TNBear
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,285
|
Post by TNBear on Apr 7, 2007 8:33:37 GMT -5
It's not only about enableing Big Oil to ream us, it's about enableing Halliburton et. al. to make several fortunes from the taxpayers wallets.
|
|
TNBear
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,285
|
Post by TNBear on Apr 7, 2007 8:35:33 GMT -5
As for the original post, I'm still not sure if it's for real or attempted satire but I'm leaning toward the latter.
|
|
|
Post by Gary on Apr 7, 2007 14:34:39 GMT -5
I called out BC08 for his claim that Iraq was linked to 9/11 - "The President said that there was no link. Are you calling the President a liar?"His response was illuminating in it's nonsensical nature - "No, you're calling him a liar. I think he was right the first time when he said that Iraq had something to do with 9-11."So, let's go to the record - the words of the President himself where he states clearly and unequiovacbly that Iraq had "nothing" to do with the 9/11 attacks thinkprogress.org/2006/08/21/bush-on-911/So, for BC 08 to continue to claim that Iraq was involved with 9/11 is to flat out contradict what the President said. Quite simpley BC08 is indeed calling Bush a liar. No fancy footwork, no side-stepping, no blaming "left-wing media and college professors" - there is no connecion, and never has been.
|
|
|
Post by bushcheney08 on Apr 7, 2007 16:54:10 GMT -5
Um, dude... I already explained that I was joking.
Yes, the President has given contradictory statements on Iraq and their connection to terrorism. By pretending to defend them, I was attempting to point out the hypocrasy of those different statements over the years.
Rock on.
|
|
|
Post by Gary on Apr 7, 2007 17:02:33 GMT -5
> Um, dude... I already explained that I was joking.
Yeah, right. The old "I was just joking" excuse when someone hands you your ass for being an idiot.
What's the next excuse?
|
|
|
Post by bushcheney08 on Apr 7, 2007 17:06:49 GMT -5
Okay Gary... you got me. You totally handed me my ass.
See if you can find a way to "hand me my ass" in the thread about Pelosi costing us a glorious war with Iran. Or the one about Arabs going to Heaven. Or the one about how safe it in Iraq because John McCain can spend ten minutes on the street while surrounded by a fifty armed guards and two helicopters.
Here are some hints for handing me my ass...
1. A war with Iran would be bad, so I should be happy that it could be prevented in any way, even if it's by someone with whom I have political disagreements. 2. Maybe the notion that only Christians can go to heaven is as extremist and narrow minded as the fundamentalist Muslim belief that only followers of Allah can go to heaven. 3. It's great that John McCain was safe, but the average Iarqi doesn't get fifty guards, body armor and a helicopter squad to protect them every time they want to go to the market.
|
|
TNBear
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,285
|
Post by TNBear on Apr 7, 2007 19:34:36 GMT -5
B/CNO8, methinks life would be much simpler if you just "say what you mean and mean what you say". I feel fairly certain that your true thoughts would create the discussion you claim to be looking for.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Apr 7, 2007 22:17:30 GMT -5
I think the claim was that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. They admittedly made payments to terrorists and/or their families, among other things.
The satire thing only works when used sparingly, and it works better when done well. As tnbear said, simply say what you mean. For example, Marvell and I are pretty much at opposite ends of the political spectrum, yet we can have a reasoned debate, and at the end of the day we are still friendly. Sometimes, sarcasm and satire are useful, though.
The discussion that is represented by the topic, "Can Arabs go to Heaven?" is an interesting topic, and it could have generated some really good (even if heated) discussion if presented in a reasonable way.
To me, the so-called satire came across as being moronic more than anything.
|
|
Felix
Global Moderator
Tepid One
Happy Morning
Posts: 4,137
|
Post by Felix on Apr 8, 2007 8:15:37 GMT -5
El Gusano asserted: Marvell and I are pretty much at opposite ends of the political spectrum, yet we can have a reasoned debate, and at the end of the day we are still friendly. Indeed. Mutual respect can, and should survive most differences. Besides, I am in perpetual hope of Gus seeing the virtues of the Dark Side. *cue chorus of "We are the world."
|
|
|
Post by bushcheney08 on Apr 8, 2007 12:55:21 GMT -5
B/CNO8, methinks life would be much simpler if you just "say what you mean and mean what you say". I feel fairly certain that your true thoughts would create the discussion you claim to be looking for. I don't doubt that either. It's just a little boring to me... But I'm not a normal guy. Here's my attempt at just saying exactly what I think in the simplest way possible... I think religious zealots have plunged nations into war throughout history. It's scary to me. When people think that God is on their side, it's easy to justify anything. To me, Bush claiming that God wants the US to win the war is as stupid as Ahmadinejad saying Allah wants Iran to win. Big fuckin' deal... my daddy can beat up your daddy. Can Arabs go to heaven? Honestly, I don't give a shit. I think it's terrifying that other people take it so seriously that they think they have the right to kill others. That is all. Ho hum.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Apr 8, 2007 20:19:22 GMT -5
Actually, I'd like to have a discussion over that idea from a Christian perspective. It seems there are three different trains of thought on this from the Christian community. The first group, we'll call them the universalist, seem to believe that people find their own truths in their own ways, that the different religions of the world are all valid for those people following them. This thought, on the surface, seems to be very tolerant and respectful of all the other religions but I have a problem with that thought. In telling me that the absolutes I hold to be true in my religion are relevent only to me is insulting to my belief and I would think that the Jew, the Muslim, the Hindu, the Buddhist, the Taoist, etc. would also find that thought to be insulting to their beliefs. The next group is the exclusivists. This group says that the only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ and unless you are a Christian, regardless of whether or not you've ever heard of Jesus, you are doomed to hell. My problem with this thought is that God of the Old and New Testament showed himself over and over to show mercy to cultures that were not Jewish or Christian. When we look at the story of Jonah we see a merciful God that sent a reluctant prophet out to the non-believers in Ninevah an opportunity to repent and avoid the fate of Soddom and Gomorrah. Even in the story of Soddom and Gomorrah God agreed to Abraham's request that He not destroy the cities if only five righteous people could be found among those people. Add to this what the prophet Micah stated in Micah 6:8: He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth Jehovah require of thee, but to do justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God? (Mic 6:8 ASV) We also read in Matthew 22:37-40: And he said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets. (Mat 22:37-40 ASV) It seems to me that a God who has only these simple requirements is not going to condemn someone to hell simply because they never heard the Gospel. The last group, let's call the "inclusivists", believes that all humans are God's creation and that God loves us all, regardless of our beliefs. This group also believes that all the religions of the world are people in search of God and as such God finds ways to work through all religions. This is not to say that these Christians find all religions to be equally valid, just that God does not limit himself to working through Christians alone. The inclusivists also believe that perhaps its possible to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior without actually knowing the name of Jesus. What inclusivists do believe is that Jesus was the perfect representation of God's love and the type of behavior, and motivation for that behavior, expected from all of us. The other religions of the world have a glimpse of God but Christianity shows the full picture. Inclusivist also understand that members of other religions probably have the same idea about their religion. I tend to agree more with the inclusivists.
|
|
|
Post by bushcheney08 on Apr 9, 2007 2:11:51 GMT -5
It seems there are three different trains of thought on this from the Christian community. The first group, we'll call them the universalist, seem to believe that people find their own truths in their own ways, that the different religions of the world are all valid for those people following them. This thought, on the surface, seems to be very tolerant and respectful of all the other religions but I have a problem with that thought. In telling me that the absolutes I hold to be true in my religion are relevent only to me is insulting to my belief and I would think that the Jew, the Muslim, the Hindu, the Buddhist, the Taoist, etc. would also find that thought to be insulting to their beliefs. This one probably describes me best. I really could give a dookie if the Christian, the Jew, the Muslim, the Hindu, the Buddhit and the Taoist are offended because I doubt any one of them has uncovered the entire, undiluted, perfect truth about man and his relation to the great everything. We're all just broken, sad, miserable people looking for a little comfort in a world that doesn't give a fuck. If it's Jesus, Allah or the Taco Bell, we find something that fulfills us. Makes us feel a little less empty. Provides some feeling of justice. Some way to rationalize a concept as irrational as infinity or chaos. To find causality in a random world. Religion is comforting. It bothers me that religious fundamentalists can’t be satisfied a subjective truth. Why can't religion just be something that's a source of personal strength and inspiration in one's life? Why do the Christians have to care if Taco Bell worshipers find any value in their faith? And the other way around. Can't we all just be pleased that they've discovered some greater happiness and live our lives accordingly? Why's it have to be a contest? Bama vs. UT! Jesus vs. Vishnu! How do you settle a dispute over which culture's fables and parables are most true? "Well, the Bible says this, so..." "Well, the Koran says this, so..." Maybe it's just the notion of "absolute truth" that bothers me. It's scary for me to think that someone with an IQ of 100 can think they’ve mastered and idea as elusive as "Truth” just because they believe in Jesus. Good and Evil. Black and White. Heroes and Villians. When one can reduce a human being and the entirety of their life’s struggle to either "good" or "bad," or "Heaven" and "Hell," then I think the door is opened for a lot of cruelty and destruction to be wrought in this world. People that are THAT convinced of their own infallibility kinda scare me. Both Bush and Ahmadinejad think that “God” is cheering for their team. They both believe that “God” has given them the authority to do whatever must be done in His name. A lot of lives have been lost. A lot more will be. And how exactly do you go about ending the “My God Is Bigger Than Your God” debate? You kill or convert anyone who dares challenge the authority of “God” or the nation through which he’s exclusively chosen to act?
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Apr 9, 2007 12:58:59 GMT -5
How about someone with an IQ of 150?
How about if the smartest person in the world told you?
|
|
|
Post by daworm on Apr 9, 2007 13:05:54 GMT -5
And those profits still worked out to about $0.20 profit per $1.00 invested. The company I work at would shut its doors with a margin that low.
|
|
|
Post by bushcheney08 on Apr 9, 2007 13:53:27 GMT -5
How about someone with an IQ of 150? How about if the smartest person in the world told you? Not 150, really. That's high, but not that high. Now if you could find someone with an IQ in the 180-200 range, then yeah, I'd be much more inclined to listen to thier musings on man's relationship to eternity the nature of "Truth" than someone of average or below average intelligence who thinks they've got it all figured out because they were raised in a Christian home. Same for a dumb Muslim or a dumb Jew or a dumb (insert religion). Just because they've found something beautiful that supplies meaning in their lives doesn't make them a philospher or thinker of any worth.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Apr 9, 2007 14:00:59 GMT -5
So, you automatically reject anything that an average person says, and you know more than even people in the range of being well above average, and you would deign to listen to someone much, much higher, eh?
Pretty arrogant.
|
|
|
Post by bushcheney08 on Apr 9, 2007 14:28:42 GMT -5
I think you try and draw false conclusions from my comments in an attempt to shift the debate to some other territory. I never said I'd "reject anything an average person says." At no point did I say that. You did.
Let me explain it this way... If I went to a bookstore and picked up two books on philosophy... one written by an educated, intelligent scholar with an impressive body of work and range of life experiences, and the other scibbled in crayon and written by a gas station attendent with an IQ in the 80's, I'd probably pick the smart guy's book. I'd just assume the content of his thought and ability to express himself would be greater. When I read, that's what I look for... something to engage my brain. Does that make me arrogant? Maybe. But I can live with it.
Not saying that there's no value in a dumb person's experiences or views. Not at all. Just when confronting issues as HUGE as God. Infinity. The Universe. I'd rather hear what a smarter person has to say.
I've heard the average Chattanoogan's views on these big issues my whole life. There's no shortage of those viewpoints. I could get a hundred of them on a walk through Hamilton Place Mall.
|
|
|
Post by Gary on Apr 9, 2007 14:52:23 GMT -5
By the way, a 100 IQ is considered average intelligence. Not stupid, but a good solid average. An IQ of 150 is genius. And intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with faith and spirituality - a simple man with an IQ of 80 can be and act for more spiritually than a man of 180 IQ. It has much more to do with the person as a whole than just their intelligence.
The smartest man in the world is the one who learns from everyone, not just his "peers".
|
|
|
Post by bushcheney08 on Apr 9, 2007 15:10:19 GMT -5
100 just don't cut it with me.
I understand that stupid people can be as spiritual as a smart person. Great point. Let's all make it three more times. I'm talking about an individual's capacity for thought and ability to express himself. I do think intelligence plays a part. Maybe you disagree. Go see the newest Tim Allen movie if you do. It'll be really funny.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Apr 9, 2007 22:14:37 GMT -5
Gary, that was sort of the point that I was trying to make in a roundabout way.
That and the fact that he would automatically reject the thoughts of anyone who is "beneath" him and even geniuses are somewhat beneath him.
Does that mean that I automatically accept anything said by a genius?
No.
But, I try to be honest about it.
For example, I will never, under any circumstances debate the existence of God. (Now, watch an exception pop up.)
But, I will debate Scriptures with anyone who accepts the infallibility of Scriptures.
As an interesting aside, I have found it easier to discuss Greek texts with some of my Japanese students who don't already have preconceived ideas about what the Bible "really" says than with a seminary graduate that knows it all. That seminary graduate has a lot in common with BC08.
|
|
|
Post by Gary on Apr 9, 2007 22:31:22 GMT -5
> I will debate Scriptures with anyone who accepts the infallibility of Scriptures.Actually, you'll debate Scripture with anyone, period. As we have done many times with great enjoyment. For example, Exodus 20:7. We once had a rather length discussion about how exactly someone takes the Lord's name in vain and how that passage has been interpreted quite differently over the centuries. But I digress...
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Apr 9, 2007 23:35:24 GMT -5
You're quite correct.
I will debate doctrine with anyone who accepts the infallibility of Scriptures would have been more accurate.
I will debate Scriptures with anyone.
|
|
|
Post by b33fj3rky on Apr 14, 2007 7:48:19 GMT -5
Where, from Jesus's statements in the four gospels, does the exclusivist camp get their doctrine? Seriously, how many sources can be cited for their point of view? Offhand, I can think of only one--the verse where Jesus says, "I am the way, etc., no man comes to the father except through me." Which exclusivists take at face value; they take it literally. They literally believe in only two options: Jesus or hell. Which seems pretty stupid and strange to me, considering that: 1. By that logic, Ghandi would go to hell, and, 2. I could spend an hour finding scriptures that fundamentals Christians refuse to take literally. So why pick that one verse and take it literally? They sure don't take it literally when Jesus says to hate your parents, or to give away all your stuff to the poor, or to refrain from worrying about the future, or to refrain from calling anyone "Father" except for God, etc. So why take the "No man comes to the father except through me" literally? Couldn't Jesus have meant, "None of the people in this particular crowd, which I am speaking to at this particular moment, will get to heaven unless they accept me."
|
|
|
Post by gridbug on Apr 18, 2007 11:46:55 GMT -5
I'll take this opportunity to agree with BushCheney (so I have done it and don't have to any more) with a slightly modified statement:
All measures of intelligence aside - anyone who has it all figured out is horribly deluded. Knowing that they know it all there is no reason to figure out anything else, so they are irreparably deluded.
This has nothing to do with this referring to a belief system I do not see worth in, this statment applies to anyone who has it all figured out.
A wise man revels in his ignorance because it shows him there is more to learn. Ignorance is curable, but there is ALWAYS more where that came from.
Jews too - I think they were grandfathered in.
|
|
|
Post by professor on May 2, 2007 16:03:53 GMT -5
Arabs: yes
Muslims: no
[playing along off] Anyway, I'm hoping you know there's a difference between the two and that was just part of the schtick.
|
|
|
Post by stray on May 2, 2007 19:16:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by gridbug on May 2, 2007 22:36:24 GMT -5
Goddamnit Stray, I am SICK of agreeing with you this week! I've not admitted it much but WTF?!?! Have I snapped? Fine... I am off to get my news from the Colbert Report and to read my collection of Chick Tracts. Now I'll go off and feel dirty as I enjoy watching you spank Jay. PS - give Footylicious a hug for me
|
|
|
Post by professor on May 3, 2007 8:47:52 GMT -5
Link? What's he doing there shouldn't he be trying to save the princess?
|
|
Felix
Global Moderator
Tepid One
Happy Morning
Posts: 4,137
|
Post by Felix on May 3, 2007 12:55:24 GMT -5
Regarding the "poorly thought out comix" strip Stray posted above, savaging religious folk, I thought of this quotation: Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God.
---Heywood Broun
|
|
|
Post by gridbug on May 3, 2007 13:37:29 GMT -5
I read that as savaging not religious folk, but the religions that exploit them.
|
|