Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

User information for Amillennialist

Real Name Amillennialist   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname Amillennialist
Email Concealed by request
ICQ None given.
Description Banned
Homepage None given.
Signed On Mar 31, 2009, 00:53
Total Comments 203 (Novice)
User ID 54860
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ] Older >


News Comments > Epic on Piracy and PCs
150. Re: Epic on Piracy and PCs May 20, 2010, 03:54 Amillennialist
 
You do realize that morality is purely subjective, right?

Moral relativism is inherently self-contradictory and therefore false. If everything is "moral," then nothing is moral. If everyone's moral code is equally valid, then no behavior can be condemned as "immoral."

And that means that the serial killer, the terrorist, the rapist, and the pedophile are just as "moral" as you are.

If you disagree, then you're claiming "that your own sense of morality is somehow absolute and universal." Some might call that "a bit pretentious."

Can someone take the product of your labor at a price less than you're willing to sell it? Would that not be theft (or slavery)? Is stealing from you "moral"?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
326. Loose ends May 20, 2010, 03:34 Amillennialist
 
-A fact is a fact. You're clearly confused in believing that observable fact is not "one of the Scientific Method's own definitions."

-Did you ever find an actual, observable fact about vertical speciation that you can state in your own words (links to videos and a website is not an "argument")?

-You have realized that a comment to Sepharo is not a comment to you, haven't you?

-I know you don't like this, but your arguments throughout this thread boil down to: 1) denying religious liberty protects religious liberty; 2) Jefferson opposed any mixture of government and religion, even though he used tax dollars to promote Christianity and worshiped in the House; 3) never being able to demonstrate that Man arose from microbes by way of maggots and monkeys proves that he did; and 4) Qur'anic commands to war against non-Muslims "until all religion is for Allah" means that all religions are equally bad.

We'll always have Paris.

This comment was edited on May 20, 2010, 04:15.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
25. Re: Out of the Blue May 20, 2010, 03:07 Amillennialist
 
If you feel someone else's posting deserves scrutiny, feel free to report them.

I'm complaining about no one. I believe that the solution to bad speech is more speech, not less. I'm pointing out merely that you're applying your stated criteria for banning me ("off-topic posts") unjustly because in each of the threads in which I commented recently, I was responding to others' entries.

How is explaining the ideology behind Islamic terrorism in response to a suggestion for how to deal with Islamic terrorism "off-topic"?

implying I'm aiding jihad because I am trying to get you to stop making off-topic posts is a fine example of the inflammatory straw-man arguing that has made you a nuisance here. It is despicable behavior, and offensive beyond the pale.

I disagree that any straw was involved since you referred initially in this thread to my citations of Islamic texts as "anti-Islamic" and "religious fanaticism." In light of those phrases, perhaps you can forgive me for thinking that your hostility toward me was in defense of Islam.

Pointing out the self-evident truth that censoring the facts regarding jihad only aids it is neither "despicable" nor "beyond the pale." In a world where the Commander-in-Chief urges the nation, "Let's not jump to conclusions," in response to a Muslim's (author of a massive powerpoint explaining the necessity of jihad) murdering and wounding dozens of Americans on American soil and who refers to the beheading of Daniel Pearl as an event that "captured the world's imagination," it's just "self-defense."
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
22. Re: Out of the Blue May 18, 2010, 15:43 Amillennialist
 
Sepharo . . . Which is it? You've been called out.

I asked you to stop dragging threads here into your religions rhetoric, and you took that as an opportunity to continue to do just that.

Sepharo can libel me, but I cannot defend myself with facts?

you are being banned for continuing to provoke off-topic religious arguments . . . I am going to give this one last try, cause I feel like I should give you a final warning.

I appreciate your patience, Blue.

I would ask, who is arguing about Islam? Sepharo's ill-judged and unsubstantiated character assassination is not an "argument;" it's craven name-calling. My comments were not off-topic since they were in response to others'. No one has produced evidence of my lying, error, or "racism" (what race is Islam, anyway?), and they won't, because I'm citing accurately Islam's own authoritative documents. I was the one calling for care in dealing with innocent Muslims. I'm the one calling for resisting an ideology that demands the slavery or slaughter of all who refuse the "invitation" to convert.

Other members regularly use profanity and make vicious personal attacks, one even fantasized about raping religious figures, but when I respond with facts, I am threatened, "off-topic," and banned.

Censoring the truth about the ideology motivating 9/11, more than fifteen thousand documented jihad attacks since then, and fourteen hundred years of attacks prior aids only whom, Blue?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
324. Re: Wowbagger: The gift that keeps on giving May 18, 2010, 01:35 Amillennialist
 
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on May 17, 2010, 09:32:
If you never address the actual science, you can never win an argument about the validity of a scientific theory. It's a simple fact.

You admit that your "scientific fact" is impossible to observe, ever. That which cannot be observed cannot be falsified.

That is not Science.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
20. Re: Out of the Blue May 18, 2010, 01:14 Amillennialist
 
Okay, Sepharo, show some intestinal fortitude:

'Aisha: "My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old” (Tabari 9:131).

Do you condemn what Muhammad did to little, prepubescent 'Aisha, or not?

If so, then you're an "anti-Islamic, racist, hater" deserving of a ban, too. If not, then at best, you're a coward.

Which is it? You've been called out.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
19. Re: Out of the Blue May 18, 2010, 00:59 Amillennialist
 
Wonderful, Sepharo.

You described my condemnations of "sacralized" genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery as "hate." I was making the point that if you demonize me for condemning real hate, either you support such evil, or you're ignorant of the actual Islamic texts, theology, jurisprudence, and history.

Which is what I what I wrote. Unsurprisingly, you libel me again:

Sepharo wrote on May 2, 2010, 17:56:
The guy writing a racist, anti-Mustlim hate site for the past 7 years just accused me of having a psychosis.

If you were psychotic, your inept, libelous apology for Islam would be excusable. Only the ignorant and the deceitful can read my words and mischaracterize them the way you do.

So, which is it, Sepharo. Are you ignorant or a liar?

What "race" am I? What "race" is Islam? What, exactly, have I written that is "racist"? What, exactly, have I written that is "anti-Muslim"?

What about "sacralized" genocide, pedophilia, rape, mutilation, torture, slavery, wife-beating, polygyny, religious and gender apartheid, theft, extortion, deceit, and blasphemy do you find so appealing?

You're right that there's "hate" at my site, but those words aren't mine, they're Muhammad's. He commanded, "kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5). Why do you call my opposition to such barbarism and intolerance "hate"?

Allah called Muhammad a "beautiful pattern of conduct" for those who want to please him. Do you realize what that has meant for 1400 years of Islamic theology, jurisprudence, and practice? What that has meant for non-Muslims and Muslim apostates, women, and little girls? That means that whatever Muhammad said and did -- or saw and allowed -- is considered normative for Muslims.

One of Muhammad's most depraved acts was his "marrying" little 'Aisha when she was six and raping her beginning when she was a prepubescent nine-year-old. That I despise with every fiber of my being. Why don't you? Why, Sepharo, do you defend child rape?

So, I condemn brutality and depravity and you call me a "disgusting person." What does that make you?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
323. Re: Wowbagger: The gift that keeps on giving May 18, 2010, 00:54 Amillennialist
 
Groundhog Day.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
17. Re: Misc. May 17, 2010, 22:23 Amillennialist
 
Blue wrote on May 17, 2010, 10:45:
You are taking advantage of any opportunity to exercise your anti-Islamic agenda... Claiming topicality by responding to one of Cutter's ill-considered comments is a perfect example.

You admit my comments were in response to Cutter's, which was on what to do in our defense against jihad.

If Allah commands "kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5), how can you condemn me as "anti-Islamic"?

The thread on Six Days is a thread about our current effort in Iraq, which is an act of self-defense (even if misguided) against jihad.

Oh, there's my answer... one sentence.

Why did you leave out the very next line I wrote: "kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5)? Are you defending jihad?

My comments in the Metaverse thread on the free market contained no religious references whatsoever.

Your defense against my complaint is that six posts ago you made one post without a reference to religion? Oh, I see, that post is one where you were arguing politics.

Did you chastise and threaten space captain when he fantasized about raping religious figures?

Your complaint was that I was hijacking recent threads. Out of the three recent threads in which I commented, one was in response to someone arguing against economic liberty. In that post I made no comments on Islam. Another (as you noted) was in response to a recommendation to erase Muslim cities. And the third was on-topic also.

Are you aware this is a gaming site?

Of course. I've visited your site for years. I've always appreciated the quality of your work.

Do you ask all those who comment here the same question? In all four threads in which I've commented recently, I've written in response to others' posts. Did you warn them that they were hijacking threads? Did you threaten them with bans? Your own rules state personal attacks will not be tolerated, but that's pretty much the entire content of many of the recent statements directed toward me in the raping religious figures thread. Where were the warnings and threats of bans there?

Don't mistake this conversation with the lengthy Op Ed debate you are still involved in. This will not become a lengthy back-and-forth based on your ability to twist semantics.

Stating facts is not "twisting semantics." If you like Islam, if you like jihad, if you like what happened on 9/11 and want to silence here one voice pointing out why it occurred in an effort to avoid future loss of innocent life, that's certainly your right; I am only a guest here.

Okay, we can agree to disagree about how to characterize what you are doing, but if you keep doing it, my opinion will win out and I will ban you . . . I should just ban you for that comment alone...

I appreciate that you have not done that yet.

Muhammad declared, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, 'O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177). Do you reject this murderous anti-Semitism masquerading as "religion"?

Muhammad's favorite "wife" 'Aisha lamented, "My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old” (Tabari 9:131). Do you condemn this "sacralized" pedophilia?

Muhammad commanded, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57). Do you denounce this tyrannical denial of freedom of conscience?

Allah commands, "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter . . . " (Qur'an 5:33). An authoritative commentary on Qur'an, Tafsir Ibn Kathir, says of this verse: "'Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil." So, Muhammad requires execution, crucifixion, or cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides for "disbelief." Do you oppose this genocide on religious grounds?

What have I written about Islam that is false? If what I've written is true, then why do you condemn me?

This comment was edited on May 18, 2010, 00:53.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
321. Re: Wowbagger: The gift that keeps on giving May 17, 2010, 00:08 Amillennialist
 
And now, in true liar fashion, you proceed to split hairs to try to redefine your actions as something other than what they were.

Don't blame me because you won't read and I won't let you get away with lying.

Either address actual scientific claims or admit that you can't.

Says the person who admits that he has no observable evidence of Man arising from microbes, and that proves he's right!
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
14. Re: Misc. May 17, 2010, 00:03 Amillennialist
 
Blue wrote on May 16, 2010, 11:50:
Are you familiar with what was done on both sides during World War II?

More importantly, are you familiar with anything Islam has done over the last 1400 years?

Your attempts to steer multiple recent threads into your own brand of religious fanaticism is becoming tiresome and disruptive. Continued attempts to hijack threads in this manner will earn you a ban.

Hijack? In this thread the suggestion came up to nuke Muslims. I replied in part "As much as possible, the innocent should not be harmed." How is that "hijacking"?

The thread on Six Days is a thread about our current effort in Iraq, which is an act of self-defense (even if misguided) against jihad.

My comments in the Metaverse thread on the free market contained no religious references whatsoever.

And the ancient "rape religious figures" thread? I stated facts in response to libelous statements about the content of my site. Which leads to this question: If I state facts about Islam, how is that "religious fanaticism"? Are not those quotations "religious fanaticism"? Are not those advocating and implementing those commands "religious fanatics"?

So, not only have I not "hijacked multiple recent threads," I have not promoted "religious fanaticism," I've warned against it.

Are you going to ban me for stating facts regarding the ideology responsible for 9/11? If so, whose side are you on?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
12. Re: Misc. May 16, 2010, 03:20 Amillennialist
 
InBlack wrote on Apr 30, 2010, 07:52:
dropping H-Bombs on civilians. How the fuck can you think that is right? Even I think thats just wrong on so many levels
It's horrifying. But what is the alternative?

Are you familiar with what was done on both sides during World War II?

More importantly, are you familiar with anything Islam has done over the last 1400 years? Do you have any idea how many societies wiped out by Islam -- how many innocent men, women, and children -- would have done anything to possess our capacity for self-defense? They'd be dumbfounded at both our inability to tell the truth about Islam and our unwillingness to defend ourselves.

If a few devout Muslims can cause so much death and destruction with only our own airplanes, what do you think they'll do with their own nukes or other WMD?

When the choice is our innocents or theirs, whom will you defend?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
11. Re: Misc. May 16, 2010, 03:05 Amillennialist
 
(Just a note: Many of today's Muslims are merely the descendants of those whose societies were conquered by Islamic armies waging jihad; many do not speak Arabic, and many are ignorant of their own "sacred" texts commanding them to wage jihad against non-Muslims.

The danger -- and this is where the use of force seems necessary -- is with those who do know what fourteen hundred years of Islamic theology, jurisprudence, and history require of them.

As much as possible, the innocent should not be harmed; the difficulty is discerning between those are truly innocent and those who are only pretending to be so until they have the advantage.)

Cutter wrote on Apr 30, 2010, 13:46:
millions of "civilians" know or have a good idea of who these terrorists actually are and defend them by not turning them in . . . if you appease those people you only embolden them. When do you say enough? When do the words stop and the fists fly? You're like Neville Chamberlin trying to appease Hitler. Had they been pro-active and nipped it in the bud there never would have been a WWII. Same thing here. You can't afford to fuck around with these guys because given the chance they'll happily use nukes or worse - biological weapons - on us. So which side are you on?
You're absolutely correct about Hitler. Winston Churchill warned England about the monster and was called a "warmonger." Then Europe fell and a Holocaust occurred. Here's what Churchill had to say about failing to deal with threats when they're still manageable:
"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival.

"There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves."
The parallels between the 1930s and today are striking. Today we have many Neville Chamberlains -- not the least of whom is the allegedly-former Muslim in the White House -- running around and bowing to Muslim tyrants, apologizing for our defending ourselves, lying about Islam's past, and betraying our allies -- especially Israel. All the while a modern Hitler -- Iran's Ahmadinejad -- develops nukes and the means to deliver them, fantasizes publicly about a world without Israel and America, and denies the Holocaust while planning another.

It is no accident that murderous anti-Semitism made National Socialism and Islam bedfellows; another profound irony is that the founders of both movements framed their causes as "struggles": Hitler wrote Mein Kampf ("my struggle"), and Muhammad spurred his followers to wage jihad against the world "until all religion is for Allah." Jihad means "struggle."

Not only that, but Hitler lamented the fact that Germany was a Christian nation, wishing it had been Islamic. And the Nazis received from the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem al-Husseini advice in carrying out the Holocaust and assistance from him in recruiting Muslims for the Balkan SS divisions. Here's what Churchill had to say about Islam:
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

"A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property -- either as a child, a wife, or a concubine -- must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science -- the science against which it had vainly struggled -- the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."
Over the course of the last nearly one and one-half millennia, Muslims have wiped out entire civilizations in obedience to Allah's commands and in emulation of Muhammad's example, which leads to the question: What can you do when more than a billion people adhere (at least nominally) to the commands noted below? How do you "win hearts and minds" which belong already to this:
"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter . . . " (Qur'an 5:33).

[Ibn Kathir says of this verse: "'Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil." So, Muhammad requires execution, crucifixion, or cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides for "disbelief."]

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

"It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise" (Qur'an 8:67).

"Allah’s Apostle said, 'I have been made victorious with terror'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

"Allah's Apostle was asked, 'What is the best deed?' He replied, 'To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad).' The questioner then asked, 'What is the next (in goodness)?' He replied, 'To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause.' The questioner again asked, 'What is the next (in goodness)?' He replied, 'To perform Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca). . .'" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25).

"Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone (in the whole of the world). But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do" (Qur'an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur'an).

This comment was edited on May 16, 2010, 03:11.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
4. Re: BM May 16, 2010, 02:28 Amillennialist
 
Six Days is not too soon if they tell the truth -- that we are fighting a war of self-defense against jihad.

"kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5).
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Metaverse
18. Re: Metaverse May 15, 2010, 15:23 Amillennialist
 
Acleacius wrote on May 1, 2010, 07:57:
The reason letting the market place fail is a bad idea, should be clear. Besides the fact that no society in history has ever done this to even consider it's feasible or to know how to do it, fact is it would cause whole states and nations to fail, which would destroy society.

No one that advocates this can site a successful example, yet are willing to risk the failure of society for there own perceived short term personal gain.

I perfect example is the US, the same people who advocate free market principles are the same people who forced UNFUNDED Taxcuts during bush 3 times and the cost of 2 wars. We are currently paying about 500 billion JUST in interest each year. This means for about the next 20 years most of our taxes (we, our parents and our childeren) will be going to paying the interest for all the money given away and it won't be going to improvements in Education, Health Care, Roads and Infrastructure that all societies require to exist LONG TERM.

Under this false (because it's never existed, much less successfully) premise of Let Fail, the US would have failed. DID FAIL. The only reason we are still here is because we ONCE AGAIN borrowed money WE DON'T HAVE.

Once all these things are pointed out all of a sudden people advocating this say, "Well the government to REGULATE IT."

No one argues for letting "the market place fail." "The market place" can never fail because it is based on free people entering into voluntary transactions with each other. The latest economic crisis in the U.S. is due to too much government interference, not too little. Its seeds were planted under Carter, fertilized by Clinton, watered by Bush, and harvested by Obama (and he foolishly agitates for more of the same). Reminds me of, "If you think the problems government creates are bad, wait 'til you see their solutions." (Really, keeping Dodd and Frank in charge of solving the crisis they helped bring about? Only with an ignorant, lazy, and greedy electorate is such a thing possible.)

Essentially, this is a conflict between Liberty and tyranny. If a man is truly free to follow the dictates of his own will, then he is free to succeed on his own merits, to the degree that his intellect, character, talent, and effort allow. That means that he is free also to fail.

What you're arguing for -- and both Bush and Obama are guilty of this, though Obama's taken Bush's crack in the dam and opened a gaping chasm -- is politicians making free people pay for others' (private individuals, corporations, and elected officials) stupidity and greed.

"Government" is not a benevolent grandfather. Apart from its Constitutionally-defined roles of securing the borders, protecting the individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, etc., government does nothing to "help." All it can do -- what you're advocating, apparently -- is to steal from one man the fruits of his labor and distribute it as political favors to others who did not earn and do not deserve them.

In order for politicians to be able to bribe citizens for their votes, they must either raise taxes, borrow (we pay the interest for generations), or print money (which makes every dollar worth less; inflation is a hidden tax). We all end up paying with less wealth, less free time, less opportunity. And once a nation is economically-weak, whatever military advantage it might have enjoyed vaporizes.

You want to cite history? No society which enslaves its people through Socialism/Communism/Marxism prospers. You want to see where the United States is headed? Look at California. You want to know where California's going to end up? Look at Greece (and the other EU states about to collapse).

The only moral economic system is one founded on individual liberty. Without it, you've got only slavery.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
319. Re: Op Ed May 12, 2010, 05:45 Amillennialist
 
Sepharo wrote:

Stop assigning me positions that I don't adhere to.
I see you employ that same strategy on this topic as you do with evolution.

That's true, but not in the sense you mean.

My "strategy" with both subjects is to adhere to facts. Yours is to regurgitate (without realizing it, I don't doubt) whatever you swallowed whole from atheistic, craven, nescient tyrants (I'm assuming college professors, since one can find such irrational, self-destructive propaganda typically only in institutions of "higher learning").

As for your "positions," I was making a rhetorical point: How can one interpret the following in response to my quoting Islamic texts?

The guy writing a racist, anti-Mustlim hate site for the past 7 years just accused me of having a psychosis.

Muhammad's the one who called for the enslavement or slaughter of all who refuse the "invitation" to Islam, so your calling my pointing that out -- my condemnation of slavery and genocide on any grounds, but especially on religious ones -- "racist," "anti-Mustlim" [sic], "hate," and "psychotic" means that either you agree with Muhammad, or you didn't know what he actually preached and practiced. That's why I noted that only the ignorant and the deceitful can claim what you claimed.

So, which is it? Do you support Muhammad's calls to genocide, rape, and slavery on religious grounds, or is it just that you were unaware of them and all-too-willing to libel me . . . again?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
318. Wowbagger: The gift that keeps on giving May 12, 2010, 05:18 Amillennialist
 
I wrote in a post to Sepharo:

Until you have the courage to discuss this topic honestly, this will be my final word to you on it . . . Sepharo

So, of course, even though I was responding to Sepharo, Wowbagger replies with:

You addressed that topic again in your very next post. So yes, you lied.

As should be clear to even the moderately-literate, that post wasn't addressed to you, Wowbagger.

My "very next post" was directed to you, but its purpose wasn't to debate Darwinism, it was to defend against another absurd personal attack:

You're obviously incapable of understanding the subject matter at hand.

So, no, I didn't "lie." (Speaking of "repeatedly demonstrating reading comprehension issues"!)

Now, if I had been addressing you, your claim that I "lied" by commenting on Darwin's creation myth again would be an admission that you lack "the courage to discuss this topic honestly," which was the condition I put on further discussion of Darwinism in that post to Sepharo.

Well done, Wowbagger! It's good to see that you're consistent!

What a waste of time. You won't be honest, and I won't lie. You were doing so much better when you were arguing that denying religious liberty was protecting religious liberty. At least then you had some actual facts, even if you misinterpreted them. Kind of like Darwinism, but not nearly as obnoxious.

Regardless, I have a right to refute your mendacity. You stop lying, and I'll stop pointing out your lies.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Yee Against Banning Ultra-Violent Games
32. Re: Yee Against Banning Ultra-Violent Games May 6, 2010, 03:22 Amillennialist
 
Prez wrote on May 5, 2010, 23:59:
Wait - are you saying that the Christian Crusaders didn't actually play "Medieval Total War" prior to slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people? I suppose next you're going to tell me that "Manhunt" wasn't the cause of radical Muslims coming up with the concept of beheading people as punishment...

Gaming and its capacity to influence behavior aside, the first Crusade was called by Pope Urban II in response to centuries of jihad.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II in October
21. Re: Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II in October May 5, 2010, 03:24 Amillennialist
 
eRe4s3r wrote on May 4, 2010, 21:08:
You would if you had played the PC port of it

Recently bought it on-sale. After patching, performance is pretty good on a three-year-old machine.

I would prefer traditional PC controls, though, and I don't like auto-aim.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
315. Re: Op Ed May 5, 2010, 03:14 Amillennialist
 
In the event that this thread is closed or deleted, it should be pointed out that when presented with Qur'anic mandates for genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery, Wowbagger attacked . . . Christianity! And when confronted with the same evidence from Islam's own texts, Sepharo attacked . . . me!

If I am banned, it should be noted that when I exposed and condemned calls to enslave or slaughter all who refuse the "invitation" to Islam, Blue will have responded by censoring me.

Good day, gentlemen.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
203 Comments. 11 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo