KrustyKidd Posted September 30, 2003 Report Share Posted September 30, 2003 I think the Fundementalzoids are already way ahead of us on that one. Problem is that they want to take us out with them and I still have a few more streets to go and I think I forgot to turn off the stove ........ BTW, are you getting a plow or converting to one of the thousand of religions? Hang on a minute, we all have to be the same, I don't want to do your thing and they don't want to do mine so who gets to decide what we're all going to do? If there is a vote I want to be in "Planet of the Porn Stars." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted September 30, 2003 Report Share Posted September 30, 2003 Dear KK, Excellent couple of posts. I love tongue-in cheekiness, and you are pushing the boundaries of 'vitiolic sardonicism'. Jolly good wheeze. And with a valid point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted September 30, 2003 Report Share Posted September 30, 2003 Dear Locke, Or John, whatever you prefer. If one has the vision of an idea, one must act accordingly, then try to convert. Most religions fail on one or the other test. To have just one religion, though? It hasn't been invented yet. Or it is a combination of all, and we're too stubborn to see it. Dear KK, Sorry, I spelled 'vitriolic' incorrect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted September 30, 2003 Report Share Posted September 30, 2003 LOL, it just jumped out at me and i wanted to go with it for fun, I didn't intend to be mean. Locke's point is a valid one but has a rather large practical flaw. Then again, if we don't have dreams our realities will forever be anchored to the earth right? But seriously, that one religion thing is something we can run with. I figure if you all worshipped ...... ME, it would work rather well don't you figure? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nova_satori Posted September 30, 2003 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2003 I'd rather worship you then Craig. At least we'd have some freedoms than a toliterian, hateful regime. Notice how Craig would rather call people names then thing of a way to fix the world without killing everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted September 30, 2003 Report Share Posted September 30, 2003 LOL ROFL NOVA!!!! Damm you're a sport lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nova_satori Posted September 30, 2003 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2003 after that whole genocide-i say you don't use evidence (let's forget the 50+ links & articles)-i'm always right-you're always wrong-bush hasn't lied one bit-clinton didn't do anything for the economy-entirely wrong accusations post at me, I stopped taking him even remotely serious. I can't even find one post of his that isn't tainted by his hatred and narrow mindedness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Farrius Posted October 1, 2003 Report Share Posted October 1, 2003 Here are just some of the threads Mr Read has started; they are extremely interesting to note: Blame Clinton for 9-11 Muslim Rage, Failure and Said Tiny Bin Laden Is dead Mexi-Fornia Islam is a Failure Judaic-christian Culture Is Superior Crusading Is Noble Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted October 1, 2003 Report Share Posted October 1, 2003 I new here, and maybe I don't know anything about what is going on in this forum, but isn't this about politics? Granted what the things of Reed's I've read are pesimistic, but he does have a valid view. At the same time Nova, you also have a point (please don't bite my head off). So can we stop name-calling like children and start talking about politics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forum Admin Greg Posted October 1, 2003 Forum Admin Report Share Posted October 1, 2003 Locke, you're speaking the truth. Sometimes many of us need to be reminded that we must not to take politics personally. I say we move on and get back to talking about politics. Everyone in agreement? Thanks p.s. Welcome to the forum, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Read Posted October 2, 2003 Report Share Posted October 2, 2003 Nova, stop being a liberal and debate. Topic headings offend ? Ah boo hoo hoo. As opposed to the heading of this thread 'Killing Arafat" by Chevy Nova. Great title boys - brought tears to my eyes. Libbies, some concepts. You take the point and refute it with evidence and with facts, not emotional flights of fantasy. You actually READ others ideas. You TRY to counter them. When you are wrong you say so. When you disagree you can say so. Another idea - stop the anti-American anti-Jew racism. It means your head is a block and that your thinking processes are clogged. You can disagree with US policy based on facts without calling Bush or Americans in general slanderous names. This must be possible. I have criticised in great detail on one thread US economic policy. So how is that ? Still think that people who support US foreign policy blindly support evthg ? I don't support US medicare ideas, and I don't support dumb spending. There is that okay dears ? And of course one last point, please keep a box of kleenex at hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nova_satori Posted October 3, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 Granted what the things of Reed's I've read are pesimistic, but he does have a valid view. At the same time Nova, you also have a point (please don't bite my head off). So can we stop name-calling like children and start talking about politics? ME? You should have been here for the past two weeks to see Craig lie his butt off, make complete fabrications then say we said them, throw sweeping generalizations that really didn't apply to anyone. It got so bad that the Admin had to give Craig a choice: Stop his current childish antics or get banned. Greg (the admin) deleted my post detailing my greviances aganist Craig. He lies ALOT. He'll say you did said something that doesn't even follow your previous patterns and is nowhere in any of the threads. Nova, stop being a liberal and debate. Topic headings offend ? Ah boo hoo hoo. As opposed to the heading of this thread 'Killing Arafat" by Chevy Nova. Great title boys - brought tears to my eyes. Stop promoting the road to oblivion. Every time I post an link or article, you say I never provide any proof. Every refutation that is proven, you simply ignore. it also seems to think that the majority of the rest of the world thinks the same way you do, and that everyone else who dissents is obviously wrong. Libbies, some concepts. You take the point and refute it with evidence and with facts, not emotional flights of fantasy. See, my point has been proven. You actually READ others ideas. You TRY to counter them. When you are wrong you say so. When you disagree you can say so. Comming from you, who selectivly reads posts, refuses to acknolwdge any links or articles or any non-extremist right-wing supporting evidence, who cherry picks his own articles, thinks that all respectable news sources he disagrees with are scum, avoids refuting or even touching the subject, refuses to say when he is wrong when all the evidence points to it, and throws mindless, childish insults at people when he knows is wrong and cannot admit it. Hypocritie. Another idea - stop the anti-American anti-Jew racism. It means your head is a block and that your thinking processes are clogged Another of my points has been proven. You can disagree with US policy based on facts without calling Bush or Americans in general slanderous names. So who has been calling Clark and all democrats horrible names? Hypocrite. and I don't support dumb spending. Such as cutting taxes and spending $87 BILLION? Hypocite. There is that okay dears ? And of course one last point, please keep a box of kleenex at hand. I will, as long as you keep your dictionary of slanderous, mindless, pathetic, sweeping insults that don't apply to anyone and only prove your inability to see the other side handy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 I believe that Craig is definately stubborn and insulting, but that is no reason to sink to his level. If you want to get back at him so bad, give him so much proof against one of his ideas that he can't find anything against it. Beat him so bad he no longer has any reputation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nova_satori Posted October 3, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 Locke, you forgot hypocrite too If you want to get back at him so bad, give him so much proof against one of his ideas that he can't find anything against it. I've tried. Believe me, i've tried. He simply responds that the quoted news source should be/is shutdown/stupid/wrong/incompetent/false/moronic/propaganda/drivel....anything but credible and possibly correct, all at the same time saying his links (the few that he does post, opposed to my 50+) are always correct and can never be wrong. I think Craig has made himself out to be intolerant, hateful, pro-oblivion, anti-dissents, anti-progress person who has never spoken to anyone outside of the Western World. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d4dev Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 The idea of this thread was to crate world peace correct? Well the way to do that would be to elminate all borders and eliminate all or all but one religion. No more wars over religion or over land. that elminates all most all the reasons for war. Afterward, create a democracy of this new Earth Sphere Nation so that no one person or group has all the power. this would create world peace Exactly. Like Karl Marx said, religion is the opium of the masses. I know a better way. Why not eliminate all religions, and not keep even one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 We have to have atleast one religion. Or maybe we can all follow Confucianism. Anyways, we have to have one religion otherwise people will lose the spirital aspect, not to mention a reward (Heaven). Also, if we loose a religion, we will have less of a moral compass to keep ethics around. Religion should help tell people how to act, cause we all know that people can't act rightously themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 You know Nova, the more I read of Craig's, the more I think you are right. I apologize for what I said to you. He is extreamly pessimistic, doesn't listen to others, and he tries to put them down instead of proving them wrong. I'm sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nova_satori Posted October 4, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2003 That's ok. You don't need to apologize. Just practice what you preach. I find it amusing that the Chinese are laughing at the US about not practicing what they peach. Communists are laughing at us for not donig what we preach! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted October 4, 2003 Report Share Posted October 4, 2003 Dear Mr. Locke, While I lean towards the teachings of Siddhartha Guatama, I believe morality pre-dates religion, especially 'the big three'. We actually do not need religion to foster morality. Ethics are merely the manifestation of morality, and ethical code the foundation of religious law. But that is where mankind has always tainted the process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted October 4, 2003 Report Share Posted October 4, 2003 Buddism? It could be worse. Yes ethics predate religion, I'll give you that. But not many followed those ethics before religions came about. Though, not many follow the ethics now.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nova_satori Posted October 4, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2003 Ethics and real morals have left the stag of the world long ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted October 4, 2003 Report Share Posted October 4, 2003 Dear Mr Locke, Most must have followed the 'golden rule', else society would not have flourished. Well over 50%, I would say. Sadly, that number is in decline. Once the number dips below 50%, it rapidly turns into a 'swirling motion'. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.