3rdnlng Posted March 15, 2011 Author Share Posted March 15, 2011 And this is why you think Palestinian terrorists are killing Jewish settlers? "Since there are no jobs and they have all that money they have to do something with their time. Target practice on a few Jews seems to make sense". Dexter (from a speech at an undislosed compound somewhere in Utah) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 "Since there are no jobs and they have all that money they have to do something with their time. Target practice on a few Jews seems to make sense". Dexter (from a speech at an undislosed compound somewhere in Utah) Dexter makes all of these subtle, rational discussions seem unnecessary, doesn't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dexter Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 "Since there are no jobs and they have all that money they have to do something with their time. Target practice on a few Jews seems to make sense". Dexter (from a speech at an undislosed compound somewhere in Utah) My oh my, I start a couple of topics, I get roundly insulted and pelted with cards, and now, away from those topics, a deliberate act of libel... If you don't like my views, too bad. Since you think the US exists to serve Israel, perhaps you could enlighten us as to why...??? Dexter makes all of these subtle, rational discussions seem unnecessary, doesn't he? A "discussion" is only rational when two opposing sides debate within the parameters of civilized debate. You don't do that. You lie, you toss cards, and then you duck back under the SHEET... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 15, 2011 Author Share Posted March 15, 2011 Dexter makes all of these subtle, rational discussions seem unnecessary, doesn't he? The way he joined this board or rather the way he has come out so aggressive makes me believe that he's actually been around for awhile. He starts a thread and demands that others respond to his stupid allegations. I just have this gut feeling that he is "George". He's using the same type of blietzkreig tactics. A couple posters claimed to know who "George" was. Anybody remember? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dexter Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Keep guessing. Never posted as a "George," thank goodness... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 A "discussion" is only rational when two opposing sides debate within the parameters of civilized debate. You don't do that. You lie, you toss cards, and then you duck back under the SHEET... I love the irony you built into that little gem. Nice job! The way he joined this board or rather the way he has come out so aggressive makes me believe that he's actually been around for awhile. He starts a thread and demands that others respond to his stupid allegations. I just have this gut feeling that he is "George". He's using the same type of blietzkreig tactics. A couple posters claimed to know who "George" was. Anybody remember? The more I see, the more I think you're right. Any mod could probably tell who it is, but I doubt they'd tell. Good stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 15, 2011 Author Share Posted March 15, 2011 My oh my, I start a couple of topics, I get roundly insulted and pelted with cards, and now, away from those topics, a deliberate act of libel... If you don't like my views, too bad. Since you think the US exists to serve Israel, perhaps you could enlighten us as to why...??? A "discussion" is only rational when two opposing sides debate within the parameters of civilized debate. You don't do that. You lie, you toss cards, and then you duck back under the SHEET... I never said or indicated that in any way. You are a foochin troll that hasn't even attained the status of a useful idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dexter Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I never said or indicated that in any way. You are a foochin troll that hasn't even attained the status of a useful idiot. And you are someone who supported 1. outspending Jimmy Catta with a Dem Congress 2. making those behind 911 "not a priority" 3. sending way too few after the "not a priority" 4. flipping off those at war on 911 with the "not a priority" 5. intentional lies to sell out our troops in Iraq for NO US NATIONAL INTEREST, "liberating" Al Qaeda's largest ever recruiting class in the process In short, you are either a Treasonous Sub Human Bible Thumping Socialist or a lying Zionist... and you are no friend of the United States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 15, 2011 Author Share Posted March 15, 2011 And you are someone who supported 1. outspending Jimmy Catta with a Dem Congress 2. making those behind 911 "not a priority" 3. sending way too few after the "not a priority" 4. flipping off those at war on 911 with the "not a priority" 5. intentional lies to sell out our troops in Iraq for NO US NATIONAL INTEREST, "liberating" Al Qaeda's largest ever recruiting class in the process In short, you are either a Treasonous Sub Human Bible Thumping Socialist or a lying Zionist... and you are no friend of the United States. Fooch off, George. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dexter Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Fooch off, George. And THAT is the intellect of kinswertiv W supporters... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 And this is why you think Palestinian terrorists are killing Jewish settlers? Sure do, the pal leadership has incentives $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to keep the tensions high. All they need to do is work the people up into a frenzy over the evil Jews a couple of times a year to provoke action and the money keeps pouring in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Sure do, the pal leadership has incentives $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to keep the tensions high. All they need to do is work the people up into a frenzy over the evil Jews a couple of times a year to provoke action and the money keeps pouring in. You're really just guessing at motivations of the leadership here. But let's assume for a moment that you're correct. Why do you think it's so easy for leadership to whip the people into a frenzy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 (edited) You're really just guessing at motivations of the leadership here. But let's assume for a moment that you're correct. Why do you think it's so easy for leadership to whip the people into a frenzy? follow the money, the Emom$ are quite effective at whipping up the people. Also, Yasser Arafat was the sixth wealthiest among the world's "kings, queens & despots," with more than $300 million stashed in Swiss bank accounts, According to Forbes magazine. Edited March 15, 2011 by whateverdude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 follow the money, the Emom$ are quit effective at whipping up the people. Because... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Because... Because they use the people for financial gain, which has nothing to do with the practice of the religion of Islam. Greed and corruption is their religion. Causation vs. correlation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Because they use the people for financial gain, which has nothing to do with the practice of the religion of Islam. Greed and corruption is their religion. Causation vs. correlation Definition of IMAM 1: the prayer leader of a mosque 2: a Muslim leader of the line of Ali held by Shiites to be the divinely appointed, sinless, infallible successors of Muhammad 3: any of various rulers that claim descent from Muhammad and exercise spiritual and temporal leadership over a Muslim region http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imam Opiate of the masses indeed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 (edited) Definition of IMAM 1: the prayer leader of a mosque 2: a Muslim leader of the line of Ali held by Shiites to be the divinely appointed, sinless, infallible successors of Muhammad 3: any of various rulers that claim descent from Muhammad and exercise spiritual and temporal leadership over a Muslim region http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imam Opiate of the masses indeed... Comrade, maybe you should pay closer attention to Marx's theory of human nature.......he left out GREED! Edited March 15, 2011 by whateverdude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Comrade, maybe you should pay closer attention to Marx's theory of human nature.......he left out GREED! Big deal, the guys at the top are all about greed. That model has been used by "religious leaders" for thousands of years. Religion is used by greedy (in this case at least) leaders to control the people. Without religion in the region, which is admittedly a difficult thing to imagine, what are you left with? I certainly don't think it's any coincidence that America's Founding Fathers made a point of keeping religion and government separate. It becomes a lot harder to control the people without the big bogeyman in the sky to validate your authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 (edited) Big deal, the guys at the top are all about greed. That model has been used by "religious leaders" for thousands of years. Religion is used by greedy (in this case at least) leaders to control the people. Without religion in the region, which is admittedly a difficult thing to imagine, what are you left with? I certainly don't think it's any coincidence that America's Founding Fathers made a point of keeping religion and government separate. It becomes a lot harder to control the people without the big bogeyman in the sky to validate your authority. Edit: There's 0 doubt that religion has been used by leaders to control people. There is also no doubt that religion itself has sought to control leaders, and people. What's interesting is: it is possible to use anti-religion to control people, leaders, etc? Are the anti-religious just as likely to use their dogma for the purposes of control and abuse? I actually had the unfortunate experience of being stuck in a car for 2 hours with a guy who thinks that the reason for the 1st Amendment was to keep government out of religion. Seriously. I quoted English history, and everything else that are in fact the reasons why the intention was to keep the church out of the affairs of government. To no effect. Here I was, with an extensive knowledge of the entire history evolution of this concept, dealing with someone who had gotten the entire thing backward. It was like riding in a car with a space marine from Warhammer 40,000. The funny part is: you are expecting me to say that this guy was religious. He wasn't. In fact he was racist, classless, and an "English people are the best ever" guy, but he certainly wasn't religious. So, keep in mind that religion is not the only source of unfettered ignorance. Belief in what your father taught you, or didn't teach you, can be just as bad as religion. For that matter, unquestioning belief in what your college professor taught you, or didn't teach you, can be worse than religion, because s/he's supposed to know better. Edited March 17, 2011 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Edit: There's 0 doubt that religion has been used by leaders to control people. There is also no doubt that religion itself has sought to control leaders, and people. What's interesting is: it is possible to use anti-religion to control people, leaders, etc? Are the anti-religious just as likely to use their dogma for the purposes of control and abuse? I actually had the unfortunate experience of being stuck in a car for 2 hours with a guy who thinks that the reason for the 1st Amendment was to keep government out of religion. Seriously. I quoted English history, and everything else that are in fact the reasons why the intention was to keep the church out of the affairs of government. To no effect. Here I was, with an extensive knowledge of the entire history evolution of this concept, dealing with someone who had gotten the entire thing backward. It was like riding in a car with a space marine from Warhammer 40,000. The funny part is: you are expecting me to say that this guy was religious. He wasn't. In fact he was racist, classless, and an "English people are the best ever" guy, but he certainly wasn't religious. So, keep in mind that religion is not the only source of unfettered ignorance. Belief in what your father taught you, or didn't teach you, can be just as bad as religion. For that matter, unquestioning belief in what your college professor taught you, or didn't teach you, can be worse than religion, because s/he's supposed to know better. I can't believe I'm actually replying to this, but you're actually making some rambling sense here. Religion is one more tool in the toolbox, and an absolutely powerful, immutable, infallible tool at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts