to him.

No idea what you're talking about here.

*shrug* I put out my point of view and if I get some good debate out of it, and I usually do, then that's all I'm interested in. As to slinging tomatoes, I could care less. Fire away.

blah blah blah blah. Obviously you don't even take in what I say, and when I talk about the NAACP, I give you an example to your own arguments, and like with everybody else, your own arguments disappear in smoke when its purely convenient! Nice. What am I talking to here? Someone who has amnesia on comand when it suits his purpose? Seems I missed a lot since I've been gone.

I mean, what does not living in America have to with.. for example? And, when your entire conversation revolves around a man, and then you discount that that is what your conversation is about when its convenient....time to switch back to christians! oh! Time to switch back to Bush!....

The list is endless. your entire reply is all nonsense!

I even see more anti scandium threads popping up! Now why could that be?

-S

PS. Maybe I'll go make one of my own.

PPS. You and Kerry would get along real good - always switching sides!