Big US Airlift to Israel combats IslamoNazis!

[Christians4LessGvt]

"First of all, "this guy" is a mere actor, George C. Scott.  He's not about to slap the shit out of anyone"

What?
OMG you are kidding?
That guy is an actor?
Come on.
Thats not really General Patton?
Well I declare!

[Amianthus]

What some of our right-wing friends in this NG seem to be relishing is the prospect of violence upon posters merely for opinions expressed in the NG.

There have been similar posts from the left on this forum as well (this is not a NG). Those are OK?

[Michael Tee]

<<There have been similar posts from the left on this forum as well (this is not a NG). Those are OK?>>

Could you possibly be just a little bit broader in your reference?  I find this narrowly focusing on specifics often obscures the big picture.

[Amianthus]

Could you possibly be just a little bit broader in your reference?  I find this narrowly focusing on specifics often obscures the big picture.

I was just as narrow as the statement to which I was replying.

[Christians4LessGvt]

"relishing is the prospect of violence"

oh such "violence"  
ewwwwwwww such blood and guts!
rated X for such a reference!
dude your must have brown eyes!

[Michael Tee]

oh such "violence"  Roll Eyes
ewwwwwwww such blood and guts!
rated X for such a reference!
dude your must have brown eyes!

========================================

So what exactly is your point?  That it would be OK for Patton to slap around XO for expressing an opinion as long as he doesn't break any bones or kill him?

I hope if that's your customary way of "winning" arguments that you are a fairly big guy or pretty handy with your fists, because otherwise you are going to be spending a lot of time in hospitals.  Especially if you try that tactic on non-Christians, who don't believe in turning the other cheek.

How does it work in reverse?  Your opponent doesn't like YOUR argument and so he decides to slap you silly?  Since you are a Christian, you'd have to turn the other cheek.  You'd "lose" every argument you engaged in, thereby "proving" the inadequacy of your facts and logic.

I am grateful for your honesty, however, because it shows us, despite the "Christian" part of your handle, or maybe even because of it, just what kind of swamp you crawled out of.

[Christians4LessGvt]

So what exactly is your point?  That it would be OK for Patton to slap around XO for expressing an opinion as long as he doesn't break any bones or kill him?

My point was one of humor because like you said, it is not even Patton in the video and both Patton and George C Scott are dead. Hello earth to Michael? But you and XO are such BP's that you pretend otherwise.

I hope if that's your customary way of "winning" arguments that you are a fairly big guy or pretty handy with your fists, because otherwise you are going to be spending a lot of time in hospitals.  Especially if you try that tactic on non-Christians, who don't believe in turning the other cheek.

Number one I win arguments with truth.
Number two big guys or handy fists dont mean shit.
If anyone attempts to put me in a hospital over my words they will soon see gunfire.
Never spent a night in the hospital yet.
But I am cowering as we speak.

How does it work in reverse? 
Your opponent doesn't like YOUR argument and so he decides to slap you silly? 

If they so choose.

"Since you are a Christian"

Quit making an ass out of youself by ASSuming what you know nothing about.

you'd have to turn the other cheek.

Again, wrong on the facts.

You'd "lose" every argument you engaged in, thereby "proving" the inadequacy of your facts and logic.

And a 3rd time, wrong again.
Making statements based on insufficient data is not very bright.
Your batting average really, really sucks in this thread and I mean bad.
The more you post the more factual mistakes you make.
Keep it up and show the stupidity.

I am grateful for your honesty

I know of nothing else.

however, because it shows us, despite the "Christian"
part of your handle, or maybe even because of it, just
what kind of swamp you crawled out of

I'll take the swamp any day!

[Xavier_Onassis]

Number one I win arguments with truth.

What truth? That it would be a GOOD thing for Iran to attack Israel, so you could turn Iranians into shish-kebobs?

How is that a truth?

That you could get a deceased general and/or a deceased actor to slap me around until I believed that Iranians bombing Israelk and then being turned into delicious shisch-kebobs was a good thing?
 What sort of frigging truth is that?

You are a Christian like Groucho was a Marxist.

[Michael Tee]

<<My point was one of humor because like you said, it is not even Patton in the video and both Patton and George C Scott are dead. Hello earth to Michael? But you and XO are such BP's that you pretend otherwise.>>

Ohhh, HUMOR!!  NOW I get it.  Ain't THAT a knee-slapper, Ginrul Patton slapping the shit out of XO for voicing an opinion that displeased him.  Haw haw haw ain't laughed so hard since the pigs ett my baby sister.  That's a good one!

<<Number one I win arguments with truth.>>

Oh, yes, we can SEE that.  Truth as in, "It was all just a joke."

<<If anyone attempts to put me in a hospital over my words they will soon see gunfire.>>

You should have told me.  Instead of hoping that you were a big guy and handy with your fists, I would have expressed the hope that you possessed superior firepower and more accurate guns.  I guess you feel that only punks win arguments with their fists, real men win them with fully automatic and/or higher calibre weaponry.  Good luck in your future "debates."  Let me know if you're going to be selling tickets.

<<Never spent a night in the hospital yet.>>

I can tell.  You must be a very "persuasive" debater face to face.  Ever have to shoot your way to victory, or was the mere threat sufficient?

<<Quit making an ass out of youself by ASSuming what you know nothing about.>>

Geeze, I'm sorry.  I did not realize that the "Christians" in your name was meant to deceive.  So what are ya really?  "Muslims United?"  "Jews United?"  "Billionaires United?"  "Billionaire Jews United?"  Inquiring minds need to know.

<<I know of nothing else [other than honesty.]>>

That's funny.  In this thread alone, you've tried to claim that your vicarious fantasies of beating up liberals  were "humor" and admitted that your very name was deceptive and misleading.  Are you sure that you know what "honesty" is?  Have you looked it up in the dictionary?

[Xavier_Onassis]

I find the name "Christians United 4 Less Government" to be sort of a classic. Not as good as my all-timne favorite, "The Lone Gunmen" of Byers, Langley and Frohickey on the short-lived show of the same name.

First off, the trouble with Christians is that there seems to be just ONE of him, yet he refers to himself in the plural.

This recalls the old chant 'My strength is as the strength of ten, for at my back I have nine men', except he has no one at his back.

Second is the concept that Christianity is actually a viable political system. If indeed it is a system, it is that of a permanent unelected benevolent monarchy: rule by the resurrected Jesus from the time he chooses to come out of hiding (or wherever he spends his time) to rule the world in a just way after throwing out all the bad people.

Well, it is true that rule by just the one Messiah would be less government. I am wondering about highway maintenance, basic disease control, vermin control, hurricane watches and the like. True, Jesus COULD exterminate all the rodents and chiggars, but can he make a highway that not require maintenance or water that does not require chlorinization? I mean, people will continue to pee and poop after Jesus returns, won't they? Well, then we need water purification, don't we? Is Jesus for private water companies and toll roads exclusively, or will the Jesus government need to do these things? We elected a guy named Crist here in FL and he is still providing a lot of services.

Republicans of late have not been either conservatives, nor have they brought us less government. I think Jimmy Carter's zero-based government resulted in almost as slow a growth of government than Reagan's regime, which busted all previousrecords for spending, until they were again busted by Olebush and then Juniorbush. Reagan seems to be some sort of hero for Christians, which seems somewhat strange, given RR's poor church attendance and dysfunctional family ties.

I also don't like Christians4 because he wants to send a dead guy around to slap me for being against Iran attacking Israel (he said he was for this) and cannibalism.

I think not attacking Israel is a policy most should agree with.
I think that cannibalism is just plain WRONG. Ever Jesus was in favor of only limited ritual cannibalism (ie Communion).

I reject categorically the concept that I deserve to be slapped for favoring Iranian non-aggression and opposing cannibalism. I can't foresee a time where I (or any sane individual) would favor either.

[Christians4LessGvt]

Ohhh, HUMOR!!  NOW I get it.  Ain't THAT a knee-slapper, Ginrul Patton slapping the shit out of XO for voicing an opinion that displeased him.  Haw haw haw ain't laughed so hard since the pigs ett my baby sister.  That's a good one!

Yeah I think so, but I suppose you and your side would rather watch humor about
Governor Palin's downs syndrome baby. A bunch of sickos.

Oh, yes, we can SEE that.  Truth as in, "It was all just a joke."

No I can chew gum and walk at the same time "Mr F Bomb".

I guess your F bombs are truth?

Yeah boss dats it!

You should have told me.  Instead of hoping that you were a big guy and handy with your fists, I would have expressed the hope that you possessed superior firepower and more accurate guns.  I guess you feel that only punks win arguments with their fists, real men win them with fully automatic and/or higher calibre weaponry.  Good luck in your future "debates."  Let me know if you're going to be selling tickets.

Nice apples to oranges lie.
Like I said the more you speak the more stupid you look.
You referred to my comments causing an attack that would send me to the hospital.
If someone attacks me to send me to the hospital it would be met with gunfire.
Wow....now how crazy is that?
Wow...you mean I would actually protect myself?
Wow that just sound crazy now doesn't it? 

I can tell.  You must be a very "persuasive" debater face to face. 
Ever have to shoot your way to victory, or was the mere threat sufficient?

More apples to orange lies, but only exposes the stupidity.

Geeze, I'm sorry.

Oh I already know that.

I did not realize that the "Christians" in your name was meant to deceive.  So what are ya really?  "Muslims United?"  "Jews United?"  "Billionaires United?"  "Billionaire Jews United?"  Inquiring minds need to know.

You don't need to know shit about me, my posting name, or what it means.
Those that need to know already do.
I guess I could have picked something interesting like "Michael". 

That's funny.  In this thread alone, you've tried to claim that your vicarious fantasies of beating up liberals were "humor".

More stupidity exposed!
How is joking about General Patton slapping XO dishonest?
Explain it to me, I'm anxious to know?

and admitted that your very name was deceptive and misleading. 

LOL....where Michael?
Do you just invent stuff out of thin air?
Even more stupidity exposed and lying now.
I have NEVER said my name is deceptive or misleading.
You say that, I don't.
Because you ASSume shit doesn't make it a fact.
The truth is misleading and deceptive to liars.

Are you sure that you know what "honesty" is?  Have you looked it up in the dictionary?

See above.
You need a tutor dude.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Yeah I think so, but I suppose you and your side would rather watch humor about
Governor Palin's downs syndrome baby. A bunch of sickos.

___________________________
I have never seen even one mention of Palin's Down's syndrome kid in any context other than the simple mention that she has one. You, all by yourself, cal your self "Christians". I thin you are sick enpugh to be described as a "bunch of sickos" all by yourself.

NOTE: slapping people is NOT FUNNY. Especially in defense of Iranian bombing attacks on Israel and cannibalism.

[Christians4LessGvt]

I find the name "Christians United 4 Less Government" to be sort of a classic.

The more you and michael (interesting posting name...lol) bitch about it/talk
about it the more I realize I made the right decision.

First off, the trouble with Christians is that there seems to be just ONE of him,
yet he refers to himself in the plural.

First off you don't know what you are talking about. Your rules of ASSumption
do not apply to me. If someone had a posting name "Go Giants", I would
not ASSume the posting name meant they were a Giant or they were
referring to themself in plural. As if it really matters   , my posting
name is a statement.

You need to go back to school as a student and study context.

Second is the concept that Christianity is actually a viable political system.

Who said it was?
More ASSumption lies of the Left!

Republicans of late have not been either conservatives, nor have they brought us less government.

But they have been the lesser of two EVILS.

Reagan seems to be some sort of hero for Christians, which seems somewhat strange,
given RR's poor church attendance and dysfunctional family ties.

XO explain to me how you know what I value within the Christian faith?
Or are you ASSuming again?

I also don't like Christians4 because he wants to send a dead guy around to slap me for
being against Iran attacking Israel (he said he was for this) and cannibalism.

I dont like you because you are a bigot.

I think not attacking Israel is a policy most should agree with.

"Wiping Israel off the face the earth" is something that will not be allowed.
Iran will cease to exist. (shish-ke-bob)

I think that cannibalism is just plain WRONG.

Who said anything about eating the shish-ke-bobs?
I saw a "guardrail shish-ke-bob" this weekend. Car was fully engulfed.
But I certainly did not want to eat the "guardrail shish-ke-bob".
ASSuming again?

I reject categorically the concept that I deserve to be slapped for favoring Iranian non-aggression

Non-aggression against Hitler would have been a cover for surrender.
You want to do the immoral thing and pass along the problem to a later generation.

[Christians4LessGvt]

"have never seen even one mention of Palin's Down's syndrome kid in any context
other than the simple mention that she has one."

Well now you have! (see below at left wing site Daily Kos)




Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:19:42 PM PDT

"Okay, I just have to diary about this, although in many ways this falls into the "none of our business category".  But it appears that Pallin's last child, a baby with Down's syndrome, may not be hers.  It may be that of her teenage daughter."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/29/17933/7330/417/579267

"You, all by yourself, cal your self "Christians"."

No I don't.
Quit lying and ASSuming.
I do not and I have not EVER referred to myself as "Christians".
No more than a poster named "Marines" would refer to himself as marines in plural form.

"I thin you are sick enpugh to be described as a "bunch of sickos" all by yourself."

Yeah I am the sicko like you that supports pinching babies heads until death in their Mother's womb.

"NOTE: slapping people is NOT FUNNY. Especially in defense of Iranian bombing attacks on Israel and cannibalism"

cannibalism = more invented lies
i still say Patton woulda slapped the shit out of you! 

[Plane]

<<Yeah, because "put 'em up against the wall" and getting 'em with a firing squad doesn't involve brute force.>>

I'm not talking about resolving intellectual disputes in a democratic environment.  "Up against the wall" is what I advocate only for enemies of the people, who undertake active opposition (including non-violent subversion, but subversion intended to undermine the socialist state) when there is a socialist state to be undermined, or for Nazis and fascists who have already undertaken fascist, Nazi or racist activities related to the seizure or maintenance of power, or racist, sexist or homophobic violence.  And even then, except in the most egregious cases, I would think that re-education would be preferable if there is any indication that the individual is likely to respond favourably to it.  "The wall" is a kind of last-ditch solution to be reserved only for hard-core offenders.

What some of our right-wing friends in this NG seem to be relishing is the prospect of violence upon posters merely for opinions expressed in the NG.  Typical of the intellectually and morally bankrupt state of the right wing mind, embracing arguments that can only be "won" by kicking in somebody's head.

You have just enunciated a very good reason to have little tolerance for a socialist state.

The state that values itself above its people is a sin to exist.