Well, he's through.  His discrediting will be legendary.

Well, I do agree that the Schiavo thing exposed some issues in the party.

I thought Bush was pretty clearly uncomfortable getting involved - he had that "I want to stay out of this but DeLay told me I had to" look on this face the whole time.

I see the beginning of some very interesting times in the GOP coming up.

LoL, I get a good laugh every time you liberals call us Christian conservatives a “Movement,” Ha! We have existed for more than 2,000 years! Your form of Anti-Christian extreme Liberalism has existed for less than 100, we Christians are a well established peaceful system and not some new Radical Hate filled Movement, which is what you Anti-Christians are.

And as for the Republicans being “held hostage” by Christians, that’s just an ignorant statement, the Republican party has always been very strongly Christian, just look at Abe Lincoln, what better example of a Christian conservative Republican is there, and he was the first republican President.

The previous three posts really are an embarassment to American political thought.

Shame on you both.

I agree. Political parties have changed ideology so much it's a shock to compare past republicans and past democrats with current ones.

The anti-christian movement is not 200 years old, it goes just as far back as religion does.

Dune is right - I don't have to elaborate.  My post was obvious to the thinking.

But you issued a challenge, Bugg, and I can't help myself.

Those three posts represent good (or bad, depending on how you figure) examples of the irrational "us vs. them" thinking that is all too prevalent in American politics.

"It's the librals'/republicans' fault" and similar generalistic statements are meaningless when examined, and frankly harmful to society, as they encourage irrational divisive thinking.

I challenge you to define "liberal" in a relatively detailed fashion (or "conservative" if you prefer - either will work).  Then I challenge you to find more than six people that meet that definition.

The truth is that most people think.  Most people have various opinions on a variety of subjects.  People cannot be categorized into two camps.  Any effort to do so is both obviously futile and potentially harmful, not to mention straight out silly.

Beyond that, of course, is the irrationality that Dune pointed out of attaching oneself to a particular political party.  Political parties change positions frequently over time - to take ownership of the actions of a political party in the past, simply because that party happens to share the name of "your" party, is quite insipid.

So, to elaborate, Bugg:  Your posts were irrational, illogical, unfounded, self-contradictory, harmful to society and, frankly, embarassing.

Clark Kent wrote: Dune is right - I don't have to elaborate.  My post was obvious to the thinking. But you issued a challenge, Bugg, and I can't help myself. Those three posts represent good (or bad, depending on how you figure) examples of the irrational "us vs. them" thinking that is all too prevalent in American politics. "It's the librals'/republicans' fault" and similar generalistic statements are meaningless when examined, and frankly harmful to society, as they encourage irrational divisive thinking. I challenge you to define "liberal" in a relatively detailed fashion (or "conservative" if you prefer - either will work).  Then I challenge you to find more than six people that meet that definition. The truth is that most people think.  Most people have various opinions on a variety of subjects.  People cannot be categorized into two camps.  Any effort to do so is both obviously futile and potentially harmful, not to mention straight out silly. Beyond that, of course, is the irrationality that Dune pointed out of attaching oneself to a particular political party.  Political parties change positions frequently over time - to take ownership of the actions of a political party in the past, simply because that party happens to share the name of "your" party, is quite insipid. So, to elaborate, Bugg:  Your posts were irrational, illogical, unfounded, self-contradictory, harmful to society and, frankly, embarassing.

You forever have my utmost respect, i love you.

I'm with Clark.

-me

Dazed wrote: I don't know about you guys, but in my bible, Jesus sends out his disiples to teach, and spread his word, teaching them to be meek, humble, and love even their enemies, having nothing but good will to all men. No where in there does it say to run governments through strong arm tactics, perpetuate the hatred and slandering of entire religions, movements, or social groups, nor to spew blind rhetoric, but rather give well thought debates, and use your faith to give meaningful answers to your doubters. Good job, guys. You two are the perfect example of why I hold no hope for the church, or that warped version of a god they "worship" there.

Very nicely put.

^^ Dark, I highly disagree.  Clark has a natural talent for writing, and his words flow in a smooth way, but all he is is flash. His "facts" (or lack of them) show how highly opinionated, one sided, and closed minded towards certain people/things he is.

  On the other hand, though; I happen to partialy agree with him on this one.  As much as it hurts me to put down one of my Christian brothers, some on here are just ignorant and hatefull. 

  Don't get me wrong, I agree with some of their ideas and meanings, but they go about it all wrong.  Like Dazed said, Christians are supposed to love, forgive, and to try to show people what you want them to see by doing it rationaly and in an intelligent way.

  However, diplomacy doesn't work at all with madmen, and we can't trust thier "promises".  I agree with Bush, and we aren't just muscleing our way into Iraq to rule them.  We are overturning the current and Highly Dangerous government to let the people establish thier own government.

  I wish everyone would start complaining.

  Also, remember ,Christians; Be teachers, not complainers or people who scold others for thier beliefs/opinions. 

  "He who is without sin may cast the first stone."

hashi2008 wrote:  Clark has a natural talent for writing, and his words flow in a smooth way

Awww, how sweet.    :)

... but all he is is flash. His "facts" (or lack of them) show how highly opinionated, one sided, and closed minded towards certain people/things he is.

If you don't mind, please point to a post/thread that leads you to this view.

I always try to have a factual basis for my statements (here and elsewhere), and certainly try to be open-minded.  I'll give you opinionated, but I'd like to believe that my opinions are reasoned, rational, and (where applicable) supported by fact.

I think that the last place we would have seen Jesus is on the courthouse steps, foaming at the mouth, waving some kind of hate poster at homosexuals, pro-choicers, muslims, supreme court justices, or whoever is in the church cross hairs.

I think he would have also cried instead of cheered as the bombs landed in Baghdad. How many chURCHINs do you know who think that we held out long enough for a peaceful ending in Iraq? They were at the front of the pack rooting for war.

Those people outside of Terri Shiavo's hospice acting like fools are an embarrassment. They drive past three homeless shelters in their $50k SUV without stopping. How many chURCHINs help the poor, widows, and orphans? They don't want a sermon, they want a sandwich.

When "tolerance" became a curseword of popular religious leaders, I stepped off of the church movement. The chURCHINs are right where the devil wants them.

DarkMachine5 wrote: goodsmitty wrote: I think that the last place we would have seen Jesus is on the courthouse steps, foaming at the mouth, waving some kind of hate poster at homosexuals, pro-choicers, muslims, supreme court justices, or whoever is in the church cross hairs. I think he would have also cried instead of cheered as the bombs landed in Baghdad. How many chURCHINs do you know who think that we held out long enough for a peaceful ending in Iraq? They were at the front of the pack rooting for war. Those people outside of Terri Shiavo's hospice acting like fools are an embarrassment. They drive past three homeless shelters in their $50k SUV without stopping. How many chURCHINs help the poor, widows, and orphans? They don't want a sermon, they want a sandwich. When "tolerance" became a curseword of popular religious leaders, I stepped off of the church movement. The chURCHINs are right where the devil wants them.  Thats is a great point. I'm gunna use that in school tomorrow. I have a crazy teacher that says that the people outside should be saints! If you dont mind ofcorse.

Absolutely. I am honored.

Bugg wrote: Why can't you liberals (yes I said YOU LIBERALS.. I hate being politcally correct) need to stop whining\ Bush won fair and square.. most votes in history... Kerry wasn't even close. You lost we won.. now put up with it for 4 years or go to "your" type of governemtn up in Canada.. you know the one with f'ed up health care and taxes and all that stuff?

NASCAR - Nationalistic Anti-Schoolin' Conservatives Against Readin'

I swear to God that is what that has to mean.

Badsmitty wrote: NASCAR - Nationalistic Anti-Schoolin' Conservatives Against Readin' I swear to God that is what that has to mean.

That is one of the funniest things I have ever read.

Coming to the Tippmann forum is like a virtual tour of Harlan County Kentucky.

goodsmitty wrote: I think that the last place we would have seen Jesus is on the courthouse steps, foaming at the mouth, waving some kind of hate poster at homosexuals, pro-choicers, muslims, supreme court justices, or whoever is in the church cross hairs. I think he would have also cried instead of cheered as the bombs landed in Baghdad. How many chURCHINs do you know who think that we held out long enough for a peaceful ending in Iraq? They were at the front of the pack rooting for war. Those people outside of Terri Shiavo's hospice acting like fools are an embarrassment. They drive past three homeless shelters in their $50k SUV without stopping. How many chURCHINs help the poor, widows, and orphans? They don't want a sermon, they want a sandwich. When "tolerance" became a curseword of popular religious leaders, I stepped off of the church movement. The chURCHINs are right where the devil wants them.

Actually quite the opposite, if you have ever read the Bible you will know that Jesus hung out with people like prostitutes, murderers, theives, and outcasts. He would NOT be foaming at the mouth, waving some kind of hate poster at homosexuals, pro-choicers, muslims, supreme court justices, but instead he would be sitting down with them talking to them at their level and showing them where they have gone wrong and helping them to correct it.

Once again I see we are stereotyping Christians. I do not own a 50k SUV, I agree with what those protesters were saying, and I give money to church, which in turn uses a large ammount it to help out community organizations like homeless shelters and soup kitchens. And many, many, many other "chURCHINs" do so too. If a widow or homeless person come into a church everyone doesn't flaunt their 50k SUV at them and slap John 3:16 in thier face... they help them and care for them like they should.

Tolerance is a load of bullcrap, maybe we should be tolerent to murderer and spare their poor lives, heck they might of been "born that to be a murderer" so why even send them to jail? Give 'em a nice pat on the back, take the bloddy knife out of their hand and find a nice cozy appartment for them.

Yes we chURCHINs are sinners but here you are gravley wrong, Unfortunatlly YOUR kind are the ones who are right where the devil wants them, not us.

Last but not least, this little chURCHINs thing is quite cute, sounds like something my 9 year old sister would come up with.

TheUnknown. wrote:   Once again I see we are stereotyping Christians. I do not own a 50k SUV,

Congratulations, you don't fit the normal chURCHIN mold. But if you are like 97% of Americans, you live past the end of your means, and would drive an SUV if the bank would loan you the money. chURCHINs cannot afford to help the poor because of that new plasma screen TV on their wall.

Tolerance is a load of bullcrap, maybe we should be tolerent to murderer and spare their poor lives, heck they might of been "born that to be a murderer" so why even send them to jail? Give 'em a nice pat on the back, take the bloddy knife out of their hand and find a nice cozy appartment for them.

Find me where Jesus advocated persecuting **edited**s or murdering murderers.

Yes we chURCHINs are sinners but here you are gravley wrong, Unfortunatlly YOUR kind are the ones who are right where the devil wants them, not us.

The chURCHINs are modern day pharisees. Exactly where the devil wants them.

Last but not least, this little chURCHINs thing is quite cute, sounds like something my 9 year old sister would come up with.

She's very talented then.

Dazed wrote: Re-read what he said. Its the exact same thing you did. He was just pointing out that most religious christians wouldn't share a table with an arabic at this point, much less an open homosexual, pro-choicer, etc. You're right, thats what Jesus would do, but the important question is, "What DO you do?" Tolerance is a load of bullcrap, maybe we should be tolerent to murderer and spare their poor lives, heck they might of been "born that to be a murderer" so why even send them to jail? Give 'em a nice pat on the back, take the bloddy knife out of their hand and find a nice cozy appartment for them. Thats funny, I'm pretty sure that in Peter's vision in Acts 10, God was telling him to have tolerance for the gentiles, and not to judge them unworthy just because they weren't jewish. Who said anything about murderers? We're talking about high schoolers being beaten to death because they are g.ay, and people in the local church mumbling about "god's punishment for perversion". I've personally seen good upstanding christians that didn't like a child in their sunday school class because of things their parents were doing, instead of having pity on the kid for living with drug abuse and prostitution its whole life. When you figure out the real definition of tolerance, let me know. I think you'll find it closer to mercy than to blindness.

^^^ Victory by T.K.O.

As for what I do, I am working out my salvation just like everyone else. However, it is much different than when I was first saved and sold on chURCHIN doctrine. Now that I have a much better understanding of the bible, I see how far off-base the chURCHINs are from Jesus' teachings.

I go to a church that teaches very close to my own beliefs, and there aren't many around like it. It teaches tolerance, helping the poor, helping the poor, and helping the poor. My wife used to go to a church that taught the popular chURCHIN doctrine that had little to do with Christ's teachings. The chURCHIN doctrine teaches to "choke on the gnat and swallow the camel." i.e:

gnat=Schiavo

camel=26 detainees killed in our custody in our POW camps in Iraq. Murdered, deprived of their right to life.

gnat=Clinton lying about what he did with his own weenie.

camel=Bush funnelling $7 billion to Cheney's buds at Halliburton to reconstruct Iraq without opening the bids to anyone else.

camel=Bush allowing Halliburton to be paid in-full even though they have 12 charges of fraud and $millions missing, in direct violation of our gov't code.

camel=800 detainees released from Abu Graib within days of the torture  making the news. They were rehabilitated by their effective torture program or innocent for two years.

camel=Guantanamo Bay captives denied their due process for TWO YEARS and tortured.

camel=People whisked from U.S. soil, extradited to other countries, such as Pakistan and Afghanistan, and tortured at the request of the United States.

Where is the outrage by the chURCHINs? I don't think Christ would go along with this stuff. But then, he didn't drive a Cadillac Escalade, either.

Tae Kwon Do wrote: If they get BET why dont I get WET dag-nabbit.

Hahaha, way to spark it up man.

Dune wrote: Tae Kwon Do wrote: If they get BET why dont I get WET dag-nabbit. Hahaha, way to spark it up man.

Hey, it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Thats fact, dont try and fight it liberal boy.

Tae Kwon Do wrote: Dune wrote: Tae Kwon Do wrote: If they get BET why dont I get WET dag-nabbit. Hahaha, way to spark it up man. Hey, it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Thats fact, dont try and fight it liberal boy.

Ohh man. Hey, they get a whole month, why can't we?

Clark Kent wrote: Sniper.

Touche old friend....touche.

Wait....Nuke 'em all and make it a parking lot.

Dazed wrote: http://www.cc.org/ - http://www.cc.org/ That is the Christian coalition. As THE most influential christian group in america at the moment...

And therein lies the problem:

CC Website wrote: Dear Friends, The elections are over and pro-family conservatives won important victories all across America ...

Right smack on the front page, above the fold.

Wouldn't you expect a big church-group website to have something about, you know, GOD, as the main opener, instead of something about elections?

This is a political group, not a religious group. 

goodsmitty wrote: Those people outside of Terri Shiavo's hospice acting like fools are an embarrassment. They drive past three homeless shelters in their $50k SUV without stopping. How many chURCHINs help the poor, widows, and orphans? They don't want a sermon, they want a sandwich.

Thats why we have collections during church. Churchins as you say do help the poor. Saying that the church doesnt help the poor is really a  ignorant post.

goodsmitty wrote: untouchable555 wrote: goodsmitty wrote: Those people outside of Terri Shiavo's hospice acting like fools are an embarrassment. They drive past three homeless shelters in their $50k SUV without stopping. How many chURCHINs help the poor, widows, and orphans? They don't want a sermon, they want a sandwich.   Thats why we have collections during church. Churchins as you say do help the poor. Saying that the church doesnt help the poor is really a  ignorant post.   Tithing goes for the operation costs of the church, unless it is a special offering. Putting $5 in the offering plate still does not feed Haji.

Let's see some proof buddy...

TheUnknown. wrote: goodsmitty wrote: untouchable555 wrote: goodsmitty wrote: Those people outside of Terri Shiavo's hospice acting like fools are an embarrassment. They drive past three homeless shelters in their $50k SUV without stopping. How many chURCHINs help the poor, widows, and orphans? They don't want a sermon, they want a sandwich.   Thats why we have collections during church. Churchins as you say do help the poor. Saying that the church doesnt help the poor is really a  ignorant post.   Tithing goes for the operation costs of the church, unless it is a special offering. Putting $5 in the offering plate still does not feed Haji. Let's see some proof buddy...

Look up tithing. It is for the church's operating costs, pastor's salary, and parsonage, not evangelism.

rancidpnk13 wrote: Tae..you crack me up. And your signatures suprise me more and more, because not many people listen to Oi! these days.

Well its becuase not to many people are into the Skinheads that hang around the Oi! scene. I dont like them that much, but I like the music.

Dazed wrote: Better yet, ask to see your churches income and expenditures for the last year/month. Look for "General offerings" or something similar, and see how much actually goes into charities. You should have the right to view those, as a contributing member. Or ask a deacon, or whomever handles the finacials for your church(should be the deacons, biblically) about exactly how the money is truly spent that comes into general funds. Much easier to see it for yourself.

My Church publishes a little booklet every Fiscal year. In it are the exact salaries, bills, upkeep poject costs etc. Everything. It also shows how the money that the Church recieved from Envelopes, donations etc. was spent, down to the final penny. From what I see, hundreds of thousands of dollars were given to charities. Our church only keeps what it needs to keep the parish "afloat". All else goes to our designated charities. Our Church has done some research. To pay all Bills, saleries etc. and have enough to still give substantial amounts to charities we need to pull in about $20,000 a week. Not a big deal considering the vast size of our parish. On any normal week we will pull in about $18,000. We have about 3,000 families in our church. Sadly, only about 9% go to church regulary and give their weekly offering. We'd be in much better shape if more people went to church, we'd far surpass the $20,000 goal and be able to use our money to help the charities more and continue to improve the Church, Schools, and Parish Center. Pretty much all improvements done now is by volunteers such as myself, and donations from some of the wealtier(sp) people in our parish. However, it appears many more people are coming back to church then last year when that 9% study was done.