Bwild: Without insults, it's not politics. Especially true when dealing with the far left. They speak fluent insult.

Artful Dodger: Not Paul. He was a Pharicidic Jew ....thats it.

dealing with the far left.....

I have looked everywhere. What is Pharicidic?

Artful Dodger: [ They speak fluent insult. ]

They also speak fluent double speak. When they say ignorant they want us to believe it's meant as a point in fact. But when we say it they believe it's meant as an insult.

By the way, I wasn't the first to cast stones. I never call anyone ignorant unless that word is first directed toward me. So the complaint is less than worthless... it is hypocritical for anyone to complain that someone is tossing the very same word they use back to them.

MissDelish: [ What is Pharicidic? ]

Pharisee. He was a religious zealot.

Iamon lyme: ah so :) thanks, under-con-stumble now.

Iamon lyme: Yes... it's goofy!!

Iamon lyme: So you can't be bothered to see, ok. I know it won't support your case so that's fine.

Why does God.tv need four million? True believers would do the lottery and give.

Especially the nice rolex the presenter is wearing from Jerusalem.

(V): It was president Putin.

MissDelish: I made the word up ;) See pharisaic

Iamon lyme: You shouldn't answer my questions cuz now Emma thinks she has proof you're me or I'm you. As if a student of the Bible wouldn't know what I meant. I'm not sure if it's actually a word as it comes up empty in google but in Bing.com you get this: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070102182956AAghHXZ

Yeah!

The Jawa Report: Pat Condell: A word to rioting Muslims http://shar.es/u8qbo via @sharethis

Artful Dodger: GREAT link. Someone who says what so many are thinking. Yes, yes, we all know they are the extreme end of the religion. Let's get that out of the way. But the world for some reason is feeling the need to CATER and BOW to these extremist freaks. I don't get it. It's like in America the FREAKS who riot after sporting events. And vandalize INNOCENT peoples' belongings. I don't see much of a difference. THUGS.

rod03801: This guy is an atheist and doesn't have much time for religion. He says it straight. I liked him long before I knew his view on religion and I still like him. I wish others had his straight forward talk regarding Islam!

Artful Dodger: [ You shouldn't answer my questions ]

oops, I forgot to switch over to your identity. Sorry about that... ??



Hey, wait a sec, hold the phone... why am I appologizing to myself?

Iamon lyme: Well I guess for some it's difficult to think that two conservatives could hold to many of the same views. And also they are under the mistaken notion that I'm one of a kind!

Artful Dodger: [ I used the word "ignorant" freely. But only as a descriptor. ]

Oh, well, that's different. Using ignorant as a descriptor is always an appropriate utilization of that word... or could be, if I knew what a descriptor was.

Have you heard of Amos and Ig? Of course not, because I just now made them up... they are inventions of my mind, and only (V) can tell you that it sounds almost exactly like something he's heard before.

Anywho, Amos was always telling Ig that he didn't know what he was talking about, and then Ig would shoot back that Amos was a spiteful no-nothing [epletive] polecat. Fact is, neither Ig nor Amos knew what he was talking about.

Iamon lyme: I know guys like that!

Artful Dodger: [ And also they are under the mistaken notion that I'm one of a kind! ]

Oh pshaw! In todays relativistic world who's to say that two guys cannot be one of a kind?

hmmmm... that sounded like something you would say. Sounds like something I would say too.


hmmmmmm....

Iamon lyme: I'll ask my shrink next time I see her if this could all be a dream. Except for the fact that on Twitter I have a ton of "friends" that sound just like me and I sound just like them. and some are girls! We sound a like cuz we all make sense as opposed to the nonsense made by the liberals.

BTW, I just bought this guy's second book and the first one was a doozie. I'll post a few excerpts from the first book.

first book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0089C6FGE/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title

Second http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B009CAV210/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title

"I’m not particularly sensitive to others’ feelings, particularly when those others are whiny wusses."

"Liberalism is, in short, merely a system that uses the amelioration of the negative consequences of its vassal political constituencies’ choices through the transfer of money from productive people as a means to solidify friendly voting blocs."

"Welcome to the Democrat Party, a political party devoted entirely to the idea of stealing from its opponents to pay off the losers who vote for it."

I am a Conservative: I have issues with progressives. Issue No. 1: They're morons. #Caring

Artful Dodger: []_ [[]] []_

"Nature's Most Irritating Mistake". So, it's nature's fault is it? Well, at least it's not Bush's fault so I guess I can live with that. But seeing as how I don't believe in evolution, then why would a loving and caring God create them? LOL

( forgive me Lord, I couldn't resist the temptation )

"I am a Conservative: No one bores me like an atheist who wants to talk about not believing in God"

"I am a Conservative: The real peace sign is the crosshairs in an American rifle sight."

"I am a Conservative: If you are such a loser that you can't come up with an ID to vote, I don't want you voting at all."

Iamon lyme: exactly

Most liberals get ticked because I don't listen to their ideas and take them seriously. Why should I when your ideas are stupid?

Don't get me wrong; I do want to reach across the isle - and head butt a couple of stupid liberals.

That's how many of my twitter friends talk. One has argued in front of the Supreme Court and wrote the definitive brief against child molesters (his work is now the standard for all cases against child molesters). He holds no punches.

Why talk this way to liberals? Because they are dishonest idiots and they don't deserve to be taken seriously. I actually mean this.

I'm speaking mostly about the liberal leadership but there are plenty of liberal lemmings where the shoe definitely fits.

Disclaimer: Any of my nice friends on BK, if they are liberals, you are exempt from the previous statements as they don't apply to friends and genuinely nice people.

MissDelish: [ ah so :) thanks, under-con-stumble now. ]

ah, you will come...

( I jest now fingered out what ewe wer dooing )

Vikings: Cheers, I might be able to find out what all the fuss is about now.

The sense that Putin came out the meeting with more than Obama was enhanced by a comment from a Russian diplomat. Asked if the meeting was important for the Russians, the Russian diplomat said: "Yes, but even more for the Americans."

Putin has just come out of an election but Obama is facing one, making the US president the more vulnerable of the two. Syria is not yet an election issue but if television keeps showing footage of widespread killing in the country, it could easily become one.

John McCain, the Republican senator who was a presidential candidate in 2008, was dismissive of the joint statement by Obama and Putin. "I think it was the kind of statement you usually hear when there is no concrete agreement."

McCain called on Monday for US intervention by creating a safe haven for the rebels and to supply them with arms. He said on CNN it was an "unfair fight", noting reports of alleged supplies from Russia and Iran to the Syrian government.

The White House so far has shown an unwillingness for military intervention comparable to Libya last year and it had been hoping Putin might have helped in peacefully easing Assad from power.

Instead, Obama's failure to win over Putin leaves Syria facing the prospect of increasing violence.

>>>>>>>> Putin doesn't think much of Romney, some of the talks to try and save lives in that civil war can't happen now.

... Obama could do a Blair, and work afterwards on the problem... as a known face.

mckinley: Google the gospel of Thomas. The text is all there.

mckinley: I'm now starting to understand what (V) means when he says he wants nothing to do with organized religion. I believe what he is refering to is what are called the gnostic gospels.

This takes me back to over 40 years ago, when I lived in a town that went nuts over any new age fad... I'm not kidding, incense and crystals, drugs for "expanding the mind", but in reality served more to "expend the mind". I saw first hand what happened to some of those folks, and it wasn't pretty. I could go on and on about some of the cults there. The moonies were on a roll, signing up people left and right. My wife and I went to one of their meetings, and it didn't take long for us to figure out what was really going on. Shortly after the meeting started the moonies started pressuring people into signing contracts. They had pictures on the wall of Jesus and Buda and other pictures representing other religions... we left when their salesmen started passing out the contracts.

Anyway, I think what (V) is talking about are gospels that either have little or no validity, or are invented imitations based on how the four gospels you already know about appear to be written. There is even a gospel of judas... that was my first clue that something wasn't right. The Gospel of Judas has been called an "authentic fabrication", because it has some of the earmarks of a regular gospel.

Iamon lyme: I left watching the Christian Channels in the UK for the same reason Iamon. It's all they want your money. They are even starting to use Glenn Beck style educating.. just a few pens and a white board though.

With lovely scenes of Flames/Jerusalem/the cross all to show they are genuine.

Their jewellery is.

(V): "Salesmen" and "contracts" is what I called it, because of how they were going about it. I did a quick look through the paper, and although it did appear to be written as a crude "legal" document, I seriously doubt it was legally binding. My dad was an attorney, and so the free advice I got growing has been invaluable to me when dealing with any sort of "salesman". I learned a lot about sales resistence regarding anything someone tries to sell me, including the ideas bandied about in a debate or in other kind of discussion.

I understand the 'feeling' of being presurred into sending money to Christian TV evangelists. I used to get the same feeling... but let's face it, it's just a feeling. If you feel compleled to send money just because someone asks for it, then you probably should not watch Christian television. I don't watch Christian television to get religion, and I don't feel compeled to send money, I just watch and listen to learn more about what Christianity is all about.

I've often heard TV ministers say if you can't afford to pay for some book or other thing, they could send you one for free. And I've also heard them say tithing is something you should give to your church and not to them. I don't know about you, and this may just be a feeling as well, but for some reason I don't see this as evidence of someone wanting to take me to the cleaners.

Iamon lyme: [ This takes me back to over 40 years ago.. ]

Shoot, I did it again! Not over 40 years ago, more like between 35 and 40 years ago...

Hey, I'm younger than I think I thought I was! Uh, I mean younger than I thought I was thinking I was, am... something like that.

Iamon lyme: I don't feel pressured. I just see the way they are doing it and understand that a good percentage of the money will never reach any 'causes'.. but will be spent on 'admin' costs.

It's not a feeling, they are in it for the money.

(V): [ I just see the way they are doing it and understand that a good percentage of the money will never reach any 'causes'.. but will be spent on 'admin' costs. ]


Compared to what? Governments? Unions? Other sorts of television programs?

I don't see it that way at all, what I see is extraordinary accountability... holding themselves and other TV ministries accountable for what is said and for how they spend the money. There have been a few fakers from time to time, but they've never lasted very long. Scrutiny from other ministries and from most people in general have either kept the fakers out or prevented them from lasting very long.

By the way, any admin costs related to television are going to seem unusually high, because the cost of broadcasting is extremely expensive. I don't feel at all pressured when watching those programs because they are being broadcast over the airwaves. I don't pay one thin dime for watching and listening... and neither does the taxpayer.

Can government subsidized public television make that claim? Viewer contributions don't pay for all of it, and none of the programing is "Christian friendly", if you know what I mean. Anytime Christianity is mentioned it's been portrayed in the worst possible light... even in programs that claim to take a fair and balanced approach to religion, they do a great job of misrepresenting what Christians do and believe.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. I think your mind has already been made up, because you imply unusually high admin costs and claim the lions share of the money doesn't go to help anyone. That claim is completely baseless, and represents nothing other than what you want to believe.

Iamon lyme: It's based on past events. It's also based on knowledge of certain charities in the past caught paying themselves a high wage.

"Compared to what?"

Charities. They are just begging after all.

I think the Buddhist approach to priesthood is more transparent.

(V): I don't know how you manage to misunderstand anything I've said. I thought I was being clear... you know, transparent?

When I said "compared to what" I meant if you compared Christian programing to any secular business or governing agency (assuming no bias, one way or the other) then your complaint is baseless.

I didn't mean compared to other Christian activities. And I believe I've already addressed the issue of fraud. There are fakers out there ready to take advantage of anyone, no matter who they are or what they believe. I don't assume everyone who calls himself "Christian" is who they say they are.

True Christians are the first to regulate themselves, and to call fakers what they are. You seem intent on ignoring this and repeat the same tired old cliches about Christians that I've heard most of my life. I'm not above using cliches. They have their purpose, but all the time and for every occasion? Are you kidding me?



A girl who went to my high school was always getting angry with me for using cliches. I told her if I had a nickle for everytime someone scolded me for using a cliche, I'd have a pocket jam packed full of nickles. That just made her more angry, so I told her if you say "That's a cliche" enough times it becomes a cliche. This is probably why I didn't go on many dates in high school... I never could stop myself from saying what I thought. I suffered from an inability to lie to girls...


heh heh heh heh heh heh... I still have that problem.

The Jawa Report: Jake Tapper: President Obama Falsely Claims Fast and Furious Program “Begun Under the Previous Administration”.. http://shar.es/u9GaU via @sharethis

Iamon lyme: Then why are you arguing about what I am saying, is it just for the sake of arguing??

"True Christians are the first to regulate themselves, and to call fakers what they are."

Isn't that what I'm doing? ....ahhhhhh You've decided your able to say who is and who isn't a Christian!!!

"I'm not above using cliches. They have their purpose, but all the time and for every occasion? Are you kidding me?"

Then why do you and Art keep on using the same tired ones on liberals, etc all the time?

(V): [ You've decided your able to say who is and who isn't a Christian!!! ]

Where do I say that? You are playing with straw man dolls again. Man up, and play with real people for a change.

[ "True Christians are the first to regulate themselves, and to call fakers what they are." Isn't that what I'm doing? ]

No. Do you not know what you are doing? You said:

[ I just see the way they are doing it and understand that a good percentage of the money will never reach any 'causes'.. but will be spent on 'admin' costs. ]

[ It's all they want your money. They are even starting to use Glenn Beck style educating.. just a few pens and a white board though. With lovely scenes of Flames/Jerusalem/the cross all to show they are genuine ]

[ It's based on past events. It's also based on knowledge of certain charities in the past caught paying themselves a high wage. ]

You are saying (or implying) frauds and rip offs are the rule. I'm saying they are the exception. In what universe or parallel dimension is that saying the same thing?

So let's try this again...

[ "True Christians are the first to regulate themselves, and to call fakers what they are."

Isn't that what I'm doing? ]

Nope, sorry... the answer is still no.

Then you respond to something I say that answers your response before you responded...

[ "I'm not above using cliches. They have their purpose, but all the time and for every occasion? Are you kidding me?"

Then why do you and Art keep on using the same tired ones on liberals, etc all the time? ]

Because we are responding according to your own method of debate. Duh!

Is it unethical (or illegal) to do as you do? Is it do unto others better than they do unto you unless it is you who are doing the doing unto?

doo doo ka choo?

Though, considering the trainwreck otherwise known as the Romney campaign , I can understand the interest in discussing other topics

- In 2011, the Romneys paid $1,935,708 in taxes on $13,696,951 in mostly investment income.

- The Romneys’ effective tax rate for 2011 was 14.1%.

-The Romneys donated $4,020,772 to charity in 2011, amounting to nearly 30% of their income.

-The Romneys claimed a deduction for $2.25 million of those charitable contributions. The Romneys’ generous charitable donations in 2011 would have significantly reduced their tax obligation for the year. The Romneys thus limited their deduction of charitable contributions to conform to the Governor's statement in August, based upon the January estimate of income, that he paid at least 13% in income taxes in each of the last 10 years.



Biden gave 300 dollars to charity