See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #201
   On December 17th, 2009 at 3:50 pm, Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul said:

   Me, ignore a troll? Never. Well, not much.

   I don’t know who R4L is, but now I’m reasonably certain he/she is a fine and patriotic American.

2. #202
   On December 17th, 2009 at 3:51 pm, Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul said:

   Just point out that a guy who claims to be some kind of war hero has all the symptoms of a major poseur, and they go all ballistic.

   Ad hominem.!!! Deranged lunatic.!!!!!

3. #203
   On December 17th, 2009 at 3:51 pm, zeroangel said:

   Ed:

   I don’t know who R4L is,

   …an insane creationist that believes dinosaurs and humans coexisted.

4. #204
   On December 17th, 2009 at 3:53 pm, Kingfish said:

   “Show me a hero, and I’ll prove he’s a bum.”

   Gregory Boyington

5. #205
   On December 17th, 2009 at 3:54 pm, zeroangel said:

   Ed:

   Just point out that a guy who claims to be some kind of war hero has all the symptoms of a major poseur, and they go all ballistic.

   No where did I claim to be a hero. I said I was a vet. I did my job, nothing more. To be honest, I left the wire more times than I would have liked and one of the things I’ll never forget was not yelling “cease fire” fast enough. So, no, I am not a “hero.”

   Of course, all of that is just nonsense because we both went ballistic on one another yesterday before any of this current nonsense started so quit trying to change this back and forth into something it’s not.

   A$$h–e.

6. #206
   On December 17th, 2009 at 3:56 pm, purealchemy said:

   In zero‘s defense,

   As annoying as he can be and most often is, he does a good job of playing provocateur.
   He livens up the dialogue.

7. #207
   On December 17th, 2009 at 3:56 pm, zeroangel said:

   Pure:

   You are the best. TY.

8. #208
   On December 17th, 2009 at 3:57 pm, purealchemy said:

   Hi, Kingfish!

9. #209
   On December 17th, 2009 at 3:58 pm, chapoutier said:

   Don’t you army people have a secret code word or something, like the gays do, that zero could whisper to Ed, so he would shut up?

10. #210
    On December 17th, 2009 at 3:59 pm, changer1701 said:

    Maybe this has been answered before, but is Olympia Snowe a no at this point?

11. #211
    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:00 pm, zeroangel said:

    Chap:

    He wouldn’t believe me even if there was.

    Immediately after he mentioned DD-214 I responded that even if I scanned my own it wouldn’t do any good.

    If that won’t do it, nothing will.

12. #212
    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:00 pm, Flyoverman said:

    On December 17th, 2009 at 3:58 pm, chapoutier said:

    Don’t you army people have a secret code word or something, like the gays do, that zero could whisper to Ed, so he would shut up?

    “Listening Silence” is the formal one.

    The informal one is “Hull Defilade.”

13. #213
    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:02 pm, Kingfish said:

    Hi pure, hey zero:

    I see that everyone is attepting to deny other’s service…All who served honorably in this time of crisis are heroes in my book: ones that gave more are, well in a higher category.

14. #214
    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:02 pm, zeroangel said:

    Flyoverman:

    How about Blue Falcon?

15. #215
    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:03 pm, Flyoverman said:

    Blue Falcon?

    That sound sooooooooooo Air Force.

16. #216
    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:03 pm, purealchemy said:

    On December 17th, 2009 at 3:50 pm, Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul said:

    I don’t know who R4L is, but now I’m reasonably certain he/she is a fine and patriotic American.

    He/she is a vile person, seething with rage.

17. #217
    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:03 pm, zeroangel said:

    KF:

    *smile*

18. #218
    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:04 pm, Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul said:

    OK, per Chap, rump-rangers have a secret code word that means ‘shut up’.

    How does Chap know these wonderful facts?

19. #219
    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:04 pm, purealchemy said:

    On December 17th, 2009 at 3:58 pm, chapoutier said:
    Don’t you army people have a secret code word or something, like the gays do, that zero could whisper to Ed, so he would shut up?

    Gays have a secret code?

20. #220
    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:04 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

    On December 17th, 2009 at 3:16 pm, zeroangel said:
    Me too man. I am glad to be able to have discussions with the sane, rational, intelligent posters on this site.

    Name names! Ve hav our vays of dealing vid dem!

21. #221
    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:05 pm, zeroangel said:

    Flyoverman:

    That sound sooooooooooo Air Force.

    Does it? I first heard it in training in the Army. I always just thought it was funny, probably because I am a closet homosexual as well as lying about my veteran status.

22. #222
    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:07 pm, Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul said:

    He/she is a vile person, seething with rage

    I suppose that is possible, Minigun doesn’t like someone who actually is an a-hole. I don’t know, don’t think we’ve talked on this forum.

    But Hitler liked dogs, and for all I know disliked clowns, and that doesn’t mean dogs are bad or clowns aren’t freaky…

23. #223
    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:12 pm, valleygreaser said:

    Here we have a thread supposedly about the healthcare bill and Bill Nelson’s problems with it yet a childish troll comes in with things like calling a Catholic “a bizarre wacko who thinks that sometimes the creator of the universe talks to a man with a funny hat” and he is hailed for his thought provoking insights and for keeping the discussion lively. Gimme a break. If anyone had any serious thoughts to share they would probably be discouraged from doing so by seeing how well the trolls and their suckers are succeeding in destroying the thread.

24. #224
    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:14 pm, Kingfish said:

    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:07 pm, Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul said:

    But Hitler liked dogs, and for all I know disliked clowns, and that doesn’t mean dogs are bad or clowns aren’t freaky…

    He also proclaimed that people who paint the shy green and the grass blue deserve to be sterilized. Artistic (for pure‘s benifit), slightly OT, but returning to the theme…

25. #225
    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:16 pm, zeroangel said:

    valleygreaser:

    Oh just drop it. Honestly, do you want any cheese with that whine?

    I get taken to the woodshed by you for excoriating the lunactic Ed and yet you are strangely silent while he basically claims I am a Jesse MacBeth wannabe.

    he is hailed for his thought provoking insights

    Well, go figure, maybe there are one or two folks here that actually WANT me to keep posting. Maybe your opinion doesn’t count as highly as you think it should. Wow!

26. #226
    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:20 pm, Ignatius Reilly said:

    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:12 pm, valleygreaser said:

    a childish troll comes in with things like calling a Catholic “a bizarre wacko who thinks that sometimes the creator of the universe talks to a man with a funny hat”…

    The troll said ~that~!?! Oh, my, I didn’t know that. In that case, I am certainly on the side of the troll.

27. #227
    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:21 pm, zeroangel said:

    valleygreaser:

    Oh, and as I mentioned earlier yesterday, polls suggest that the majority of Catholic do NOT believe in the infallibility of the Pope (because it’s a crazy idea, obviously).

28. #228
    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:22 pm, Flyoverman said:

    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:05 pm, zeroangel said:

    Does it? I first heard it in training in the Army. I always just thought it was funny, probably because I am a closet homosexual as well as lying about my veteran status.

    It is probably a more modern term. I was in the pre-beret Army. In the spirit of total honesty, if I became President tomorrow, by noon all black berets would be burned.

    Closet homosexual? Oh that’s cool. An agnostic implying Zero Jr. is the result of an Immaculate Conception.

    Only in America.

29. #229
    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:22 pm, purealchemy said:

    He also proclaimed that people who paint the shy green and the grass blue deserve to be sterilized. Artistic (for pure’s benifit),

    My ears were burning! Did Hitler really say that?
    Below is a very under-rated movie about Hitler and his artistic drive. Actually protrays Hitler in a sympathetic light.

    The dark connections between art, desire, and evil fuel Max, an alternate-history fantasy that imagines what might have happened if a Jewish art dealer named Max Rothman (John Cusack, High Fidelity) had befriended Adolf Hitler (Noah Taylor, Shine) when he was a frustrated artist, before he turned to politics to vent his hatred. Some critics have expressed fear that even to attempt to make Hitler understandable is to diffuse or dismiss his malignancy; but watching Hitler vacillate between Rothman’s attempts at mentorship and the encouragement of an ambitious military officer demonstrates the pettiness, desperation, and craven need that can bring horror into the world. Cusack portrays a generous man with simple decency and not a trace of grandstanding, but Taylor–with glittering eyes and lips twisted with bile–is both fascinating and repellent in an impressive performance. An intelligent and complex film, Max deserves to find an audience. –Bret Fetzer

30. #230
    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:24 pm, zeroangel said:

    Flyoverman:

    I was actually on active duty when they did the beret switch. I didn’t mind it so much later on, at the time I wasn’t a big fan. I just hope by now everyone has learned how to wear it properly.

31. #231
    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:25 pm, Kingfish said:

    pure: He is quoted as saying that in his speeches concerning the Nuremberg laws on racial purity and eugenics eliminating the “simpletons”. Mea culpa, should have been sky instead of the typo shy.

32. #232
    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:27 pm, purealchemy said:

    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:25 pm, Kingfish said:
    pure: He is quoted as saying that in his speeches concerning the Nuremberg laws on racial purity and eugenics eliminating the “simpletons”.

    Don’t you think he meant that figuratively?

33. #233
    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:30 pm, valleygreaser said:

    As a Protestant I’m out of my league discussing what Catholics think so I won’t. But I do try to make it a habit not to slur people’s religious beliefs. I don’t call that being PC; I call it respect.

    Even more off-topic: I could chat more but I’m trying to get these Christmas lights to work without causing a neighborhood blackout. One string is intermittent and despite my techie background I’m having a fit trying to figure out why. OK, enough of that; this ain’t Twitter.

34. #234
    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:34 pm, zeroangel said:

    valleygreaser:

    But I do try to make it a habit not to slur people’s religious beliefs. I don’t call that being PC; I call it respect.

    There’s not a person on this site that will defend a goodly portion of the beliefs of radical Muslims. Furthermore, I am willing to bet a sizeable portion of the posters here have no problem with slandering Scientologists loons.

    Religious beliefs do not deserve respect if they cross over into the absurd, harm people, or try to make scientific claims that are clearly false.

    Radical idea, I know.

35. #235
    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:35 pm, valleygreaser said:

    One more try: Does anybody think Ben Nelson could end up switching parties? Any insights from Nebraskans here would be interesting.

36. #236
    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:41 pm, changer1701 said:

    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:35 pm, valleygreaser said:

    One more try: Does anybody think Ben Nelson could end up switching parties? Any insights from Nebraskans here would be interesting.

    I kind of doubt it. I’m not from Nebraska, but there’s probably some good reasons (to him) that he’s remained a Dem for this long.

    Besides, I don’t want him to, at least not right now. IF he does indeed stick to his guns and this thing goes down in flames, I want it all to be about how the Dems couldn’t get their crap together.

37. #237
    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:47 pm, valleygreaser said:

    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:41 pm, changer1701 said:
    I kind of doubt it. I’m not from Nebraska, but there’s probably some good reasons (to him) that he’s remained a Dem for this long.

    I just can’t fathom why anybody as seemingly sensible as Nelson (on numerous issues) would want to be a Democrat in the first place. Some kinda mental block I have I suppose.

38. #238
    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:49 pm, John Deaux said:

    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:16 pm, zeroangel said:

    Well, go figure, maybe there are one or two folks here that actually WANT me to keep posting.

    FWIW, I still read your posts (unless it’s a drawn out flame war).

    I’ve also noticed a strange shift in the posters here over the last year or so. It seems some of the more rational posters (Soap, Ragspierre) have decreased their posting frequency. That leaves ZA trying to keep discussions lively where he had help before. It also means that some of the more spirited posters contribute more.

    I’ve also noticed that Chap is a little more heavy handed with the more vitriolic noobs.

    But I’m still sitting Chap and ZA should we ever get an invite to Pure’s wedding.

39. #239
    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:49 pm, Straight_Talk_Luigi said:

    There’s not a person on this site that will defend a goodly portion of the beliefs of radical Muslims.

    If you support civilian trials for Muslim terrorists, you support terrorists.

    If you support the far-left ideals that the world wants to come together as one, you are supporting radical Islam.

    You don’t have to agree with killing people in cold blood to help them.

    Furthermore, I am willing to bet a sizeable portion of the posters here have no problem with slandering Scientologists loons.

    This is a conservative blog, not the tabloids.

    Religious beliefs do not deserve respect if they cross over into the absurd, harm people, or try to make scientific claims that are clearly false.

    Interestingly enough, science and religion often go hand-in-hand.

    I find that secularists and progressives often have to taint facts to spread their cancer of an ideology much more than religious people do.

    Radical idea, I know.

    I was thinking more along the lines of personal selfishness. A reason why most people abandon their religion and become liberal.

40. #240
    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:50 pm, Cadman said:

    Sooo, even if they do kill the bill, wasn’t Dean saying something about only needed 50 votes to shove it through the house or something like that? Anybody know what he was talking about?

41. #241
    On December 17th, 2009 at 5:03 pm, zeroangel said:

    False_Dichotomy_Luigi:

    If you support civilian trials for Muslim terrorists, you support terrorists.

    Good thing I don’t.

    If you support the far-left ideals that the world wants to come together as one, you are supporting radical Islam.

    What if I want the world to come together under my terms provided we kill all radical Muslims first?

    This is a conservative blog, not the tabloids.

    So?

    Interestingly enough, science and religion often go hand-in-hand.

    Except when people start saying that Genesis is literally true (and plenty on this forum do).

    I find that secularists and progressives often have to taint facts to spread their cancer of an ideology much more than religious people do.

    Yah, those crazy evilutionists!

    I was thinking more along the lines of personal selfishness. A reason why most people abandon their religion and become liberal.

    Yes, selfish little me who doesn’t believe there is a deity watching over me who cares about me. Self-centered me wwho doesn’t believe my soul will live forever.

42. #242
    On December 17th, 2009 at 5:03 pm, zeroangel said:

    John:

    But I’m still sitting Chap and ZA should we ever get an invite to Pure’s wedding.

    I’m hurt.

43. #243
    On December 17th, 2009 at 5:04 pm, zeroangel said:

    John:

    OOps sorry, I misread that (I read it as we shouldn’t be invited, sorry I was skimming). I’d be happy to share a table with you.

44. #244
    On December 17th, 2009 at 5:06 pm, valleygreaser said:

    Someone said “Religious beliefs do not deserve respect if they … try to make scientific claims that are clearly false.”

    What is “clearly false?” Very few religious beliefs are falsifiable in the scientific sense. If one assumes any and all supernatural claims are false then by the above prescription all religion would be subject to slurs and ridicule by a non-believer since all make such claims. I’d rather just be respectful to those with whom I disagreed, atheists for instance. Radical Islam is a whole other story (a paradigm and life philosophy that goes far beyond mere religious belief) and is hardly comparable to, say, Presbyterian belief in predestination.

45. #245
    On December 17th, 2009 at 5:08 pm, purealchemy said:

    On December 17th, 2009 at 5:04 pm, zeroangel said:
    John:

    OOps sorry, I misread that (I read it as we shouldn’t be invited, sorry I was skimming). I’d be happy to share a table with you

    Atheists get to sit in the front row.

46. #246
    On December 17th, 2009 at 5:09 pm, zeroangel said:

    valleygrease:

    LOL!

    Someone said

    …is that your way of ignoring me but still being able to respond to me?

    Look, either call me a troll and don’t respond to me or respond to me and stop calling me a troll, otherwise, you look kind of silly.

    What is “clearly false?”

    A literal reading of Genesis. Or, another example, in the case above, the idea that any one human being can communicate with the deity in any meaningful fashion.

47. #247
    On December 17th, 2009 at 5:11 pm, zeroangel said:

    Pure:

    Atheists get to sit in the front row.

    Ohhh… that ought to make for some fun happenings. Should I be looking over my shoulder constantly?

48. #248
    On December 17th, 2009 at 5:12 pm, purealchemy said:

    But I’m still sitting at Chap and ZA table should we ever get an invite to Pure’s wedding.

    At the rate Kingfish is going, might be in next lifetime.
    I mean, he’s off thread-hopping right now! Geez…

49. #249
    On December 17th, 2009 at 5:15 pm, purealchemy said:

    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:50 pm, Cadman said:
    Sooo, even if they do kill the bill, wasn’t Dean saying something about only needed 50 votes to shove it through the house or something like that? Anybody know what he was talking about?

    Howard Dean is saying they should scrap the exisitng bill and start over because the current one empowers the insurance industry. (?)
    Also heard that he and Rahmbo do NOT get along.

50. #250
    On December 17th, 2009 at 5:19 pm, chapoutier said:

    Sooo, even if they do kill the bill, wasn’t Dean saying something about only needed 50 votes to shove it through the house or something like that? Anybody know what he was talking about?

    Dean was saying that rather than compromise down to the current bill, which pure pointed out he would rather scrap, they should just push it through using reconciliation, which requires only 50 votes in the Senate.

51. #251
    On December 17th, 2009 at 5:22 pm, purealchemy said:

    Me is starting to like Howard Dean! KILL THE BILL!
    Though he is hawt.
    What was that about the devil being beautiful? ;o)

52. #252
    On December 17th, 2009 at 5:32 pm, Ignatius Reilly said:

    I hate Howard Dean soooo bad. But at least this week he is showing the Dems how punishing it can be to have a big jerk in your own house (not that they don’t have plenty of experience with that).

    (Rush had some elaborate theory today about the “strategerie” behind Dean’s comments; sometimes Rush gets entirely carried away with his sense of politics as a game.)

53. #253
    On December 17th, 2009 at 5:33 pm, valleygreaser said:

    …is that your way of ignoring me but still being able to respond to me?

    OK, I’m busted.

    Look, either call me a troll and don’t respond to me or respond to me and stop calling me a troll, otherwise, you look kind of silly.

    Sorry, but you don’t make the rules for me on how I post. I’ve tried posting about Ben Nelson but the true topic here seems to be you. I’ll limit my part to this thread at least.

    A literal reading of Genesis. Or, another example, in the case above, the idea that any one human being can communicate with the deity in any meaningful fashion.

    Whether God and I are communicating when I pray is not scientifically falsifiable. I can no more prove it is happening than you can that it is not. I depend on faith for my view, as do you. The Genesis thing would require more time and space than is prudent to use here. Just for one starter it is possible that God miraculously created the world 6000 years ago but created it with a past that included its evolution over billions of years. There are numerous possibilities to choose from other that allow for believing both Genesis and the scientific data. I happen to believe every word of Genesis and also believe I could travel in a time machine back 65 million years and see dinosaurs. Creationist beliefs are often more complex that critics pretend. None of it is scientifically falsifiable one way or the other though.

54. #254
    On December 17th, 2009 at 5:59 pm, graysonret said:

    * A demonstrated commitment to economic and social justice *

    Another way of saying that they want a socialist/marxist. Lacking in morals and values, a plus.

55. #255
    On December 17th, 2009 at 6:16 pm, zyzzyg said:

    On December 17th, 2009 at 9:51 am, rightwingrocker said: #42

    War, unlike the other “issues” you list, is provided for in the Constitution (see Article I, Section 8 and Article II, Section 3). Thus, the law provides for the US government to engage in war using American tax dollars.

    While I will agree that war is provided for in the Constitution, it does dismiss that a person finds war morally objectionable. Because something is in the Constitution does not make it morally acceptable.

    Constitutionality and law, is one thing, morality is another.

    There are people who find the consumption of alcohol morally objectionable. At one time we were free to drink. Moral objections were raised and then we were not free to drink, legally anyway. Then we redacted that provision of the Constitution, and we were once again free consume alcohol.

    The moral objections to alcohol have not changed. How would a teetotaler’s arguement be veiwed if they said they were unwilling pay taxes that went to support the ATF?

    Using moral objections to oppose an issue, and to not pay taxes to support that issue is unlikely to succeed. That is why I said in my original post that the issue (abortion) might be bigger than the principle, of moral objection.

    Your list of “issues” contains no other constitutionally-authorized activity of the US government. In case you forgot what you said, here it is:

    There are any number of issues, Constituttional and not, that might be found to be morally objectionable by some one.

    Just because something is in, or not in, the Constitution does not mean it cannot be considered morally objectionable.

    Apples and oranges.

    Yes. Any suggestion that dismisses moral objection because it is constitutional is comparing apples and oranges.

    Like it or not, the Constitution does address morality, though it is based on the morality of the time it was written, it is primarily a document that addresses our freedoms, limits on Government and how the Government will operate.

    If you want morality try the Torah, Bible or Koran.

    Anyone who strictly follows those tomes will no doubt find plenty to object to on the grounds of morality and refuse to pay taxes to support it.

56. #256
    On December 17th, 2009 at 6:22 pm, zeroangel said:

    valleygreaser:

    Sorry, but you don’t make the rules for me on how I post.

    No, of course not, but obviously, if you call someone a troll, then encourage people to ignore that person, and then go on to respond yourself, you look like a silly hypocrite.

    Whether God and I are communicating when I pray is not scientifically falsifiable.

    …I said a meaningful fashion, like the way some Catholics believe the Pope is infallible. It carries with it a whole host of issues that Ed and I went over in the other thread yesterday, which is where this all started. It’s crazy and wrong and even something a number of our founding fathers had real issues with.

    Just for one starter it is possible that God miraculously created the world 6000 years ago but created it with a past that included its evolution over billions of years.

    …oh sure, it’s possible the world was created just minutes ago and we all have false memories! Of course that would imply a deceitful creator who is kind of a jerk.

    I happen to believe every word of Genesis and also believe I could travel in a time machine back 65 million years and see dinosaurs.

    Does it bother you that in one of the two creation accounts fruit bearing trees are created before sea dwelling creatures which is absolutely contrary to the evidence and the established timeline?

    None of it is scientifically falsifiable one way or the other though.

    Neither is the idea that you are a robot built by a space alien, but it IS stupid.

57. #257
    On December 17th, 2009 at 6:34 pm, valleygreaser said:

    I want to reply to a couple points here but life is calling (actually shopping is calling). I’ll be back in a couple hours. Yes, I must address my hypocrisy among other things.

58. #258
    On December 17th, 2009 at 7:56 pm, purealchemy said:

    Yes, I must address my hypocrisy among other things.

    Another case study in:

    S.omething
    I.s
    W.rong
    O.n
    T.he
    I.nternet

    Right, zero?

59. #259
    On December 17th, 2009 at 8:02 pm, zeroangel said:

    Pure:

    Ohhh something is wrong on the Internet alright, like your use of the word “something” instead of “someone” *smile*.

    /me will be back later too… we just put Junior to be and it’s almost time for dinner.

60. #260
    On December 17th, 2009 at 8:09 pm, zeroangel said:

    valleygreaser:

    Yes, I must address my hypocrisy among other things.

    “Oh you surely must reply!” …said the spider to the fly…

61. #261
    On December 17th, 2009 at 8:35 pm, purealchemy said:

    Pure:

    Ohhh something is wrong on the Internet alright, like your use of the word “something” instead of “someone” *smile*.

    Well, excuuuuuuuuuuusse me!

    On December 17th, 2009 at 8:09 pm, zeroangel said:
    valleygreaser:

    Yes, I must address my hypocrisy among other things.

    “Oh you surely must reply!” …said the spider to the fly

    I wouldn’ take that ride if I were you, valleygreaser.

62. #262
    On December 17th, 2009 at 8:50 pm, purealchemy said:

    INTERMISSION

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE-JVvLDUlQ&feature=channel

    Please pass the Jordan almonds.

63. #263
    On December 17th, 2009 at 9:13 pm, purealchemy said:

    INTERMISSION continued

    “Graffiti Worth Reading”.

    That’s what the special-needs black kid made:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKYw7KHlfaE&NR=1

    *relates to adjacent thread*

64. #264
    On December 17th, 2009 at 9:23 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

    On December 17th, 2009 at 3:58 pm, chapoutier said:
    Don’t you army people have a secret code word or something, like the gays do, that zero could whisper to Ed, so he would shut up?

    I think what you’re referring to is called a safe word. You know, like when the sex gets a little to rough. Which reminds me, did you ever find that thermometer?

65. #265
    On December 17th, 2009 at 9:33 pm, valleygreaser said:

    silly hypocrite

    Since hypocrisy seems to be the ultimate sin of imperfect people, of which I am one, I will plead guilty. Yes, my original intent was to advise against the feeding of trolls but since the banquet was going ahead anyway I joined in. My bad – big deal. I am not offended by a charge of hypocrisy; it is always used as crutch by some. By the way, trolling is misunderstood by some. It has nothing to do with particular views. We may actually agree on some important issues (national security, for instance). What I’ve noticed about you is that whatever the topic of a thread is, as soon as anyone mentions their religious faith you pounce upon them with personal insults about their intellect and soon the discussion is all about that. By your own admission you make posts just to annoy people. That is the definition of trolling. It is not meant as a personal insult; just a description of your activity here. There is a time and place for your evangelical zeal but it is not every time and every place. Since no one seems interested in Ben Nelson saga this thread seemed a place to address you.

    Silly? You should have seen my Halloween getup.

    …I said a meaningful fashion, like the way some Catholics believe the Pope is infallible.

    Obviously, as a Protestant, I don’t believe in the infallibility of the Pope. Neither do I feel the need to ridicule and insult those that do. I guess we’re just different that way.

    …oh sure, it’s possible the world was created just minutes ago and we all have false memories! Of course that would imply a deceitful creator who is kind of a jerk.

    I believe that theory is called “Last Thursdayism.” I don’t know if anyone actually believes it but all things are open for discussion in theological and metaphysical theorizing. It wouldn’t be deceitful if the truth were revealed. Some of us believe Genesis does reveal the ultimate truth of creation.

    Does it bother you that in one of the two creation accounts fruit bearing trees are created before sea dwelling creatures which is absolutely contrary to the evidence and the established timeline?

    If I paint a picture, it may have an oak tree in it. Now if you lived in the world of my creation you could rightly determine that oak trees must come from acorns. And sure enough if you traveled back in time you’d see the tree grow from an acorn … because I created a real tree with an acorn past. Now I may have painted a flower first in my picture. Even though I created the flower first, the tree is older by any measure you could make of it.

    Neither is the idea that you are a robot built by a space alien, but it IS stupid.

    That’s a straw man since virtually no one believes such a thing. On the other hand, millions of people for thousands of years have accepted the arguments for a divine Creator. Consensus does not define truth but it’s a stretch to consider most of making throughout most of history to be simply stupid.

    “Oh you surely must reply!” …said the spider to the fly…

    I suppose that means I should expect to be eaten alive by your superior intellect. I doubt it. You seem to favor childish ridicule over actual debate of issues.

    All that said, I will take you on your word that you are Gulf War veteran and I do appreciate your service no matter what other issues we may have. I am a “peacetime” veteran and was not called upon to make near the sacrifices of those that served in war.

66. #266
    On December 17th, 2009 at 9:42 pm, valleygreaser said:

    “most of making throughout most of history”

    making=mankind. Ah, the perils of internet posting.

67. #267
    On December 17th, 2009 at 9:57 pm, purealchemy said:

    Three Stages of a Man’s Life

    1) I believe in Santa Claus

    2) I don’t believe in Santa Claus

    3) I AM Santa Claus!

68. #268
    On December 17th, 2009 at 10:02 pm, zeroangel said:

    Valleygreaser:

    I am not offended by a charge of hypocrisy

    OK then.

    What I’ve noticed about you is that whatever the topic of a thread is, as soon as anyone mentions their religious faith you pounce upon them with personal insults

    This is false and needs to be addressed. I never start the personal insults. Anytime I get insulting and / or personal it is in response to rudeness on someone else’s part. I am quite capable of being polite when people are polite in turn.

    By your own admission you make posts just to annoy people.

    As I said earlier:

    If you honestly couldn’t tell that was tongue in cheek then I don’t know how I can help you.

    There is a time and place for your evangelical zeal but it is not every time and every place.

    …and it isn’t. It only crops up when people get insulting and generalize about or stereotype atheists, of course, that happens all the time here.

    Neither do I feel the need to ridicule and insult those that do. I guess we’re just different that way.

    Ed’s views deserve no respect especially when he opens his very first comment to me (a response to me pointing out that one of the concerns of some of the Founders was the power of the clergy) by calling me a moron.

    I believe that theory is called “Last Thursdayism.”

    Yes.

    I don’t know if anyone actually believes it

    So? It’s every bit as absurd as the idea that it happened 6000 years ago as opposed to last Thrusday.

    It wouldn’t be deceitful if the truth were revealed.

    I won’t hold my breath.

    Some of us believe Genesis does reveal the ultimate truth of creation.

    …and some people believe a giant vomited the Earth and Sky.

    If I paint a picture, it may have an oak tree in it.

    Ummm… what? Genesis says plants came before fish and sea creatures (at least one of the two accounts does). Plants did NOT come before sea creatures.

    That’s a straw man since virtually no one believes such a thing.

    Oh… but it’s unfalsifiable!

    On the other hand, millions of people for thousands of years have accepted the arguments for a divine Creator.

    So what?

    Consensus does not define truth but it’s a stretch to consider most of making throughout most of history to be simply stupid.

    So, basically, because a bunch of ignorant ancient people believed something for a very long time it’s got to have some truth to it? You sure about that?

    I suppose that means I should expect to be eaten alive by your superior intellect.

    Actually, I was just playing on you calling me a troll and then getting embroiled in a discussion anyway, but of course, you’ve explained that you are OK with being a hypocrite.

    You seem to favor childish ridicule over actual debate of issues.

    Yes, I am the one doing the ridicule, not my detractors who tell me I am going to hell or claim I am lying about my veteran status. Geezzz…

    I do appreciate your service

    Likewise.

69. #269
    On December 17th, 2009 at 10:21 pm, valleygreaser said:

    Well, I suppose I’ve given my views a good airing as have you and it would be pointless to make the same points over and over. I am quite willing to admit you have been more civil that I expected after having seen some of your exchanges with others. Perhaps there’s a little bad blood based on past history there that I’m unaware of. I must now return to my real life as those Christmas lights still aren’t working right. Be assured I harbor no hard feeling towards anyone here

70. #270
    On December 17th, 2009 at 10:35 pm, zeroangel said:

    valleygreaser:

    Perhaps there’s a little bad blood based on past history there that I’m unaware of.

    There are basically three types of posters here as relates to myself:

    1) Those that were, from the start, rude to me. I gave them the benefit of the doubt but they wouldn’t let up. So, I took off the gloves and they pulled out guns. Those folks will regulary get ridiculed as they deserve it.

    2) Those that felt they needed to be rude to me for whatever reason (usually they thought I deserved it). After having an exchange similar to ours, they realized I wasn’t so bad after all.

    3) Those that have been consistently polite and have received the same in return from me. Of course, I will always be candid with my views, even if they might not be well-received.

    Be assured I harbor no hard feeling towards anyone here

    Likewise. Goodnite and goodluck with those lights, mine are giving me a hard time too.

71. #271
    On December 17th, 2009 at 10:48 pm, purealchemy said:

    Likewise. Goodnite and goodluck with those lights, mine are giving me a hard time too

    
    zero, was that your voice?

72. #272
    On December 17th, 2009 at 10:52 pm, swede said:

    On December 17th, 2009 at 10:35 pm, zeroangel said:

    In my official capacity as MM Comment Etiquette Czar, having carefully examined your posts, evaluating the content for relevance, continuity and voracity, it is my considered and irrevocable determination that you, sir are a putz.

    Thank you for your time. Good night all.

73. #273
    On December 17th, 2009 at 10:59 pm, zeroangel said:

    swede:

    that you, sir are a putz.

    Your mom. Did you email MM about this thread yet? *smile*

74. #274
    On December 17th, 2009 at 11:03 pm, purealchemy said:

    On December 17th, 2009 at 10:52 pm, swede said:

    Thank you for your time. Good night all

    Sorry, swede. You owe me reparations for extreme stress you’ve inflicted on me at this venue.

    You can pay off your debt with massages.

75. #275
    On December 17th, 2009 at 11:26 pm, swede said:

    You owe me reparations for extreme stress you’ve inflicted on me at this venue.

    You can pay off your debt with massages.

    You may take up your claim with my attorney, chapoutier@sharks-r-us.org (OK, I made it up)

    Further, the implication that my heritage implies expertise in the field of massage is biased and defamatory.

    You would do well to remember that Swedish americans are a minority, thus we can do what we want and are entitled to more stuff than you.

    Early flight. Sleepy time. Nighty nite.

76. #276
    On December 17th, 2009 at 11:58 pm, valleygreaser said:

    Lights are fixed! Clark Griswold triumphant!

77. #277
    On December 18th, 2009 at 5:56 am, ssnark said:

    On December 17th, 2009 at 4:22 pm, Flyoverman said:

    if I became President tomorrow, by noon all black berets would be burned.

    I don’t think it goes that high up. The CSA sets uniform policy (taking the black beret from the Rangers was one of Shinseki’s fashioncist statements). Could you at least give the black ones back to the Rangers. The one they have now looks like my dog did #2 on their heads.
    The beret is kind of a useless piece of headgear and were it not for how hard we fought to get ours and be allowed to wear it, I’d opt for a boonie hat as the ‘distinctive’ headgear of my branch.
    Then again, if I were CSA, I’d probably make a Silver Belly Stetson, loud obnoxious Hawaiian shirt, OD trousers and unlaced, unshined Corcoran’s the class A uniform and add a maroon smoking jacket to make it a dress uniform.

78. #278
    On December 18th, 2009 at 9:23 am, purealchemy said:

    In my official self-appointed capacity as MM Comment Etiquette Czar

79. #279
    On December 18th, 2009 at 9:54 am, happyscrapper said:

    Zero said: There are basically three types of posters here as relates to myself:

    And that, in a NUTshell is the issue. It is ALL about Zero. He makes it all about Zero. Everything he posts is about Zero and his insatiable need to justify everything he believes, ad nauseum. There have been four (I believe) threads totally taken over by Zero in the past two weeks. And he has been encouraged by some of you. This saddens me, as I think one of these days, MM will get tired of it and pull the comments. I hope that doesn’t happen, but you are pushing the envelope. Purealchemy, my friend, I’m sorry, but you are one of the worst offenders in encouraging Zero’s complete takeover of MM’s threads to feed his obsession with his atheism. As Valleygreaser said so elequently, this is a mostly conservative thread and to be assaulted by the disgusting insults against God on a conservative blog is just wrong.

    I have had my say. And as Zero knows, I won’t engage him because I don’t want to encourage any more of his page-long rants and smug superiority.

80. #280
    On December 18th, 2009 at 10:09 am, purealchemy said:

    Purealchemy, my friend, I’m sorry, but you are one of the worst offenders in encouraging Zero’s complete takeover of MM’s threads to feed his obsession with his atheism.

    happy, yeah, I know.
    But like I said, you are free to ignore him and keep posting whatever is on your mind.

81. #281
    On December 18th, 2009 at 10:17 am, zeroangel said:

    Sybil:

    Riiight, it’s all about me. It couldn’t possibly be that I thoroughly enjoy debate (like everyone else that engages me). No, no, it’s about me being a flawed, insecure, self-centered, narcissist. After all, it’s totally impossible for someone to be a passionate, vocal, and self-confident atheist!

    There have been four (I believe) threads totally taken over by Zero in the past two weeks.

    All my fault of course.

    And he has been encouraged by some of you.

    No sh|t. I wonder why that is? Could it be that some people WANT to have these discussions?

    as I think one of these days, MM will get tired of it and pull the comments.

    …maybe, and that would be really sad, because this has become an excellent venue for people with wildly different views on some issues to have some really intense debates (even if they veer off-topic).

    Purealchemy, my friend, I’m sorry, but you are one of the worst offenders

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with Pure in that regard as I indicated above. Perhaps it is you who has the issue?

    As Valleygreaser said so eloquently

    …and later went on to engage me as well.

    disgusting insults against God on a conservative blog is just wrong.

    …I think Yahweh can handle it, clearly you can’t.

    And as Zero knows, I won’t engage him

    …except this one post.

    Sybil, in case there is any confusion, you are pretty solidly a number 1 and have been for sometime. Once or twice you slid over to #2, but you slide right back in no time.

82. #282
    On December 18th, 2009 at 10:22 am, purealchemy said:

    Okay, happy, how about this?
    Between now and Christmas Day, I will not address zero at all.
    JUST FOR YOU, MY FRIEND!
    If I break this vow, my God strike me dead to burn in atheist hell!

    See ya after 12/24, zero!

83. #283
    On December 18th, 2009 at 10:23 am, happyscrapper said:

    happy, yeah, I know.
    But like I said, you are free to ignore him and keep posting whatever is on your mind.

    The problem is that, even if I am really interested in a particular thread, I have to weed through all the posts to get to a few gems that actually are on topic. It is very annoying to want to discuss a subject and find most of the posts don’t have anything to do with it. That is my main gripe with all of this. I know I am free to ignore him, but the only way to do that is to leave the thread. Is that fair to those of us who are interested in the topic that we are supposed to be covering? We all go off topic occasionally. But to completely derail the topic is just wrong. I’m sure you have noticed that people start posting on a thread and as soon as Zero takes over, most of them leave. Is that fair to the rest of us?

84. #284
    On December 18th, 2009 at 10:24 am, zeroangel said:

    Pure:

    Don’t cave to her nonsense Pure. There’s absolutely no reason you should have to appease her insecurities.

85. #285
    On December 18th, 2009 at 10:29 am, zeroangel said:

    Sybil:

    I have to weed through all the posts to get to a few gems that actually are on topic.

    Poor baby.

    Does it ever cross your mind that perhaps the reason why I am so successful in “derailing” (your words, not mine) a thread is because plenty of people don’t share your opinions here? There’s more than one person in this thread who has expressed interest in reading my posts.

86. #286
    On December 18th, 2009 at 10:30 am, happyscrapper said:

    Zero said: …maybe, and that would be really sad, because this has become an excellent venue for people with wildly different views on some issues to have some really intense debates (even if they veer off-topic).

    From Michelle’s terms of use:
    

    “I reserve the right to delete your comments or revoke your registration for any reason whatsoever. Rarely will I do so simply because I disagree with you. I will, however, usually do so if you post something that is, in my opinion, (a) off-topic;…”

87. #287
    On December 18th, 2009 at 10:32 am, happyscrapper said:

    On December 18th, 2009 at 10:22 am, purealchemy said:
    Okay, happy, how about this?
    Between now and Christmas Day, I will not address zero at all.
    JUST FOR YOU, MY FRIEND!
    If I break this vow, my God strike me dead to burn in atheist hell!

    See ya after 12/24, zero!

    You don’t have to do that on my account, Pure. That was not my point. But thanks for the thought.

88. #288
    On December 18th, 2009 at 10:32 am, zeroangel said:

    Sybil:

    disgusting insults against God on a conservative blog is just wrong.

    …and this is your real problem. It has nothing to do with “derailing” threads. If I “derailed” threads into long discussions about how atheists are stupid or made some high-brow theological arguments for god you would be saying how insightful and important my posts are.

89. #289
    On December 18th, 2009 at 10:34 am, zeroangel said:

    Sybil:

    I will, however, usually do so if you post something that is, in my opinion, (a) off-topic;…”

    Well, since I oftten only respond to attacks against atheism, and since scores of people happyily veer off-topic with me, it seems like MM will end up banning about half the commenters here and most of the regulars along with me. How’s that sound?

90. #290
    On December 18th, 2009 at 10:41 am, purealchemy said:

    You don’t have to do that on my account, Pure. That was not my point. But thanks for the thought

    happy, no, I am serious.
    Vow is made. It’s a done deal.

91. #291
    On December 18th, 2009 at 10:42 am, zeroangel said:

    (b) libelous, defamatory, abusive, harassing, threatening, profane, pornographic, offensive, false, misleading,

    Sybil:

    Well, let’s see, your posts are regularly defamatory, abusive, offensive, false and misleading when it applies to atheists in general.

92. #292
    On December 18th, 2009 at 10:48 am, happyscrapper said:

    it seems like MM will end up banning about half the commenters here and most of the regulars along with me. How’s that sound?

    I think MM will be able to discern who the instigator is. She’s a pretty smart lady. And as for your post #291…you presume to know what I am thinking and what my motivations are. Wow. You do have delusions of superiority, don’t you? Telling me what I would be saying, and why I feel the way I do.

    I understand why people engage you. You goad them into responding. You purposely do that. I know it, yet we respond because your posts are so outrageous, they need to be addressed.

    I do hope you can find some kind of peace in your soul so you won’t continually feel the obsessive need to be vindicated.

93. #293
    On December 18th, 2009 at 10:51 am, happyscrapper said:

    happy, no, I am serious.
    Vow is made. It’s a done deal.

    Thanks, Pure. And I will do the same. I will no longer engage him…even AFTER Christmas! And by the way, MERRY CHRISTMAS, and God bless us every one!!

94. #294
    On December 18th, 2009 at 11:03 am, zeroangel said:

    Sybil:

    Still ignoring me I see.

    I think MM will be able to discern who the instigator is.

    One can only hope that she recognizes the massive stereotyping and regular invective against me and atheists in general constitutes bigotry. Despite some of her statements on FOX, considering that she employs Allahpundit (also an outspoken atheist) I think I’m in the clear, and apparently have been for some time.

    you presume to know what I am thinking and what my motivations are.

    It’s not so hard, I think I’ve nailed you pretty well. Seeing us how you are compelled to keep replying, I think that’s a safe assumption.

    I understand why people engage you. You goad them into responding.

    Riiight… I’m the guilty one, it’s not as though other people make posts that “are so outrageous, they need to be addressed.”

    I do hope you can find some kind of peace in your soul so you won’t continually feel the obsessive need to be vindicated.

    Project much?

    I will no longer engage him

    You’ve made this claim so many times it has become laughable.

95. #295
    On December 18th, 2009 at 11:34 am, spaceycakes said:

    ohhh FFS

96. #296
    On December 18th, 2009 at 11:37 am, zeroangel said:

    spaceycakes:

    Hi there!

    Can’t blame me, I’m just doing what my father, Satan, commands me to.

97. #297
    On December 18th, 2009 at 11:53 am, spaceycakes said:

    well, if you admit to that angel, then you have to believe in the others too.

    Anyway, enjoy your inheritance!

98. #298
    On December 18th, 2009 at 11:56 am, zeroangel said:

    spaceycakes:

    Considering that Yahweh is responsible for far more slaughter and death in the Bible than Satan is, and considering that the Bible was supposedly written by Yahweh, I am thinking I am on the correct team.

99. #299
    On December 18th, 2009 at 12:16 pm, spaceycakes said:

    so you admit that there is an opposing team?

    If you read the book, you’ll know what the final score is, too.

    LOL

100. #300
     On December 18th, 2009 at 12:22 pm, zeroangel said:

     spaceycakes:

     so you admit that there is an opposing team?

     Obviously, I am joking, but sometimes I can’t figure out what you guys are thinking.

     If you read the book, you’ll know what the final score is, too.

     Consider the source. It’s propaganda. Yahweh isn’t the good guy.