Prove there's a god.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#683273 Jan 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a tip:
Don't break the law and the cops leave you alone.
Ha! Here is a more realistic tip - be a white, middle to upper class person, and the cops leave you alone unless they have nothing better to do.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#683275 Jan 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No it isn't, it helps keep drugs off the streets.
Would you prefer drug addicts and dealers go free to terrorize your neighborhood?
It helps keep drugs off the streets? Really? Then why is any drug I want available to me if I look hard enough? Why has drug use and availability not decreased in decades of "war?"

Also, if anything, it's the cops terrorizing people. Busting down doors and shooting people is scarier than a peaceful drug transaction. Any "drug violence" caused by dealers or addicts is a direct result of the drug war. Dealers sometimes fight to secure control over the highly lucrative market that exists because of the drug war, and addicts sometimes steal because of the incredibly high mark ups that result from the drug war. Crime by addicts rises proportionally with the price of their drug of choice. Not excusing this type of stuff, just putting it in context. You have a problem seeing life in anything other than black and white.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#683277 Jan 6, 2014
timn17 wrote:
Ha! Here is a more realistic tip - be a white, middle to upper class person, and the cops leave you alone unless they have nothing better to do.
You racist pig.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#683278 Jan 6, 2014
timn17 wrote:
It helps keep drugs off the streets? Really? Then why is any drug I want available to me if I look hard enough? Why has drug use and availability not decreased in decades of "war?"
Because the people outnumber the cops like a million to one.
Also, if anything, it's the cops terrorizing people.
HAHA!!

"terrorizing"? Who? Drug addicts? Oh well.

Maybe they should stop breaking the law.
Busting down doors and shooting people is scarier than a peaceful drug transaction.
"illegal" drug transaction, you mean.
Any "drug violence" caused by dealers or addicts is a direct result of the drug war.
That's as far as I could get.

Of course the violence doesn't come from drug abuse.....

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#683281 Jan 6, 2014
irecknso wrote:
<quoted text> here in kentucky a non-violent offender (drug dealer selln pot) will get more time in prison than a baby raper! believe that as i have seen it, i done quite a bit of time and seen 1 baby raper come back thru twice before i got out once! so ur sayn, keep the guy selln a joint locked up but let that baby raper go? well u wouldn't be the first to say it, THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY say's it also! now how messed up is that!
How is that possible?

In Kentucky:

First-degree rape has a minimum sentence of 20 years, max of 50.

Second-degree rape is 5-10 years.

Third-degree rape 1-5 years.

Whoever you knew that got sentenced more time fro drug dealing than a rapist must've been dealing less than 1000 feet of a school. In that case, the dealer should be fried.
Shaddap

Dallas, TX

#683282 Jan 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No it isn't, it helps keep drugs off the streets.
Would you prefer drug addicts and dealers go free to terrorize your neighborhood?
Haha. Hyperbole at its worst. End Prohibition. It really is that simple. You're proof that such an end doesn't compel people to begin imbibing and those that are going to have the underground economy as a means already. Bring it into the light, tax it, regulate it. Stop enriching criminals and private prison companies.
Shaddap

Dallas, TX

#683283 Jan 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You racist pig.
There was nothing racist about that statement.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#683284 Jan 6, 2014
Shaddap wrote:
There was nothing racist about that statement.
"be a white, middle to upper class person, and the cops leave you alone"

Really?

Nothing racist about that?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#683285 Jan 6, 2014
Shaddap wrote:
<quoted text>Haha. Hyperbole at its worst. End Prohibition. It really is that simple. You're proof that such an end doesn't compel people to begin imbibing and those that are going to have the underground economy as a means already. Bring it into the light, tax it, regulate it. Stop enriching criminals and private prison companies.
Make what legal?

Are you talking about just pot or all drugs?
Shaddap

Dallas, TX

#683286 Jan 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a tip:
Don't break the law and the cops leave you alone.
Really, that's your tip. Not only is it not true, it's ridiculous. I know a very fine conservative gentleman. Not a lawbreaker by any means. One day he was driving to Bass Hall with his wife to see an Elvis impersonator. Suddenly he was surrounded by six patrol cars. He pulled over. He was forced from his car at gunpoint, six of them to be exact. They made his wife walk backwards in high heels to be cuffed. They searched his vehicle without consent or a warrant while he lay prone in a hot parking lot with nothing shielding his face from the macadam.

Their story? Someone called 911 and claimed a pickup truck the same model and color as his had waved a gun at them miles east of his home and he was proceeding west. He had a prominent sticker in his back window of a sports team. No mention was made of that. The lead officer claimed they had his license number. The license number in the report, which he requested later, did not match his. He was terrorized by the police and had committed no crime. His Constitutional rights were violated without just cause. He had committed no crime. He is still trying to reconcile his law and order stance with this gross miscarriage of police power. This is a man who made the statement that Treyvon Martin was "where he didn't belong" which justified Zimmerman's actions. He is still trying to reconcile that stance with this egregious violation of his rights and the jack-booted thuggery of the police. Not breaking the law is not insurance against being terrorized by the police.

It has happened to me in the past, as well. Twice in San Juan, once in Atlantic City, and once at a state park in Pennsylvania. At no time was I violating any laws and twice I was prone on the street with a service revolver to my head.

You really are a dimwit.
Shaddap

Dallas, TX

#683287 Jan 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a tip:
Don't break the law and the cops leave you alone.
In recent years, SWAT teams have been called out to:

1. perform regulatory alcohol inspections at a bar in Manassas Park, Va.

2. to perform license inspections at barbershops in Orlando, Fla

3. to raid a gay bar in Atlanta where police suspected customers and employees were having public sex. A federal investigation later found that Atlanta police had made up the allegations of public sex.

Which laws were being broken in these three instances to require interdiction by paramilitary forces?

Go!

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#683288 Jan 6, 2014
Shaddap wrote:
<quoted text>In recent years, SWAT teams have been called out to:
1. perform regulatory alcohol inspections at a bar in Manassas Park, Va.
2. to perform license inspections at barbershops in Orlando, Fla
3. to raid a gay bar in Atlanta where police suspected customers and employees were having public sex. A federal investigation later found that Atlanta police had made up the allegations of public sex.
Which laws were being broken in these three instances to require interdiction by paramilitary forces?
Go!
1. To prevent underage drinking of alcohol.

2. To make sure the business owners are following the law.

3. Public sex is illegal...

Do you condone underage drinking, illegal business practices or public sex?
Shaddap

Dallas, TX

#683289 Jan 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a tip:
Don't break the law and the cops leave you alone.
You're a colossal Topix failure, 24-7. Not only is the above statement ridiculous, as illustrated, but you conveniently miss another post where your rabid whining a are proven to be nothing more than ludicrous nonsense.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
He also exterminated Christians, closed churches and replaced the Christian Bible with Mein Kampf in the schools.
Super Christian, eh?
*Citation needed. Your claim of Mein Kampf replacing school Bibles is patently false. Your claim that Christians were "exterminated" for their Christianity is patently false. Your understanding of the Deutsche Evangelische Kirche is woefully inept, but, any casual observer of your claims is used to that.

When you call Hitler a neo-pagan you are quoting William Donohue quoting Pat Buchanan quoting the unreliable Snyder. That's a whole lot of insane telephone game.

He was as Christian as you are, maybe more so, for he murdered people with Biblical justification. You're way behind the power curve on that one.

Matthew 10:21
Matthew 5:17
Matthew 11:20
Revelations 19:13-15, 20-21
Matthew 3:10-12
Matthew 10:34-36
Matthew 24:37
Mark 6:11
Romans 5:9, 12

You'd better get busy.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#683290 Jan 6, 2014
Shaddap wrote:
<quoted text>Really, that's your tip. Not only is it not true, it's ridiculous. I know a very fine conservative gentleman. Not a lawbreaker by any means. One day he was driving to Bass Hall with his wife to see an Elvis impersonator. Suddenly he was surrounded by six patrol cars. He pulled over. He was forced from his car at gunpoint, six of them to be exact. They made his wife walk backwards in high heels to be cuffed. They searched his vehicle without consent or a warrant while he lay prone in a hot parking lot with nothing shielding his face from the macadam.
Their story? Someone called 911 and claimed a pickup truck the same model and color as his had waved a gun at them miles east of his home and he was proceeding west. He had a prominent sticker in his back window of a sports team. No mention was made of that. The lead officer claimed they had his license number. The license number in the report, which he requested later, did not match his. He was terrorized by the police and had committed no crime. His Constitutional rights were violated without just cause. He had committed no crime. He is still trying to reconcile his law and order stance with this gross miscarriage of police power. This is a man who made the statement that Treyvon Martin was "where he didn't belong" which justified Zimmerman's actions. He is still trying to reconcile that stance with this egregious violation of his rights and the jack-booted thuggery of the police. Not breaking the law is not insurance against being terrorized by the police.
It has happened to me in the past, as well. Twice in San Juan, once in Atlantic City, and once at a state park in Pennsylvania. At no time was I violating any laws and twice I was prone on the street with a service revolver to my head.
You really are a dimwit.
Would you prefer the cops did nothing about a driver waiving a gun around?

I applaud them for their courage.
Shaddap

Dallas, TX

#683291 Jan 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
1. To prevent underage drinking of alcohol.
2. To make sure the business owners are following the law.
3. Public sex is illegal...
Do you condone underage drinking, illegal business practices or public sex?
Oh, 24-7, what happened? Did you suddenly lose the Johnny Pedantic shtick?

You wrote:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a tip:
Don't break the law and the cops leave you alone.
I then asked...

In recent years, SWAT teams have been called out to:

1. perform regulatory alcohol inspections at a bar in Manassas Park, Va.

2. to perform license inspections at barbershops in Orlando, Fla

3. to raid a gay bar in Atlanta where police suspected customers and employees were having public sex. A federal investigation later found that Atlanta police had made up the allegations of public sex.

Which laws were being broken in these three instances to require interdiction by paramilitary forces?

Go!

And you responded with utter nonsense. The answer is that no laws were being broken.

1. Regulatory checks do not imply laws were being broken. Why was a paramilitary force dispatched to conduct regulatory checks? Prevention? Bwahahahaha. You really are an idiot.

2. SWAT teams are necessary to inspect barbershops? Man, you are a moron.

3. The police admitted they lied about their justification that public sex was occurring. Either your reading comprehension is lacking or you are being willfully obtuse. Either way, it paints you as a Moron in the First Degree.

Your position is untenable but you just can't ever admit when you are being ridiculous. I understand. That would take more time than you waste on Topix.
Shaddap

Dallas, TX

#683292 Jan 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you prefer the cops did nothing about a driver waiving a gun around?
I applaud them for their courage.
Courage? He wasn't the driver, idiot. He didn't have a gun. They lied about his license number and the vehicle description. It's only January 6th and you're already in the lead for the Topix Idiot of 2014 award. There were six of them. Guns drawn. Lying. Courage? Bwahahahahaha. Besides, in Texas it is legal to possess a firearm in a vehicle and to brandish it. So much for your gun-nut love. Idiot.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#683293 Jan 6, 2014
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>It has happened many times. And oftentimes they make mistakes and raid the wrong house entirely. They've raided medical marijuana patients, state sanctioned medical grow operations, etc. This is ignoring the fact that raiding anyone for any type of drug use is outrageous.
I always like to be a lot more general rather than single out any one single freedom that the government violates our right to engage in. And with RR you always have to qualify an answer with things like peaceful and consenting or he will take it to its illogical extreme. I like to say that government law enforcement officials preven0 consenting adults from engaging in peaceful activities with other consenting adults. If you say something normal like people should be free to do what they want, RR will say you are saying you have the freedom to rape children. So one has to spell it out for morons.

It would be some much better if RR would just grow up.
Shaddap

Dallas, TX

#683296 Jan 6, 2014
porter reincarnated wrote:
<quoted text>
Show us a forum where you are bitching about the existence of leprechauns.
Youu are committing a gross logical fallacy here. No one is using leprechauns as a cudgel and trying to get their ridiculous, Bronze Age myths inserted into our schools and government.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#683297 Jan 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Isaiah 7:14
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, an] will call him Immanuel.
Matthew 1:23
“The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[a](which means “God with us”).
Few OT messianic prophecies carry more weight with apologists than the 7th chapter of Isaiah. Yet, like the 5th chapter of Micah it is not applicable to Jesus for many reasons, which an itemized analysis of each verse will show:

(a) "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (Isa. 7:14). In Hebrew this actually reads: "Behold the young woman is with child and bareth a son and calleth his name Immanuel." Christians changed "almah" which means "a young woman" in Hebrew to "virgin." The actual Hebrew word for virgin is "bethulah." Wherever the word "virgin" appears in the KJV of the OT, it comes from "bethulah." Isa. 7:14 and Gen. 24:43 are the only exceptions. Almah means maid, damsel, or a young woman, which is how it is translated in Ex. 2:8, Prov. 30:19 and Psalm 68:25 of the KJV. The RSV and the Jewish Masoretic texts correctly translate Isa. 7:14 as "a young woman." Mistranslators also changed "harah" from its correct meaning of "has concieved" (i.e. is) to "shall conceive." The word "harah" (conceived) is the Hebrew perfect tense, which in English represents past and completed action. There is not the remotest hint of future time. The correct translation, "is with child," is in the present tense and shows it pertains to a woman then existing.

(b) "...and shall call his name Immanuel" (Isa. 7:14). Jesus was never called Immanuel except by those who do so in order to fulfill the prophecy. Never was Jesus referred to as Immanuel in the NT, except in Matt. 1:23 ("and they shall call his name Immanuel"). Nowhere in Isaiah does Isaiah call Immanuel a Messiah or Jesus Christ the son of God or Savior or Holy Redeemer. They are never equated or related in any way. Moreover, according to Luke 1:31 ("And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS") he was to be called Jesus, not Immanuel.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#683298 Jan 6, 2014
(c) "Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know how to refuse the evil and choose the good" (Isa. 7:15). Applying this to Jesus seems irrational. How much sense would it make for Jesus (God) to learn to refuse evil and choose good?

(d) "For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings" (Isa. 7:16). It would make no sense for Ahaz to be concerned with a sign--the birth of Jesus--that wouldn't be realized until centuries after the death of Ahaz. This verse shows that the prophecy is not referring to a future child, but to a child then conceived, a child then existing, on the way to being born. The reference to the kings of Syria and Israel further shows the verse is referring to a child back then.

(e) "And I (Isaiah) got reliable witnesses, Uriah the priest and Zachariah the son of Jeberechiah, to attest for me. And I went to the prophetess and she concieved and bore a son. Then the Lord said to me, Call his name Maher-shalal-hashbaz; for before the child knows how to cry 'My Father' or 'My Mother,'..." (Isa. 8:2-4). Maher-shalal-hashbaz means "Make speed spoil, hasten to the prey." Some biblicists have concluded that Maher-shalal-hashaz, like Immanuel, is referring to Jesus. John Calvin correctly denied the validity of this belief by stating, "Isaiah having propheised about the coming of Christ in the former chapter (Isa. 7:14) many improperly explain this (Maher-shalal-hashbaz) also as relating to the same subject, that, endued with heavenly power, he (Jesus) came to spoil 'the prince of this world'(John 12:31) and therefore 'hastened to the prey.' This ingenuity is pleasing enough but cannot at all harmonize with the text;...." (Calvin's Commentaries, on Isaiah, Vol. I, p. 262). Several aspects of these verses show they are referring to a child born hundreds of years before Jesus:
(1) Isaiah clearly states Maher-shalal-hashbaz is his son.
(2) The birth must have occurred when the two witnesses lived, which was in the time of Ahaz; otherwise, how could they be witnesses?
(3) Past tense verbs such as "conceived" and "bore" show it occurred in the time of Ahaz.
(4) Where and when was Jesus ever called Maher-shalal-hashbaz, especially in the NT?
(5) Where in the Bible was Mary shown to be or ever called a prophetess?
(6) Many theologians, such as the Jewish scholar Troki, even feel Immanuel and Maher-shalal-hashbaz are the same child, because both names are followed by, "For before the child shall...." which are in perfect consonance.

(f) "And he (the king of Assyria) shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over,...and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel" (Isa. 8:8). Jesus never owned any land, so how could he be Immanuel? Moreover, the Assyrians stopped passing through Judah hundreds of years before Jesus was ever born. The verse implies that Immanuel was either a king or the son of a king, which Jesus was not.

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
American Soldiers - Duty, Honor, Country (Jun '11) 1 min USA-1 38,350
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 6 min Lbj 38,221
Greatest panties and/or bra experience (Jan '11) 13 min girls like boys i... 16
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 17 min Steve III 618,401
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 19 min bad bob 182,287
bangladeshi chele chai (Oct '15) 22 min Dipu 5
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 23 min Not religious 44,389
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 48 min Catholic24 641,591
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 1 hr Just Think 104,697
More from around the web