Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#8112 Apr 29, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is the essay that I referened along with the contributors, all of which appear to be Professors, and no where is mentioned Dominic Crossan. Obviously you do not agree with these folks, which simply highlights, again, my point that Christianity is not a unified religion, but a religion of many sects each with their own interpretation.
Emergence of the Four Gospel Canon

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows...
Elaine H. Pagels:
The Harrington Spear Paine Foundation Professor of Religion Princeton University
L. Michael White:
Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin
Elizabeth Clark:
John Carlisle Kilgo Professor of Religion and Director of the Graduate Program in Religion Duke University
Harold W. Attridge:
The Lillian Claus Professor of New Testament Yale Divinity School
Allen D. Callahan:
Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
==========
Since you did not provide a link to the quote I went looking for myself, if this is still not the exact quote, providing the correct context, then you will need to supply the reference.
It still sounds like a contrived argument for just four gospels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus
"But it is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the church has been scattered throughout the world, and since the 'pillar and ground' of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life, it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing incorruption on every side, and vivifying human afresh. From this fact, it is evident that the Logos, the fashioner demiourgos of all, he that sits on the cherubim and holds all things together, when he was manifested to humanity, gave us the gospel under four forms but bound together by one spirit." Against Heresies 3.11.8
Dominic Crossan was another contributer to the PBS special YOU listed, did you not even look at what you referenced? What was your point in listing the contributors, are we supposed to be impressed by their titles? The world of academia is full of people with lovely titles that are so blinded by their own preconceived notions that their conclusions are written before any research is done. Pagels has received much criticism for her shoddy -if not deliberately misleading - translations of Irenaeus. Yale and Harvard and Duke divinity schools are noted for their liberal take on theology.

To repeat: The Diatesseron - referenced by L Michael White was written in the mid 2nd century - is an obvious reflection of the acceptance of the early church by those four gospels as the "true" gospels - Irenaeus writing approximately 10-20 years LATER is simply using the four zones, four winds, etc to illustrate to his audience that it was "fitting" that there are four gospels, not that that was the BASIS for choosing only four gospels.
Please read your own references: look at your reference quotation from Irenaeus and then look at Pagel's supposed quote from Irenaeus in your original post - she misquotes him and states he said "There actually are only four authentic gospels. And this is obviously true because there are four corners of the universe....". It gives a completely different almost "cart before the horse" rationale. But regardless of Irenaeus statements, the point is that the four gospels were the accepted gospels long before Irenaeus made his statement, he is just reflecting that acceptance as he was supporting his arguments against the so called Gnostic gospels that some people were attempting to declare as valid, despite their obvious late writing and deceptive authorship. And again, Pagels is simply showing her bias as she herself is an adherent to the Gnostic ideas.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#8113 Apr 29, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is the essay that I referened along with the contributors, all of which appear to be Professors, and no where is mentioned Dominic Crossan. Obviously you do not agree with these folks, which simply highlights, again, my point that Christianity is not a unified religion, but a religion of many sects each with their own interpretation.
Emergence of the Four Gospel Canon

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows...
Elaine H. Pagels:
The Harrington Spear Paine Foundation Professor of Religion Princeton University
L. Michael White:
Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin
Elizabeth Clark:
John Carlisle Kilgo Professor of Religion and Director of the Graduate Program in Religion Duke University
Harold W. Attridge:
The Lillian Claus Professor of New Testament Yale Divinity School
Allen D. Callahan:
New Testament, Harvard Divinity School

Since you did not provide a link to the quote I went looking for myself, if this is still not the exact quote, providing the correct context, then you will need to supply the reference.
It still sounds like a contrived argument for just four gospels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus
"But it is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the church has been scattered throughout the world, and since the 'pillar and ground' of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life, it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing incorruption on every side, and vivifying human afresh. From this fact, it is evident that the Logos, the fashioner demiourgos of all, he that sits on the cherubim and holds all things together, when he was manifested to humanity, gave us the gospel under four forms but bound together by one spirit." Against Heresies 3.11.8
Dominic Crossan was a contributor to the very program you referenced, I guess you didn't look any further. It helps identify the bias of the contributors. Am I supposed to be impressed by the titles of the contributors? The halls of academia are full of people with lovely titles who are so blinded by their biases that they have their conclusions written before they start any research. And Yale, Harvard and Duke divinity schools are known for their liberal take on theology.

Please look at the quote you got from wiki and the quote that Pagels claims came from Irenaeus - it is in the citation for the frontline piece you originally reference, so you should have seen the difference for yourself. She writes that Irenaeus stated: "There actually are only four authentic gospels. And this is OBVIOUSLY (emphasis mine) true because there are four corners...four winds....." She implies this was his rationale for saying only four gospels. There are two problems with this. First, it is backwards. Irenaeus is not saying that there are only four gospels because of the four winds, he is saying that it is "fitting" that there are four gospels, just as there are the four corners, four winds, etc. He is using the coincidence to illustrate, not as the basis.
Second, regardless of what he said, the existence of the Diatessaron (also referenced in your very first citation under L Michael White) proves that by the mid 2nd century the four gospels were the "accepted" gospels, Diatessaron means "through the four" and weaves the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John together into one story. Irenaeus statements 10-20 years later are merely a reflection of the accepted view of the early church, not a declaration of his that "by my authority, there are only four gospels". He was fighting the belief by some that the obviously later written and falsely credited Gnostic gospels should be included. And this again goes to Pagel's bias as she herself is an adherent to the Gnostic belief.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#8114 Apr 29, 2013
my apologies for the repeat, when I posted the first time, it didn't show up and after five minutes of nothing, I recreated it. Now they are both there.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#8115 Apr 29, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
Dominic Crossan was another contributer to the PBS special YOU listed, did you not even look at what you referenced? What was your point in listing the contributors, are we supposed to be impressed by their titles?
==========
Please read your own references: look at your reference quotation from Irenaeus and then look at Pagel's supposed quote from Irenaeus in your original post - she misquotes him and states he said "There actually are only four authentic gospels. And this is obviously true because there are four corners of the universe....". It gives a completely different almost "cart before the horse" rationale. But regardless of Irenaeus statements, the point is that the four gospels were the accepted gospels long before Irenaeus made his statement, he is just reflecting that acceptance as he was supporting his arguments against the so called Gnostic gospels that some people were attempting to declare as valid, despite their obvious late writing and deceptive authorship. And again, Pagels is simply showing her bias as she herself is an adherent to the Gnostic ideas.
You were responding to a specific post of mine, which referenced a specific essay. Now the essay is certianly part of a larger progam, and there may well have been other contributors, but there were not part of the referenced essay.

Well let's see, Elaine Pagel also offers this:

Some of the leaders were concerned to say, "Well, which of these writings can be read in church? Which are the right ones? Which are the best ones?"

Should this be considered a direct quote from unamed sources?

I suspect that Elaine was paraphrasing Irenaeus, and frankly I see little difference in the paraphrase and the actual substance of the true quote.

The stories about Jesus were originally part of an oral tradition that were eventually fashioned into a written narrative as the movement grew. As the movement grew there had to be an authoritative decision for what was official and what was not. It always helps to bolster an argument by declaring the opposing view as heretical (whether in religion or politics).

I fail to see how examining the source and origin of the New Testament books is a threat, but apparently it is to some.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#8116 Apr 29, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
You were responding to a specific post of mine, which referenced a specific essay. Now the essay is certianly part of a larger progam, and there may well have been other contributors, but there were not part of the referenced essay.
Well let's see, Elaine Pagel also offers this:
Some of the leaders were concerned to say, "Well, which of these writings can be read in church? Which are the right ones? Which are the best ones?"
Should this be considered a direct quote from unamed sources?
I suspect that Elaine was paraphrasing Irenaeus, and frankly I see little difference in the paraphrase and the actual substance of the true quote.
The stories about Jesus were originally part of an oral tradition that were eventually fashioned into a written narrative as the movement grew. As the movement grew there had to be an authoritative decision for what was official and what was not. It always helps to bolster an argument by declaring the opposing view as heretical (whether in religion or politics).
I fail to see how examining the source and origin of the New Testament books is a threat, but apparently it is to some.
The essay is a reflection of and contains excerpts from the show, which is what the site is referencing. It is illustrative to see the one sided view held by the contributors, as opposed to having a balance of opposing viewpoints. The uninformed watching without the balance can easily come away with a false view of how the canon was developed and believe it truly was arbitrary. And such a supposedly "respected" scholar should know that if you are going to put something in quotation marks and present it as a quotation, it had better be accurate - otherwise you are ignoring scholastic integrity by literally "putting words in someone's mouth". Nor does it reflect the actual substance of the true quote. The gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are reliably dated to within 20-40 years of Jesus crucifixion, John within 50-60. There would still have been eyewitnesses living who could refute the writings, especially in the case of the first three. On the other hand the Gnostic gospels were written 200-300 years later. There is absolutely no threat in examining the sources and origin of the New Testament. The problem is when those with an agenda hostile to the New Testament continue to try and undermine it with arguments that are weak in their scholarship, but who will always find a voice to trumpet their arguments due to a like minded bias, rather than on respect for the scholarship.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#8117 Apr 29, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
...It is illustrative to see the one sided view held by the contributors, as opposed to having a balance of opposing viewpoints. The uninformed watching without the balance can easily come away with a false view of how the canon was developed and believe it truly was arbitrary.

...The gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are reliably dated to within 20-40 years of Jesus crucifixion, John within 50-60. There would still have been eyewitnesses living who could refute the writings, especially in the case of the first three. On the other hand the Gnostic gospels were written 200-300 years later.

There is absolutely no threat in examining the sources and origin of the New Testament. The problem is when those with an agenda hostile to the New Testament continue to try and undermine it with arguments that are weak in their scholarship, but who will always find a voice to trumpet their arguments due to a like minded bias, rather than on respect for the scholarship.
Thankfully, we have you to tell us who has a hostile agenda and weak scholarship, and who undermines and who does not. Sounds like we've heard all of that before on these very pages.

From Jesus to Chruist
The First Christians
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows...

This FRONTLINE series is an intellectual and visual guide to the new and controversial historical evidence which challenges familiar assumptions about the life of Jesus and the epic rise of Christianity.

The Gospel of Mark
L. Michael White:
Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows...

According to tradition, the author, Mark is not an apostle himself. Not one of the original disciples, but rather the follower of one of them. Traditionally, he's supposed to be the disciple of Peter .... We don't know exactly where this Mark was or where he actually wrote. However, tradition places him at Rome, but one more tradition also has him located at Alexandria, and it may be the case that the story that we call Mark's gospel, which supposedly derived from Peter, is also an example of this passing on of an oral tradition. It owes its history to Mark, whether Mark is the person who actually wrote it down or not.

Mark's is the first of the written gospels. It's really the one that establishes... the life of Jesus as a story form. It develops a narrative from his early career, through ...the main points of his life and culminat[es] in his death. And, as such, it sets the pattern for all the later gospel traditions. We know that both Matthew and Luke used Mark, as a source in their composition and it's also probable that even John knew something of Mark in tradition. So, Mark is really the one that sets the stage for all the later Christian gospel writings.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows...
...Whether Mark himself was a gentile or a Jew remains a subject of scholarly debate. So, too, does the place of his composition; some scholars think that he wrote his work in Rome, others that he wrote in Alexandria, still others suggest Syria. The way Mark tells the story suggests that his audience lived outside the homeland, spoke Greek rather than Aramaic, and was not familiar with Jewish customs. While there is disagreement about where Mark wrote, there is a consensus about when he wrote: he probably composed his work in or about the year 70 CE, after the failure of the First Jewish Revolt and the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple at the hands of the Romans. That destruction shapes how Mark tells his story.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#8118 Apr 29, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
...The gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are reliably dated to within 20-40 years of Jesus crucifixion, John within 50-60. There would still have been eyewitnesses living who could refute the writings, especially in the case of the first three. On the other hand the Gnostic gospels were written 200-300 years later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Gospels
The Gnostic Gospels are a collection of about fifty-two ancient texts based upon the teachings of several spiritual leaders including Jesus, written from the 2nd to the 4th century AD. The sayings of the Gospel of Thomas, compiled circa 140, may include some traditions even older than the gospels of the New Testament, possibly as early as the second half of the first century.
==========
The Gospel of Matthew
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows...
Helmut Koester:
John H. Morison Professor of New Testament Studies and Winn Professor of Ecclesiastical History Harvard Divinity School

The Gospel of Matthew is concerned with the position of these early Christian churches within Israel, or in its relationship to what we call Judaism. And these are concerns that belong to the time after the fall of Jerusalem. How do these Christian communities, who don't even call themselves Christian, and probably don't even have a consciousness that they're something different than Israel, how do they relate to others who claim to be Israel? And it's very important that Jesus for Matthew is fully a man from Israel. Therefore, Matthew begins his gospel by taking all the genealogy of Jesus; he wanted to show that Jesus was the son of David, and now traces this back to Abraham. For Matthew, Jesus is not the son of David, but he is the son of Abraham. He is truly a man from Israel. And thus Jesus' teaching also is one that is fully in the legitimate tradition of Israel's teaching of the law. So in Matthew, not in any other gospel, we have Jesus saying he has not come to dissolve the law but to fulfill it. And that no part of the law will disappear....

Matthew has some hesitation to show that this is also the community for the gentiles. It is clear that yes, there is the gospel for the gentiles. The disciples at the end of the gospels are sent out to all nations, and are asked to teach them what Jesus had taught the disciples. That is, teach them also that Jesus had not come to dissolve the law. Now apparently the understanding of the law is not identical with that of emerging Judaism after the destruction of Jerusalem. Because notice there's no emphasis on ritual law. No circumcision, no Sabbath commandment. So the ritual commandments of the law have disappeared. But nevertheless, Matthew wants this to be understood as a legitimate new interpretation of the law of Moses.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows...
The evangelist who composed the gospel of Matthew was probably a Jewish Christian, possibly a scribe. The historical evidence suggests that he wrote between 80 and 90 CE and addressed his work to a community in conflict: Jewish Christians who were being pushed out of the larger communities, located in northern Galilee or Syria. These communities were led by Pharisees, rabbis who assumed leadership of the Jewish people in the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem.

Since: Jul 12

Villa Rica, GA

#8119 Apr 29, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
<quoted text>
Alright BigDummy1 - Let's talk about your links.
co2science.org IS the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. It says so right on the homepage of the link you provided.
So WHO exactly funds The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change?
Exxon Mobil and other undisclosed donars who they refuse to name.
So exactly WHO runs the place? Craig Idso runs the place, along with his father and brother. Interestingly enough, Craig Idso had some previous jobs, all in the energy field, including Peabody Energy who is the largest private-sector coal-company in the world. Imagine that!?! He also worked for the nice-sounding company "The Science and Public Policy Institute", which sounds all official, and is run by a guy who is a policy advisor to Republican congressmen.
There's more. Lot's more.
But what is clearly going on here is that large coal and oil interests are paying for conflicting "science" to support Republican Congressmen who also take huge campaign contributions from big energy, and then give Big Energy plenty of votes in their interest and lots of tax breaks.
You're being hoodwinked. Bamboozled. Fooled. There is no "controversy" about man-made global climate change that isn't being paid for by big-energy and supported by Republican policy makers who are paid-for by big-energy.
This isn't conspiracy stuff. This isn't conspiracy stuff, it's what is happening right now, and it's fairly easy to follow.
Big Energy with billions of dollars at stake is paying for people to say that climate change isn't real.
And you're fool enough to buy into it.
I think your the dummy as I follow the money trail. Everything that you said about me is actually about you. You would believe in anything as long as it fits your agenda. You never mention all the fake and fraudulent scientific reports that are passed off as the gospel truth. No matter what I place on the forum as a link you will and do always say well just look at your source as it is in favor of,or owned by , or is lying, or that person is biased, blah,blah, blah.
Here are three more links for people such as yourself to read and than say the same thing all over again that you just posted me. I don't really think that you are a dummy as I know that you have a fairly high IQ and that this is just your agenda to say and do these things. I am not even sure that you actually believe in many of the things that you write. Even if you don't, you must continue on with your cause, hell or high water.

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/ipcc-scientists-c...

http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/07/18/n...
Informed Opinion

Naples, FL

#8120 Apr 29, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>There is no requirement at all that a physician go through the path you mentioned. I know some who went to private schools their parents paid for, private colleges their parents paid for, private medical schools that they either paid for or in some cases served in the military to help pay for medical school. But even if they did go to public schools throughout their educational process, it is irrelevant. NO ONE is saying there should be NO government involvement in ANYTHING, that is both a stupid and fallacious argument you bring up to try and undercut those you disagree with when you have nothing better to support your position. Basically a straw man argument, typically used by those who recognize the weakness of their stance.
Amazing,

Mommy paid for private school; and
Mommy paid for college; and
Mommy paid for medical school;

There's a self-made man.

or

The taxpayer paid for college; and
The taxpayer paid for medical school;

There's a self-made man.

Not to mention that there is no such thing as a "private" school.

All schools accept tuition and room & board money from students using Federal Student Aid and Federally Insured Student Loans - which means the taxpayers still support the school by providing the money it receives.

That is such a lucrative business, there's been an explosion in the number of "private" schools supported by Federally subsidized and guaranteed loans and grants.

Taxpayers subsidize "private" schools to the tune of billions.

"Contributions" to them are tax deductible - so we taxpayers get to make up the lost revenue.

In addition, to slurping up that Federally funded student loan and grants money, Jerry Falwell's Liberty University and all other "private colleges" pitch the tax deductions just attending their colleges provide:

Per Liberty University:

Just use the 'Ol 1098-T such as the Lifetime Learning Tax Credit, Hope Scholarship, Tax Credit, or the Above-the-Line Tax Deduction for Qualified Higher Education Expenses - See the IRS website for more information.

Qualified charges include tuition and mandatory fees a student is required to pay in order to be enrolled at or attend Liberty University.

Find me a college that doesn't slurp up all that Federal money, and make us subsidize their students, and we'll take that part of the argument seriously.

Since: Jul 12

Villa Rica, GA

#8121 Apr 29, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Real Climate
Climate Science from Climate Scientists
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...
Meet The Climate Denial Machine
Blog November 28, 2012 3:16 PM EST JILL FITZSIMMONS
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28/meet-...
Despite the overwhelming consensus among climate experts that human activity is contributing to rising global temperatures, 66 percent of Americans incorrectly believe there is "a lot of disagreement among scientists about whether or not global warming is happening." The conservative media has fueled this confusion by distorting scientific research, hyping faux-scandals, and giving voice to groups funded by industries that have a financial interest in blocking action on climate change. Meanwhile, mainstream media outlets have shied away from the "controversy" over climate change and have failed to press U.S. policymakers on how they will address this global threat. When climate change is discussed, mainstream outlets sometimes strive for a false balance that elevates marginal voices and enables them to sow doubt about the science even in the face of mounting evidence.
Here, Media Matters looks at how conservative media outlets give industry-funded "experts" a platform, creating a polarized misunderstanding of climate science.
Your just more of the same bs that flows from the news media all the time. Both of you are propaganda machines trying to push forward a bold face lie.
Scientist have been posting in their latest studies that if anything is happening it is global cooling. So now you tree hugging, EPA, global warming support people are screaming, no it is really climate change! You and all your dumbass followers are just so full of it. Do you actually think Al Gore is going to share his billions of dollars that he makes off Carbon Credits with you? No he isn't.
BTW climate change is and has always been going on since the earth was formed. From a very warm earth to mini ice ages, to actual full blown ice ages where ice cover much of the earth. All this happened long before man ever opened the first factory or started driving automobiles. Climate change continues to change daily.
People are starting to wake up to all the lies and deceptions about global warming and now you guys want to start harping about climate change. Continue on as people are now laughing at you, as long as you don't get your greedy fingers into Americas rising energy cost. Lets face it as it is all about money. The EPA is one of your huge allies in your endeavors to start a carbon credit market,starting a carbon tax, and to raise energy cost by using EPA regulations.
I already posted links to ChickenButt and I will not do so again.
ChicknButt

Douglasville, GA

#8122 Apr 29, 2013
Bigdave1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I think your the dummy as I follow the money trail. Everything that you said about me is actually about you. You would believe in anything as long as it fits your agenda. You never mention all the fake and fraudulent scientific reports that are passed off as the gospel truth. No matter what I place on the forum as a link you will and do always say well just look at your source as it is in favor of,or owned by , or is lying, or that person is biased, blah,blah, blah.
Here are three more links for people such as yourself to read and than say the same thing all over again that you just posted me. I don't really think that you are a dummy as I know that you have a fairly high IQ and that this is just your agenda to say and do these things. I am not even sure that you actually believe in many of the things that you write. Even if you don't, you must continue on with your cause, hell or high water.
http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative...
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ipcc-scientists-c...
http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/07/18/n...
Don't make me humiliate you again, if for no other reason I don't feel like typing it all up.

HUGE problems of monumental proportions exist with all 3 of your new links. Quit being a sucker.
Informed Opinion

Naples, FL

#8123 Apr 29, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>If a Great Flood did happen, it is hardly surprising that more than one account would appear. An interesting difference though is that if a boat were built according to the Gilgamesh account it would basically be a cube that would be rolled over and over in the water. Conversely, if a boat were built following the Biblical description, it would be completely seaworthy.

And why in the world would it surprise you that the Koran (or Quran) would bear similarity to the Bible. The Quran wasn't written until the 7th century AD and took much of its content from the Torah - it just changed the emphasis from the lineage of Abraham to Isaac and substituted the lineage of Abraham to Ishmael, thus claiming that the Arabs are actually God's chosen people.
It surprises me a great deal because with all the furor and problems related to Muslim vs. Christians vs. Jews vs. Muslims vs. Christians vs. Muslims, etc., you'd think the teachings as to acceptable human behavior would differ much more substantially than they do.

As to Noah's Ark - i don't believe it actually occurred, rather, I consider it an allegorical attempt to convey a moral message, so I never really world how big a boat would need to be to hold some 500,000 species (X 2), along with cages, containers, and food for all.

I also never worried about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, or how, as was posed on Saturday Night Live, "What if Eleanor Roosevelt could fly ?"

Since: Jul 12

Villa Rica, GA

#8124 Apr 29, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't make me humiliate you again, if for no other reason I don't feel like typing it all up.
HUGE problems of monumental proportions exist with all 3 of your new links. Quit being a sucker.
The feelings are mutual.

Since: Jul 12

Villa Rica, GA

#8125 Apr 29, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't make me humiliate you again, if for no other reason I don't feel like typing it all up.
HUGE problems of monumental proportions exist with all 3 of your new links. Quit being a sucker.
Besides me feeling the same way toward you, that you feel toward me, I never think that you are humiliating anyone but yourself.
Bored

Dahlonega, GA

#8126 Apr 29, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't make me humiliate you again, if for no other reason I don't feel like typing it all up.
HUGE problems of monumental proportions exist with all 3 of your new links. Quit being a sucker.
You have a pretty good sense of humor for a libtard.
I's there anyway you could impart it to that sourpuss gelding Oh my and that hyperactive hyperbolee IO? I think they lost more brain tissues from their lobotomy than you.
Just saying.
ChicknButt

Douglasville, GA

#8127 Apr 29, 2013
Bigdave1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your just more of the same bs that flows from the news media all the time. Both of you are propaganda machines trying to push forward a bold face lie.
Scientist have been posting in their latest studies that if anything is happening it is global cooling. So now you tree hugging, EPA, global warming support people are screaming, no it is really climate change! You and all your dumbass followers are just so full of it. Do you actually think Al Gore is going to share his billions of dollars that he makes off Carbon Credits with you? No he isn't.
BTW climate change is and has always been going on since the earth was formed. From a very warm earth to mini ice ages, to actual full blown ice ages where ice cover much of the earth. All this happened long before man ever opened the first factory or started driving automobiles. Climate change continues to change daily.
People are starting to wake up to all the lies and deceptions about global warming and now you guys want to start harping about climate change. Continue on as people are now laughing at you, as long as you don't get your greedy fingers into Americas rising energy cost. Lets face it as it is all about money. The EPA is one of your huge allies in your endeavors to start a carbon credit market,starting a carbon tax, and to raise energy cost by using EPA regulations.
I already posted links to ChickenButt and I will not do so again.
BigDave, not only is that flat-out wrong, it's also insane. It's simply not what's happening in the world.

Your 30,000 scientists suing Al Gore is fake news from 2008. Get it? It's fake! Your "Before it's News" link states they got their info from "Maggies Notebook" who has distanced themselves from it. http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2013/04/al-gor...

The other one is from Alex Jones. The same guy who hosts "infowars" and prisonplanet.com , both notoreous right-wing whacko propaganda sites, and who claimed the US. Govt. was behind the Oklahoma City bombings, 9/11, and that the moon landing was fake.

The third article is based on a paper by Nicola Scafetta, who never could produce the computer code required to back up his assertions. He's widely considered a 3rd rate scientist who got his undergraduate degree from the University of Pisa and his PHD from the University of North Texas. He blames the Challenger explosion on "flawed data" to explain away any real research being done by real scientists.

The Tuscon Citizen hasn't been a newspaper since 2009 when it shut down. It was investigated by the US Justice Department and the Arizona Attorney General. It's now only an online "blog". Other links on the website say that "burning coal will prevent global warming".

You're brain is turning to mush by reading this ridiculous drivel. I'm not even kidding.
Bored

Dahlonega, GA

#8128 Apr 29, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
my apologies for the repeat, when I posted the first time, it didn't show up and after five minutes of nothing, I recreated it. Now they are both there.
Both are good posts. Don't you get tired of making an ass out of him?
Bored

Dahlonega, GA

#8129 Apr 29, 2013
Maybe we dont have to worry about socialism taking over, we can just turn the country over to muslims courtesy of obama's administration.

"It is quite possible, though, the FBI agents who interviewed Tsarnaev on both occasions failed to understand what they saw and heard because that's what they were trained to do. As The Washington Examiner's Mark Flatten reported last year, FBI training manuals were systematically purged in 2011 of all references to Islam that were judged offensive by a specially created five-member panel. Three of the panel members were Muslim advocates from outside the FBI, which still refuses to make public their identities. Nearly 900 pages were removed from the manuals as a result of that review. Several congressmen were allowed to review the removed materials in 2012, on condition that they not disclose what they read to their staffs, the media, or the general public."
Bored

Dahlonega, GA

#8130 Apr 29, 2013
Bigdave1 wrote:
<quoted text>

Scientist have been posting in their latest studies that if anything is happening it is global cooling. So now you tree hugging, EPA, global warming support people are screaming, no it is really climate change! You and all your dumbass followers are just so full of it. Do you actually think Al Gore is going to share his billions of dollars that he makes off Carbon Credits with you? No he isn't.
BTW climate change is and has always been going on since the earth was formed. From a very warm earth to mini ice ages, to actual full blown ice ages where ice cover much of the earth. All this happened long before man ever opened the first factory or started driving automobiles. Climate change continues to change daily.

People are starting to wake up to all the lies and deceptions about global warming and now you guys want to start harping about climate change.

Dave, the libtards dont know there was an ice age in history. dont tell them facts, they get confused from them.

Heck, they didnt know it wasnt "global warming" until I told them it was "global climate change" which confused them badly. Since they now can say "climate change", it gives them and out and they can say anytime the Earth cools or gets hot, it's because of man made changes. See, they go both ways in more ways than one.
Informed Opinion

Lehigh Acres, FL

#8131 Apr 29, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
<quoted text>Now let's talk about that corporation you support. Did you know that Wendys has funded the Center for Consumer Freedom?

Who is the "Center for Consumer Freedom"? It SOUNDS like a good thing, doesn't it?

They're a fake "grassroots" group that fights regulation of the food and beverage industries. More paid-for corporate propaganda influencing Republican politics. They have also been a significant funder of ALEC, a group that has clearly established a "collaboration between multinational corporations and conservative state legislators."

Quit eating at Wendy's. Both Democracy by the People and your butt-hole will thank you.
It's great Wendy's supports Americans freedom to experience botulism for the consumer, and low wage benefit free working conditions.

It just happens to be another reason American worker productivity is at an all time high, profits have exploded through the roof, and working class Americans real incomes have dropped.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Citizen Sound-Off Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Who do you support for Governor in Texas in 2010? (Oct '10) 1 min What I say xoxo 18,763
OK Health Care Freedom Amendment, State Questio... (Oct '10) 5 min DoesntMatter 76,180
Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Alabama i... (Oct '10) 7 min iamangttia 285
Who do you support for Attorney General in Flor... (Oct '10) 18 min Liberal forever 2,141
Who do you support for Governor in Tennessee in... (Oct '10) 26 min WTSenior 152,383
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 34 min DITCH MITCH 155,478
Who do you support for U.S. Senate in North Car... (Oct '10) 37 min Waco 60,187

People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE