|FAQ||Members List||Calendar||Search||Today's Posts||Mark Forums Read|
|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|Mar 24th, 2003 10:35 AM|
|mburbank||8.) If a public school classroom had even one Satanist Student, Ronnie would support the teacher leading Satanist prayers in that classroom.|
|Mar 14th, 2003 02:22 AM|
|Mar 14th, 2003 12:22 AM|
|Mar 14th, 2003 12:02 AM|
You never know, the Olson twins might be alot more like me than you think, they're like 16 now... Give them a year and they'll be strung out on smack doing Calvin Klein ads.
Not married yet. I will get married when my fiancee completes USAF Basic Training, that wont be anytime soon though because he has some unpaid traffic tickets and shit to take care of. Not in any big rush.
You guys still living at the same spot, or did you move in a house? Ah hell, I'll just email you. This isn't the "Posterchild-Raygun small talk" Thread
|Mar 13th, 2003 11:30 PM|
|James||I wouldn't have it any other way.|
|Mar 13th, 2003 11:19 PM|
"Fight, fight! A black and a white!
If the white don't win, we all jump in!"
|Mar 13th, 2003 03:15 PM|
OK, thats it. Everybody
|Mar 13th, 2003 03:04 PM|
|The_Rorschach||And once again, Burbank's rebuttal is followed by an ear shattering silence from Ronnie's corner. . .|
|Mar 11th, 2003 10:40 AM|
What's the matter, I thought you loved cut n' paste? I thought you felt that extraneous commentary meant nothing next to verifiable quotes! Do you think I'm lieing?
I assume what you'd want is a transcribed text of the debate, hosted by a reputable source. If you can find that, good on you. It's been two years since the event and I can't. What I have found are MULTIPLE reliable sources both on the right and left, many of them actively quoting the event. You don't believe them? Fine. Here are two links.
First from the left;
There I THINK I finally found what you were noodling about. Read the whole article and you'll find that the moderator did indeed change his wording when he got to Governor Bush to simply from 'political philosipher thinker' to 'philosipher thinker'. But that was Immidiately follwoing using the first version of the wording to Forbes and Keys. NONE of the reports on the debate I've found even from Regans former Speech writer Peggy Noonan took the nature of the question as having changed. If you are asserting that Bush really did, and made no blunder here or disagreed with you then I applaud your novel interpretation of events.
Now, a link from the center (and if you ask me right leaning) CNN.
Please note the EFFORT I've made (as opposed to being "unwilling to give me the info") to find reports sensative to alternative interpretations favoring you and W. not disagreeing. I think my efforst were HIGHLY charitable! I've all but given you the opportunity to weasel out of the difficult pposition YOU put yourself
in. The CNN story (and I've already given you this, simply by cutting and pasting a quotr from it of saay five wors into Google would have found it for you, but no, I'm the "Unwilling" one here) goes so far as to mention W's 'clarification' on how he understood the question.
"I want to answer the question"
You would be hard pressed to find anyone who's been reading this who'd agree with that. If anyone here thiinks Naldo has demonstrated a desire to answer this question, feel free to chime in.
I want to underline the origianl point in ALL of this, which is you feel VERY uncomfortable finding ANY point of disagreement between you and one of your heros, which I think is highly telling in terms of your character, your freedom of thought (To be frank, I think it puts you in a fairly 'tiny box') and your credability. If you feel some schoolyrd need to 'turn the tbales' on me, as you've attempted with Kevin, name ANY thinker, political or otherwise, past or present, give me ONE DAY and I'll find points where we differ. Why? Becuase I think for myself.
|Mar 10th, 2003 04:36 PM|
You STILL can't post a link.
Maxi, I'm going to ask you again....do YOU need MY help finding and posting a link of the commentary of that presidential debate?
Everything else you have to say is meaningless.
I want to answer the question but you are unwilling to give me the info. needed to make a judgment.
Context is important.
Your unwillingness to cooperate is a sign that you know you are wrong.
|Mar 10th, 2003 02:16 PM|
Naldo; I believe I've found the exit clause in the question I've been aksing you that you feel allows you to coyly avoid action.
To wit; from CNN
"Texas Gov. George W. Bush, a Methodist who leads the Republican race in opinion polls and fund-raising, gave the most personal testimony in Monday's debate. Each candidate was asked what "political philosopher or thinker" he identified with most. (In an interview Tuesday morning with Des Moines Register reporters and editors, Bush said he understood the question to be, "Who"s had the most influence on your life?")
So we see the privilidged Governor backpeddling in a move reminiscent of... why, YOU, Ronnie!
So, a THIRD option for you. Bush, in a National Televised Debate for the presidency of the United States, the THIRD candidate in row to be asked a simple DIRECT QUESTION, FAILS to understand the words.
If I were you I'd take the easy out I'm offering here. Becuase the alternative is that your hero lied, and worse yet, pulled a PETER and denied CHRIST!
I guess it would be nice if you could actually offer some opinion as to what you think about all this. But it's pretty entertaining watching you wriggle around like a worm on a hook, too. You simply can't face the fact that you, who are right all the time or if you're not can't discuss it; and W. who is right all the time and if he's not can't discuss it might DISAGREE on an ISSUE. Anything this hard prettty much has to be good for you, Naldo. Show a shred of humanity.
A.) You were wrong.
B.) W was wrong
or a VERY charitable
C.) W couldn't be bothered to opy attention to a question asked THREE TIMES in a PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE. Which is a pretty callow situation to drag Jesus into.
|Mar 10th, 2003 08:57 AM|
|sadie||all this flirting between max and ronnie is getting me hot.|
|Mar 10th, 2003 12:05 AM|
|!!!!||I had a dream that he went on the Atkins diet and I was really mad about it. How's your liver, Ronnie?|
|Mar 9th, 2003 08:56 PM|
I you really wanted to get to the bottom of this.....which you don't....you would post some links to the commentary so that we could find out the exact words of W.
You don't wan't to do that. Why? Because you cannot survive in an atmosphere of truth.
I said Jesus was not into "politics". ....You couldn't even get that right and I just said that last week. What makes you think that I'm going to believe you when you won't even post a link of the commentary.
The least you can do is back up your startment with absolute proof. This only happened a couple years ago. Geez, what's your problem? Can you not find it? Do you need my help finding it or what?
You quotes contradicted each other. That's a fact, I simply want to know the truth but you seem unwilling.
|Mar 9th, 2003 04:39 PM|
Could it be he's yanking your chain and you are so humor impaired you don't understand it.
Ronnie. That excuse about te Jesus quote from W. is so sad, and so utterly devalues your claim that you would answr I direct question, makes such liar out of you by your own deffinition, it's a wonder you can live with yourself.
Your statement regarding the 'contradiction' in the quotes shows a a deliberate obfuscation that at best is cowardice and at worst is you deliberatley refusing to take a stand on simple direct question.
SO. This is the perfect thread to fall back and what we know about you. You said Jesus was not 'into philosiphy'. W called Bush his 'favorite Political philosipher" These are both facts. It is an inescapable conclusion that in this matter of assessing Jesus, you think W. was wrong. You are unable to say W. is wrong about anything becuase your world view is too simple to allow anything so earthshattering as W. being wrong.
I have given you AMPLE opportunity, and you dodged, prevaricated and delighted in a childish game of semantics. You opted out on an opportunity to show a TINY amount of personal depth. You invalidated your claims of being amenable to direct question. You sir, are a hypocrite, and what little credability you brought to the table is gone.
I built this case on YOUR words, Naldo. 'Fine' you'll say, you are entitled to your opinion'. As you are to yours. I will not stooop to claiming I am capable of speaking Ex Cathedra on matters of the soul, as you so often do.
|Mar 9th, 2003 11:38 AM|
I've never done that.
Why don't you stop asking stupid questions?
|Mar 9th, 2003 11:19 AM|
Stop playing the race card, and give a real reason.
Not everything can be passed off with "I'm black" for an answer.
|Mar 9th, 2003 10:38 AM|
|Ronnie Raygun||.....the same reason I support rape, animal torture, and mass murder in general.|
|Mar 9th, 2003 10:32 AM|
|James||So, why DO you support ethnic cleansing?|
|Mar 9th, 2003 06:10 AM|
No, you can work on it...I don't really care. I've never even heard of Jack Chick until the other day...Just from what I've seen here, I'd have to say that he was correct. I don't care to research it any furthur.
".....while finding ways not to answer my direct question about wether or not Jesus was a political philosipher."
I'd say not. I don't know how many different ways I can tell you...
..But the Bush quotes and sources that you gave me contradicted each other....yet you still fail to answer my questions.
Everything else stands? Cool.
|Mar 8th, 2003 09:53 PM|
Okay so we'll table theJack Chik comment for futher research. Unless you'd like to find one of his strips you disagree on in any way at all. You can work on it while finding ways not to answer my direct question about wether or not Jesus was a political philosipher.
Every thing else stands.
|Mar 8th, 2003 03:41 PM|
|Mar 8th, 2003 11:42 AM|
|Mar 8th, 2003 11:40 AM|
|kellychaos||Ronnie ... you suck. That was just a general purpose "Ronnie ... you suck" just in case I missed saying "You suck" at some other point during my posting today. Carry on.|
|Mar 8th, 2003 11:22 AM|
Am I black? Do I really qualify? I mean, sure I have it in my blood but I also have just as much Thai in my blood.....in the end who cares? I'm an American.
Poster, I'm nothing like Carlton and you know it. That's like me comparing you to one of the Olson Twins........I wouldn't stoop that low. haha. Hey! Are you married yet?
Anyway, to respond to Maxi,
"1.) Unrepentant Homosexuals will go to hell for all eternity when they die."
Anyone who is unrepentant and who does not accept Christ as their savior.
"2.) If it saves one innocent life, torture is ok."
Death to someone that is not saved means eternity in hell. If touture could possibly save someone from eternal damnation.....I'm all for it.
"3.) He intends to 'shove my grubby words down my throat'"
"4.) Knows Proto is not a real Christian"
I can only go by what he says. In Jn.14:6 Jesus says it all and Proto disagrees.
"5.) Shares the moral philosiphy of Jack Chick."
Just because I agree with one comic, doesn't mean that I agree with him on everything.
|This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|