Them Phonies
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
If you mean the half a dozen men who own a controlling interest in 80% of it
Ummmm...I can think of more than half a dozen media barons off the top of my head.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
Exactly, way to respond directly to the previous post... you really showed him and proved your point of view. U DA MAN!
led mike wrote:
U DA MAN
Well....Yeah.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
The ruckus over the Rush Limbaugh "phony soldiers" statement is dying down. It
ought not to. There is a huge story here.
...
Less than two minutes after uttering the words "phony soldiers," Limbaugh elaborated on
the subject, explaining exactly what he meant by the term. He named one Jesse Macbeth
as an example of a phony soldier. Macbeth had become an overnight darling of the far
left, a self-described Iraq war veteran and Purple Heart recipient who posted a YouTube
video denouncing American military atrocities he'd witnessed.Except he was never awarded a Purple Heart. He was never in Iraq. In fact, he was never
in the military, period. He was tossed out of boot camp after four months. Macbeth is
now in prison serving a five-month term for falsifying Army records and applying
falsely for veterans' benefits. Limbaugh was right.
...
So the left returned with another charge: Limbaugh had used the plural, "phony
soldiers," therefore Limbaugh's sole example — Macbeth — was inadequate. So are there
any other "phony soldiers" out there? Jeffrey Sullivan, the U.S. attorney for the
Western District of Washington, thinks so. Besides prosecuting Macbeth, he's prosecuted
another five "phony soldiers." Jim O'Neill, the assistant inspector general for
investigations at the Veterans Administration, confirms that the federal government is
presently conducting another 60 such "stolen valor" cases. Rush was right, in
spades.The left must be entirely frustrated that they no longer completely control the media. It makes lies like this so difficult to gain traction.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
This [^] explains things nicely. The left is going to try to eliminate anyone capable of injecting the truth about them into the national conscious, so that they can inject as many uncontested lies as possible about the opposition. led Mike, Matthew, et al, are perfect examples of the end result. Hillary is a socialist pure and simple and she is a leader of a party best understood as Marxist. And that is all the debate should really be all about. The is nothing more complex about it than that. The right is generally honest about who and what they are and the principles they stand for. All the significant lies are coming from the left.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
-
This [^] explains things nicely. The left is going to try to eliminate anyone capable of injecting the truth about them into the national conscious, so that they can inject as many uncontested lies as possible about the opposition. led Mike, Matthew, et al, are perfect examples of the end result. Hillary is a socialist pure and simple and she is a leader of a party best understood as Marxist. And that is all the debate should really be all about. The is nothing more complex about it than that. The right is generally honest about who and what they are and the principles they stand for. All the significant lies are coming from the left.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
"the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer.” You're going to come with Religious references? Really? After God sent his Son to preach tolerance and forgiveness, which you completely oppose, and you want to go with Religious references to prove your point of view? You sure about that?
-
"the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer.” You're going to come with Religious references? Really? After God sent his Son to preach tolerance and forgiveness, which you completely oppose, and you want to go with Religious references to prove your point of view? You sure about that?
led mike wrote:
After God sent his Son to preach tolerance and forgiveness, which you completely oppose, and you want to go with Religious references to prove your point of view?
When did Jesus preach about tolerance? :confused:
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
This [^] explains things nicely. The left is going to try to eliminate anyone capable of injecting the truth about them into the national conscious, so that they can inject as many uncontested lies as possible about the opposition. led Mike, Matthew, et al, are perfect examples of the end result. Hillary is a socialist pure and simple and she is a leader of a party best understood as Marxist. And that is all the debate should really be all about. The is nothing more complex about it than that. The right is generally honest about who and what they are and the principles they stand for. All the significant lies are coming from the left.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
-
led mike wrote:
After God sent his Son to preach tolerance and forgiveness, which you completely oppose, and you want to go with Religious references to prove your point of view?
When did Jesus preach about tolerance? :confused:
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Red Stateler wrote:
When did Jesus preach about tolerance?
Oh I dunno.. that whole "cast the first stone" thing. Oh, and washing the leper's feet.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
-
This [^] explains things nicely. The left is going to try to eliminate anyone capable of injecting the truth about them into the national conscious, so that they can inject as many uncontested lies as possible about the opposition. led Mike, Matthew, et al, are perfect examples of the end result. Hillary is a socialist pure and simple and she is a leader of a party best understood as Marxist. And that is all the debate should really be all about. The is nothing more complex about it than that. The right is generally honest about who and what they are and the principles they stand for. All the significant lies are coming from the left.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
The most intellectually dishonest piece of trash I have ever read. I want my 30 seconds back.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
-
Red Stateler wrote:
When did Jesus preach about tolerance?
Oh I dunno.. that whole "cast the first stone" thing. Oh, and washing the leper's feet.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
Patrick Sears wrote:
Oh I dunno.. that whole "cast the first stone" thing. Oh, and washing the leper's feet.
That's not tolerance. That's love. Tolerance denotes that one must not condemn the sin for which those people were being stoned (because worldviews, regardless of their sinful nature, are to be given equal weight).
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
led mike wrote:
After God sent his Son to preach tolerance and forgiveness, which you completely oppose, and you want to go with Religious references to prove your point of view?
When did Jesus preach about tolerance? :confused:
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The right is generally honest about who and what they are and the principles they stand for.
Yeah, a "wide stance".
led mike wrote:
wide stance".
“Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this. They can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.” Damn, man, right on script! You're really good.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
-
"the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer.” You're going to come with Religious references? Really? After God sent his Son to preach tolerance and forgiveness, which you completely oppose, and you want to go with Religious references to prove your point of view? You sure about that?
What? That was Saul's reference, not mine.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Did you not see the :) in my response to Red. Perhaps I should have also used the Joke image instead of the general comment image in the subject. Lighten-up Matthew .
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Lighten-up Matthew .
If you read my posts on this thread you'd know I'm laughing so muc tha probably wouldn't be agood idea right now. I might float away :laugh:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Allow me to elaborate[^] on your madness.
Indicators of Delusion:
- The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force.
- That idea appears to exert an undue influence on his or her life, and the way of
life is often altered to an inexplicable extent. - Despite his profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or
suspicion when the patient is questioned about it. - The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief.
- There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange
things are happening to him, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly. - An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong
emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility. - The belief is, at the least, unlikely.
- The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other
elements of his psyche (psychology). - The delusion, if acted out, often leads to behaviors which are abnormal and/or out
of character, although perhaps understandable in the light of the delusional beliefs. - Individuals who know the patient will observe that his belief and behavior are
uncharacteristic and alien.
Features:
- It is a primary disorder.
- It is a stable disorder characterized by the presence of delusions to which the
patient clings with extraordinary tenacity. - The illness is chronic and frequently lifelong.
- The delusions are logically constructed and internally consistent.
- The delusions do not interfere with general logical reasoning (although within the
delusional system the logic is perverted) and there is usually no general disturbance
of behavior. If disturbed behavior does occur, it is directly related to the delusional
beliefs. - The individual experiences a heightened sense of self-reference. Events which, to
others, are nonsignificant are of enormous significance to him or her, and the
atmosphere surrounding the delusions is highly charged.
Types:
Persecutory Type: delusion that the person (or someone to whom the person is close) is
being malevolently treated in some way.Yup...That's you alright.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Well lets see Red are you on to something or just regurgitating garbage... 1. True of every believer in every religion for example from the point of view of any given agnostic/atheist. Non diagnostic of anything. 2. ditto 3. Doesn't sound like me. 4. Definitely doesn't sound like me. 5. Nothing 'strange' has happened to me in years. You must be thinking of someone else. 6. Not really. I let Zepellin and company rant their blasphemy all over the soap box and only occassionly step in and attempt to educate them with reasonable restraint. I haven't condemned anyone to eternal torment in ohh, ages and ages. Even your dangerous crazy neo-politics makes me laugh. 7. True of every belief from the point of view of every unbeliever in anything. Non diagnostic 8. fat_boy and his GW mania perhaps but if you check my posts and articles you'll see I really am a serious software engineer just helping you out with your political and social ineptitude. 9. Hmm, behaves according to beliefs, nice, you wouldn't expect any sane person to do that now would you? 10. You don't know me from Adam and those that do are well aware how characteristic and down to earth my beliefs and behaviours are. No. Your amateur diagnosis is about as flawed as your politics, a delusion fed to you by, you can't quite remember who, which you cling to with irrational vehemence, resorting to personal attack whenever the illogicality of your position is exposed. Remind you of anything?:laugh:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
What? That was Saul's reference, not mine.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Well lets see Red are you on to something or just regurgitating garbage... 1. True of every believer in every religion for example from the point of view of any given agnostic/atheist. Non diagnostic of anything. 2. ditto 3. Doesn't sound like me. 4. Definitely doesn't sound like me. 5. Nothing 'strange' has happened to me in years. You must be thinking of someone else. 6. Not really. I let Zepellin and company rant their blasphemy all over the soap box and only occassionly step in and attempt to educate them with reasonable restraint. I haven't condemned anyone to eternal torment in ohh, ages and ages. Even your dangerous crazy neo-politics makes me laugh. 7. True of every belief from the point of view of every unbeliever in anything. Non diagnostic 8. fat_boy and his GW mania perhaps but if you check my posts and articles you'll see I really am a serious software engineer just helping you out with your political and social ineptitude. 9. Hmm, behaves according to beliefs, nice, you wouldn't expect any sane person to do that now would you? 10. You don't know me from Adam and those that do are well aware how characteristic and down to earth my beliefs and behaviours are. No. Your amateur diagnosis is about as flawed as your politics, a delusion fed to you by, you can't quite remember who, which you cling to with irrational vehemence, resorting to personal attack whenever the illogicality of your position is exposed. Remind you of anything?:laugh:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Well lets see Red are you on to something or just regurgitating garbage...
No, I'm pretty sure that's you.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Delightful. I'm so looking forward to your explanation of how to achieve 'complete control of the media' without a conspiracy
Leftists are simply, for whatever reason (perhaps because it's one of Marx's commandments), natural drawn to media outlets. To confirm that statement, all you have to do is pick up the local (community) paper in whatever town you're in. It's inevitably filled with pierced chubby chicks ranting about how the establishment is responsible for them not being pretty. Your madness stems from your insistence that the world follow a particular order. That probably stems from some sort of innate insecurity and the psychological need for the randomness and chaos in the world to be reduced to something simpler. Left-wing political congruity among media outlets is no more surprising than right-wing political congruity among Christians and neither requires a secret shrouded group chanting around a round table in a dark dungeon.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
and calling the UKs most senior police officer a crazy son of b**ch is splendid. I don't suppose his public statement yesterday of the 'greatly increased number of conspiracies' he now believes in has reached your part of the world yet.
Well that depends. Is he talking about "conspiracy to commit murder" (which is common) or is he talking about your conspiracies (e.g. the illuminati)? If he was referring to the former, then he's sensible. If he's referring to the latter, then he would be a crazy son of a b**tch.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Red Stateler wrote:
Your madness stems from your insistence that the world follow a particular order. That probably stems from some sort of innate insecurity and the psychological need for the randomness and chaos in the world to be reduced to something simpler.
Hahahahahaha - oh yeah there's NONE OF THAT KIND OF THING in Christianity.... Nope. Nothing to see here, move along... :rolleyes:
"sh*thead ... f*** off and die" "Keep my words on your sig. I stand by them. (Which, incidently, doesn't make me a sociopath - it's personal.)" (Fred_Smith - animal lover)
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Your madness stems from your insistence that the world follow a particular order. That probably stems from some sort of innate insecurity and the psychological need for the randomness and chaos in the world to be reduced to something simpler.
Hahahahahaha - oh yeah there's NONE OF THAT KIND OF THING in Christianity.... Nope. Nothing to see here, move along... :rolleyes:
"sh*thead ... f*** off and die" "Keep my words on your sig. I stand by them. (Which, incidently, doesn't make me a sociopath - it's personal.)" (Fred_Smith - animal lover)
73Zeppelin wrote:
Hahahahahaha - oh yeah there's NONE OF THAT KIND OF THING in Christianity.... Nope. Nothing to see here, move along...
It can be argued "that kind of thing" is a facet of the human condition itself. Our brain learns by assuming that everything has meaning (for example: what you hear coming out of your parents mouth is assumed to not be random background noise. So the brain learns what it means). With a neuropsychology so predicated on the notion that nothing is random, it becomes easy to see how we'd look for meaning where there isn't necessarily any. And build whole systems of belief around it.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Your madness stems from your insistence that the world follow a particular order. That probably stems from some sort of innate insecurity and the psychological need for the randomness and chaos in the world to be reduced to something simpler.
Hahahahahaha - oh yeah there's NONE OF THAT KIND OF THING in Christianity.... Nope. Nothing to see here, move along... :rolleyes:
"sh*thead ... f*** off and die" "Keep my words on your sig. I stand by them. (Which, incidently, doesn't make me a sociopath - it's personal.)" (Fred_Smith - animal lover)
73Zeppelin wrote:
Hahahahahaha - oh yeah there's NONE OF THAT KIND OF THING in Christianity.... Nope. Nothing to see here, move along...
There are certainly many Christians who approach Christianity in that way, but Christianity itself is based on the acceptance of the Bible as a historical document.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Hahahahahaha - oh yeah there's NONE OF THAT KIND OF THING in Christianity.... Nope. Nothing to see here, move along...
It can be argued "that kind of thing" is a facet of the human condition itself. Our brain learns by assuming that everything has meaning (for example: what you hear coming out of your parents mouth is assumed to not be random background noise. So the brain learns what it means). With a neuropsychology so predicated on the notion that nothing is random, it becomes easy to see how we'd look for meaning where there isn't necessarily any. And build whole systems of belief around it.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
Patrick Sears wrote:
It can be argued "that kind of thing" is a facet of the human condition itself.
There is most certainly an innate requirement for religion. That's why even atheists, who condemn organized religion, tend to follow a religious approach to atheism.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall