Which reminds me - we haven't had a good debate regarding the evils of communism - here in weeksBlueHen86 wrote:The Poli-Board has reached a point where it's the same people saying the same thing while arguing about the same stuff over and over again.
The board needs to evolve, there is certainly no intelligent design here.
Yes, the entire thing.kalm wrote:Serious question: is there anything in the bible regarding religious arrogance?JoltinJoe wrote:
You should write a book, dude -- a collection of the best New Age cliches about the Christian outlook.
Tman envies you at an insane magnitude.houndawg wrote:I know how JSO feels, I got 89hen out there, brooding and hating............. envy is such an ugly emotion...Chizzang wrote:Up for discussion:
Political Forum Flattery
Example: Stalkers
I follow (stalk) Johnstwrong around and contradict everything he posts (regardless of content)
This is clearly a type of "Forum Flattery" even though it is childish
Example: The dishonorable Debaters
D1B and JoltinJoe argue till way past bedtime and long after the argument is actually over
Its not actually stalking because they create threads TO EACH OTHER
Example: The Suck-up
This is the guy who - without fail - agrees with everything some other guy posts
Be it political or otherwise
It his this point about 3 years ago, where have you been?BlueHen86 wrote:The Poli-Board has reached a point where it's the same people saying the same thing while arguing about the same stuff over and over again.
The board needs to evolve, there is certainly no intelligent design here.
I think what is clear to any thinking person is that you and Cleets so narrowly define "reason" so as to exclude any exercise of human intuition, on the ground intuition is "unreasonable" -- when, in truth, it is completely unreasonable to ignore our intuition of what "ought" to be when discussing "what is truth."D1B wrote:To be honest Joe, from outside your cult, and it is a cult, it's very clear your spiritual life indicates almost a complete abandonment of reason and common sense. It's this fact alone that pretty much negates any semblance of dialogue with you. I think it was Thomas Paine or Derek Jeter that said it pointless to argue with someone who has abandoned reason, it's like administering medical care to the deceased. Or something like that.JoltinJoe wrote:
You should write a book, dude -- a collection of the best New Age cliches about the Christian outlook.
I of course don't have a problem with you or the fact you're in over your head in a archaic, cannibalistic, ancestor worship cult that glorifies suffering and punishes success and achievement. It makes for great drama. Cleets though wisely heeds Jeter's advice, which you often misinterpret as "running away."
Where did I give a timeline? I said that it reached a point, I didn't say anything about when it got there.SDHornet wrote:It his this point about 3 years ago, where have you been?BlueHen86 wrote:The Poli-Board has reached a point where it's the same people saying the same thing while arguing about the same stuff over and over again.
The board needs to evolve, there is certainly no intelligent design here.
Yeah Joe, it's your cult that's on trial. You call it intuition when it's really brainwashing and blind ignorance.JoltinJoe wrote:I think what is clear to any thinking person is that you and Cleets so narrowly define "reason" so as to exclude any exercise of human intuition, on the ground intuition is "unreasonable" -- when, in truth, it is completely unreasonable to ignore our intuition of what "ought" to be when discussing "what is truth."D1B wrote:
To be honest Joe, from outside your cult, and it is a cult, it's very clear your spiritual life indicates almost a complete abandonment of reason and common sense. It's this fact alone that pretty much negates any semblance of dialogue with you. I think it was Thomas Paine or Derek Jeter that said it pointless to argue with someone who has abandoned reason, it's like administering medical care to the deceased. Or something like that.
I of course don't have a problem with you or the fact you're in over your head in a archaic, cannibalistic, ancestor worship cult that glorifies suffering and punishes success and achievement. It makes for great drama. Cleets though wisely heeds Jeter's advice, which you often misinterpret as "running away."
Instead, both you and Cleets ridicule any reliance on intuition, and further twist people's words to reframe them in ways never intended (Cleets actually "twists and runs"). You guys also distort faith, and find comfort in calling faith systems "cults," "archaic," and "cannibalistic."
Do you guys ever wonder why most people just dismiss you, even though you are being so "reasonable?"
Of course you just dismiss them as being "lame" "unthinking" "dumb" "sheep" -- after all, it couldn't be that there's something wrong with the way you think.
JoltinJoe wrote:I think what is clear to any thinking person is that you and Cleets so narrowly define "reason" so as to exclude any exercise of human intuition, on the ground intuition is "unreasonable" -- when, in truth, it is completely unreasonable to ignore our intuition of what "ought" to be when discussing "what is truth."D1B wrote:
To be honest Joe, from outside your cult, and it is a cult, it's very clear your spiritual life indicates almost a complete abandonment of reason and common sense. It's this fact alone that pretty much negates any semblance of dialogue with you. I think it was Thomas Paine or Derek Jeter that said it pointless to argue with someone who has abandoned reason, it's like administering medical care to the deceased. Or something like that.
I of course don't have a problem with you or the fact you're in over your head in a archaic, cannibalistic, ancestor worship cult that glorifies suffering and punishes success and achievement. It makes for great drama. Cleets though wisely heeds Jeter's advice, which you often misinterpret as "running away."
Instead, both you and Cleets ridicule any reliance on intuition, and further twist people's words to reframe them in ways never intended (Cleets actually "twists and runs"). You guys also distort faith, and find comfort in calling faith systems "cults," "archaic," and "cannibalistic."
Do you guys ever wonder why most people just dismiss you, even though you are being so "reasonable?"
Of course you just dismiss them as being "lame" "unthinking" "dumb" "sheep" -- after all, it couldn't be that there's something wrong with the way you think.
He had to grow up in my shadow hearing my name spoken in wistful tones by the same leggy CA beauties that threw rocks at him. I'm afraid it drove him into the tea party with the rest of the celibate losers and rejects.D1B wrote:Tman envies you at an insane magnitude.houndawg wrote:
I know how JSO feels, I got 89hen out there, brooding and hating............. envy is such an ugly emotion...
Chicks throwing rocks at Tman!!!!!! LMFFAOhoundawg wrote:He had to grow up in my shadow hearing my name spoken in wistful tones by the same leggy CA beauties that threw rocks at him. I'm afraid it drove him into the tea party with the rest of the celibate losers and rejects.D1B wrote:
Tman envies you at an insane magnitude.
Cleets and I would like to know more about your "intuition." Thanks.Chizzang wrote:JoltinJoe wrote:
I think what is clear to any thinking person is that you and Cleets so narrowly define "reason" so as to exclude any exercise of human intuition, on the ground intuition is "unreasonable" -- when, in truth, it is completely unreasonable to ignore our intuition of what "ought" to be when discussing "what is truth."
Instead, both you and Cleets ridicule any reliance on intuition, and further twist people's words to reframe them in ways never intended (Cleets actually "twists and runs"). You guys also distort faith, and find comfort in calling faith systems "cults," "archaic," and "cannibalistic."
Do you guys ever wonder why most people just dismiss you, even though you are being so "reasonable?"
Of course you just dismiss them as being "lame" "unthinking" "dumb" "sheep" -- after all, it couldn't be that there's something wrong with the way you think.
Joe,
If you will stop lumping me in with D1B
I won't compare you to Jimmy Swaggart
D1B has his own points of contention that are different than mine - please work with him separately
My Point:
You think I don't understand "intuition" ???
and that I debate you because I don't agree with using "Intuition"...?
When it was entirely intuition that drove me away from Christianity in the first place
I rely on my intuition a lot Joe... and Christianity just doesn't pass the "intuition" sniff test
Now if I had some Hippie New Age stuff to insert - this is where I'd put it
We are at our best when were a "we society"Chizzang wrote:Which reminds me - we haven't had a good debate regarding the evils of communism - here in weeksBlueHen86 wrote:The Poli-Board has reached a point where it's the same people saying the same thing while arguing about the same stuff over and over again.
The board needs to evolve, there is certainly no intelligent design here.
I'll round up the Alinski Acolytes and AZ and T-man can round up the Ayn Rand rough riders
We meet at High Noon
I don't know if that's true or not. And it's certainly not a good thing when you have a substantial proportion of the society and maybe even a majority functioning as parasites siphoning off the benefits of the efforts of other member of the society and saying "we're all in this together" when those being bled try to get the parasites off them.We are at our best when were a "we society"
Yes you do. You really do.JohnStOnge wrote:I don't know if that's true or not. And it's certainly not a good thing when you have a substantial proportion of the society and maybe even a majority functioning as parasites siphoning off the benefits of the efforts of other member of the society and saying "we're all in this together" when those being bled try to get the parasites off them.We are at our best when were a "we society"
houndawg wrote:Yes you do. You really do.JohnStOnge wrote:
I don't know if that's true or not. And it's certainly not a good thing when you have a substantial proportion of the society and maybe even a majority functioning as parasites siphoning off the benefits of the efforts of other member of the society and saying "we're all in this together" when those being bled try to get the parasites off them.
You're a greedy and selfish person who would rather not face the simple arithmetic of there being more people than jobs for them to do. Parasites exist at all levels of society, John. They really do.
Best post in this thread.SeattleGriz wrote:FIFYChizzang wrote:Observations: There's a whole bunch of ditto heads that all follow each other
As for the conservatives
JohnstOng - Darwinian straight
Cluck - mentally challenged but straight
OL FU - Grandpa straight
89hen - Rock solid straight
AZGF - oozes machismo and very straight
CID1990 - straight for a guy from the South
T-man - Cerebral and straight
ASUG8 - A gentleman's straight man
The Liberals
Expandos - queer, like a 3 dollar bill
dbackjon - Ru Paul gay
Grizalltheway - Drug addled and beaten daily gay
Jelly - Perez Hilton gay
Kalm - This gay could be converted
Ibanez - Facebook friendly gay.
It's not a true parasitic relationship. While some people aren't pulling their weight, they do provide a demand for goods and services that others can exploit. They do help to drive the economy.JohnStOnge wrote:I don't know if that's true or not. And it's certainly not a good thing when you have a substantial proportion of the society and maybe even a majority functioning as parasites siphoning off the benefits of the efforts of other member of the society and saying "we're all in this together" when those being bled try to get the parasites off them.We are at our best when were a "we society"
And they pay taxes on what little they can afford to buy.BlueHen86 wrote:It's not a true parasitic relationship. While some people aren't pulling their weight, they do provide a demand for goods and services that others can exploit. They do help to drive the economy.JohnStOnge wrote:
I don't know if that's true or not. And it's certainly not a good thing when you have a substantial proportion of the society and maybe even a majority functioning as parasites siphoning off the benefits of the efforts of other member of the society and saying "we're all in this together" when those being bled try to get the parasites off them.
They are a net negative. They're parasites.BlueHen86 wrote:It's not a true parasitic relationship. While some people aren't pulling their weight, they do provide a demand for goods and services that others can exploit. They do help to drive the economy.JohnStOnge wrote:
I don't know if that's true or not. And it's certainly not a good thing when you have a substantial proportion of the society and maybe even a majority functioning as parasites siphoning off the benefits of the efforts of other member of the society and saying "we're all in this together" when those being bled try to get the parasites off them.
Bombs away!CID1990 wrote:Jesus all the back patting in this thread makes me need to go take a dump
Please show me the non-parasitic system. What does it look like?JohnStOnge wrote:They are a net negative. They're parasites.BlueHen86 wrote:
It's not a true parasitic relationship. While some people aren't pulling their weight, they do provide a demand for goods and services that others can exploit. They do help to drive the economy.
Galt's Gulch...kalm wrote:Please show me the non-parasitic system. What does it look like?JohnStOnge wrote:
They are a net negative. They're parasites.
The 1 percent consider you to be a parasite. You certainly are a net negative.JohnStOnge wrote:They are a net negative. They're parasites.BlueHen86 wrote:
It's not a true parasitic relationship. While some people aren't pulling their weight, they do provide a demand for goods and services that others can exploit. They do help to drive the economy.
They see him as a useful parasite though. One who can always be counted on to speak up on behalf of his master's cause.BlueHen86 wrote:The 1 percent consider you to be a parasite. You certainly are a net negative.JohnStOnge wrote:
They are a net negative. They're parasites.
