Why Obama needs to be the next President.
-
No, that is not clear. You can learn some things but how much truth are you going to learn from a disgruntled ex? You have millions of active members and the church continues to grow. So, it would be foolish to use a few disgruntled ex's as your ONLY source.
ryanb31 wrote:
You can learn some things but how much truth are you going to learn from a disgruntled ex?
So you agree that there is some truth there. Then the answer to your question depends how many exes there are.
ryanb31 wrote:
You have millions of active members and the church continues to grow.
That has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
ryanb31 wrote:
So, it would be foolish to use a few disgruntled ex's as your ONLY source.
Yes. But you claimed that nothing at all could be learned from them. And it is that point which I was addressing.
-
Don't take it too serious. It was a humorous post. And, if you watched the video you would understand. But you have not answered me. What good has Obama done?
ryanb31 wrote:
It was a humorous post.
Then perhaps you have not learned this lesson yet, so let me help - repeating a joke over and over again doesn't make it more funny. Also posting something that wasn't originally intended to be funny in the first place without some qualification that makes the humor apparent isn't a good way to make something humorous.
ryanb31 wrote:
What good has Obama done?
Got rid of the completely ridiculous 'don't ask don't tell' policy.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
If you did not believe in the wind how could you understand air currents, weather patterns, etc? It's the same thing.
Nonsense. It isn't the same at all. Neither in the details nor in the general sense. I do NOT need to "believe" in the wind to study and understand the science of meteorology.
ryanb31 wrote:
You mock what you do not understand.
I suggest that you actually read what I have posted. I haven't said whether I believe or don't believe in God in any form. The fact that you assume my disbelief is based solely on your presumption that only your particular slant/view can be the proper one for God. Perhaps you should become a the head of a cult so you can truly control others beliefs.
1. You misunderstood. I did not say you have to understand basic wind to understand all of science. But you do have to understand wind to understand air currents, weather patterns, as I said. So, if you do not know who God is how can you understand his dealings with us? One builds on the other. 2. This is a long thread now and I thought I had asked you if you believe in God. Did you answer me? If I assumed incorrect, I apologize.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
You can learn some things but how much truth are you going to learn from a disgruntled ex?
So you agree that there is some truth there. Then the answer to your question depends how many exes there are.
ryanb31 wrote:
You have millions of active members and the church continues to grow.
That has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
ryanb31 wrote:
So, it would be foolish to use a few disgruntled ex's as your ONLY source.
Yes. But you claimed that nothing at all could be learned from them. And it is that point which I was addressing.
-
By the way, why so cranky? You are taking cheap personal shots at me. I feel like I need to call you out to meet behind the school later.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
It was a humorous post.
Then perhaps you have not learned this lesson yet, so let me help - repeating a joke over and over again doesn't make it more funny. Also posting something that wasn't originally intended to be funny in the first place without some qualification that makes the humor apparent isn't a good way to make something humorous.
ryanb31 wrote:
What good has Obama done?
Got rid of the completely ridiculous 'don't ask don't tell' policy.
1. I appreciate you searching for my name and attacking everything I say. It lets me know I am right, I am flattered. 2. Got me, you're right. Obama has done a great job. Took you a while to come up with one thing though. I would ask you to come up with a second thing but I may not be around long enough to hear it. And, so you don't get confused, I used the joke icon this time. You're welcome. Sorry for the sarcasm, but your only goal seems to be to argue with me, not make a point.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
By the way, why so cranky?
You are imposing emotions on me that do not exist.
Whatever, you are searching for my name and attacking everything I say. You're a serial poster. A stalker. It's OK though. I am glad to know I got your attention. I would love to meet you in person because it is hard to read intent and emotion in posts.
-
Then you misunderstood my claim. He is not alone nor did I intend to imply that "he by himself" messed everything up.
-
1. You misunderstood. I did not say you have to understand basic wind to understand all of science. But you do have to understand wind to understand air currents, weather patterns, as I said. So, if you do not know who God is how can you understand his dealings with us? One builds on the other. 2. This is a long thread now and I thought I had asked you if you believe in God. Did you answer me? If I assumed incorrect, I apologize.
ryanb31 wrote:
You misunderstood. I did not say you have to understand basic wind to understand all of science.
Since I didn't claim that it can't be but otherwise.
ryanb31 wrote:
But you do have to understand wind to understand air currents, weather patterns, as I said.
That isn't what you said. I can believe in a wind god and perform rites to such a god and yet still study and understand meteorology.
ryanb31 wrote:
So, if you do not know who God is how can you understand his dealings with us? One builds on the other.
And as I already said - nonsense. Based on that every clergy that ever has a crisis of faith immediately loses are understanding of the religious principles that they are a member of.
ryanb31 wrote:
I had asked you if you believe in God. Did you answer me? If I assumed incorrect, I apologize.
My belief in a god is irrelevant to the discussion. Note as well that my convictions or not about a diety doesn't mean that I hold the same view as you. But perhaps you woud claim that as long as I believe in something like Gaia that you point would be immediately apparant.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
You misunderstood. I did not say you have to understand basic wind to understand all of science.
Since I didn't claim that it can't be but otherwise.
ryanb31 wrote:
But you do have to understand wind to understand air currents, weather patterns, as I said.
That isn't what you said. I can believe in a wind god and perform rites to such a god and yet still study and understand meteorology.
ryanb31 wrote:
So, if you do not know who God is how can you understand his dealings with us? One builds on the other.
And as I already said - nonsense. Based on that every clergy that ever has a crisis of faith immediately loses are understanding of the religious principles that they are a member of.
ryanb31 wrote:
I had asked you if you believe in God. Did you answer me? If I assumed incorrect, I apologize.
My belief in a god is irrelevant to the discussion. Note as well that my convictions or not about a diety doesn't mean that I hold the same view as you. But perhaps you woud claim that as long as I believe in something like Gaia that you point would be immediately apparant.
-
Quote:
you claimed that nothing at all could be learned from them.
I do not recall saying that. I believe you misunderstood.
ryanb31 wrote:
I do not recall saying that. I believe you misunderstood.
Wasn't that hard to find what I responded to. You said.... "You are not going to find accurate information from people who USED to be Mormons" That certainly seems to suggest to me that exes cannot deliver correct information of any sort.
-
1. I appreciate you searching for my name and attacking everything I say. It lets me know I am right, I am flattered. 2. Got me, you're right. Obama has done a great job. Took you a while to come up with one thing though. I would ask you to come up with a second thing but I may not be around long enough to hear it. And, so you don't get confused, I used the joke icon this time. You're welcome. Sorry for the sarcasm, but your only goal seems to be to argue with me, not make a point.
ryanb31 wrote:
1. I appreciate you searching for my name and attacking everything I say.
You are wrong. I respond to posts not people.
ryanb31 wrote:
2. Got me, you're right. Obama has done a great job. Took you a while to come up with one thing though. I would ask you to come up with a second thing but I may not be around long enough to hear it.
Which has nothing to do with this. I wasn't making any claim that he was or wasn't a great nor even good president. I was responding to a very specific negative false claim that you made. Nothing else. If you had made some wildly inaccurate positive claim I would have likely responded with disbelief as well.
ryanb31 wrote:
And, so you don't get confused, I used the joke icon this time.
All I can say is that from this post and others you mad on exactly the same subject it certainly doesn't appear that you are joking.
-
Whatever, you are searching for my name and attacking everything I say. You're a serial poster. A stalker. It's OK though. I am glad to know I got your attention. I would love to meet you in person because it is hard to read intent and emotion in posts.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Correct, then please do. I did not say he had done it by himself.
Then you have an odd interpreation of the english language which you should work on. You said.... "His politics and socialist practices have deflated the dollar worldwide." In english that specifically means that you are claiming that he, and no one else, is responsible.
-
You like to wordsmith, don't you.
Quote:
I do NOT need to "believe" in the wind to study and understand the science of meteorology.
That is what you said. You have to understand the wind to understand wind patterns. You took this off on a tangent.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Correct, then please do. I did not say he had done it by himself.
Then you have an odd interpreation of the english language which you should work on. You said.... "His politics and socialist practices have deflated the dollar worldwide." In english that specifically means that you are claiming that he, and no one else, is responsible.
Would you stop trolling? "His politics have deflated the dollar" means that he is the ONLY one responsible? You are giving me an English lesson? You are crazy. Oh, wait, I can't say that because that would imply you are the only crazy person in the world, which isn't true. Stop trolling.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Would you stop trolling? "His politics have deflated the dollar" means that he is the ONLY one responsible? You are giving me an English lesson? You are crazy. Oh, wait, I can't say that because that would imply you are the only crazy person in the world, which isn't true. Stop trolling.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
Would you stop trolling? "His politics have deflated the dollar" means that he is the ONLY one responsible?
Only one or the primary one (his actions are the primary cause.)
ryanb31 wrote:
You are giving me an English lesson?
Yes. If you meant something different then you should have used "democratic party" or "current adminstration" or "US Government", etc.