Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Tue Dec 31, 2013 4:57 am**

SkepticalSkeeter,

Please stop the personal attacks.

Posted: **Tue Dec 31, 2013 7:19 am**

RickD wrote:SkepticalSkeeter,

Please stop the personal attacks.

Ok, I can do that. Seems like a double standard though, considering how B.W. has been conducting his side of the conversation.

Also, B.W., I just happened upon this cartoon, which succinctly states what I consider to be the real problem.

Posted: **Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:02 am**

SkepticalSkeeter wrote:
RickD wrote:SkepticalSkeeter,

Please stop the personal attacks.
Ok, I can do that. Seems like a double standard though, considering how B.W. has been conducting his side of the conversation.

Also, B.W., I just happened upon this cartoon, which succinctly states what I consider to be the real problem.

Ridicule is a potent weapon and when the ridiculed wake up and realize they are the target, what can you expect in return?

Next,

What do you mean by well regulated Capitalism?

Who is regulating it? How?

Very important to distinguish.

By well regulating, do you mean to target certain industries that support your political opponents with massive regulation to bleed off capital or shut down say, like the Coal industry or big oil, political gain?

It is very important to clarify what you mean by well regulated Capitalism verses regulated Capitalism.

In regulated Capitalism, you help correct the abuses of Capitalism without targeting for political goals for the common good of all.

In well regulated Capitalism you silence your political opponents money train without thought to actual consequences, for example, slow or strip or even stop oil exploitation, building of a pipeline, or allowing water to flow to an area in CA to grow crops, shut down the coal industry, etc and etc, disguised as noble endeavors to save the planet or some worm in the ground, all for the good of concentrating power to dominate in the hands of the few. Sort of like the abuses of industry around the 1900's but with Govt providing cover for those abuses.

In a free market place - regulated Capitalism - is necessary as the means to correct abuses when big business goes viral in some abuse. Even if not, that business will eventual go out of business for bad practices. Regulated Capitalism helps to stops abuses in a bi-partisan way for the real common good of all. Healthy and needed due to Human Sin Nature quest for absolute power to control. The Ten Commandments came as a model to expose and help correct human sin nature. Therefore, in Capitalism needs guidelines for exposing and to help correct human sin nature in business for the good of all, and not the few.

In well regulated Capitalism, sets the stage and table for crony capitalism - or monopolized corporations - who curry favor with Govt to regulate their competition out of business so only they, enforced by Govt, control all goods and services. That is called Socialism. (Solyndra, Unions, exemptions from Obama care, shutting down coal industry, targeting by the IRS opposition groups before an election are all examples of what this well regulated mindset is really all about).

So it is important that you define what you personally mean by "well regulated Capitalism."

The current Dem control administration is filled with radicals and even the President is a self professed Community Organizer, these folks know what they are doing and are anti regulated Capitalist and more for well regulated Capitalism to silence opponents as well as shred the US Constitution, they have a clear agenda and it is well documented in their own words and writings.

Have you actually thought to be as harsh toward them rather than toward those that do not share your POV?

Were you trained in Community Organizing for social change?
-
-
-

Posted: **Tue Dec 31, 2013 12:53 pm**

B. W. wrote:
SkepticalSkeeter wrote:
RickD wrote:SkepticalSkeeter,

Please stop the personal attacks.
Ok, I can do that. Seems like a double standard though, considering how B.W. has been conducting his side of the conversation.

Also, B.W., I just happened upon this cartoon, which succinctly states what I consider to be the real problem.
Ridicule is a potent weapon and when the ridiculed wake up and realize they are the target, what can you expect in return?

What does that even mean?

B. W. wrote:Next,

What do you mean by well regulated Capitalism?

I mean regulated well. I hope you're not going to seize on that single word and make a huge deal out of it.

B. W. wrote:Who is regulating it? How?

The government would need to do the regulating, since big business has an abysmal record when asked to police itself. The actual regulators would need to be selected by some sort of bipartisan process and protected from political games and lobbying. Perhaps they could have lifetime appointments, so that they could be above the fray. And they would need to have teeth. The current practice of allowing corporations violate the law, make huge profits by doing so, and then get out of it by paying a nominal fine and declining to admit any wrongdoing is ridiculous. Corporate malfeasance should result in fines that actually hurt, along with the removal of their upper management teams and boards of directors, the forfeiture of any severance packages, and hefty jail sentences for the perpetrators. Their crimes should be punished, not rewarded.

That's about as specific as I can get, since I'm not a corporate lawyer.

B. W. wrote:It is very important to clarify what you mean by well regulated Capitalism verses regulated Capitalism.

What I meant is that industries must be regulated thoroughly and well. The politicization of the word "well" word is your own addition and was never my intent.

B. W. wrote:In regulated Capitalism, you help correct the abuses of Capitalism without targeting for political goals for the common good of all.

In well regulated Capitalism you silence your political opponents money train without thought to actual consequences, for example, slow or strip or even stop oil exploitation, building of a pipeline, or allowing water to flow to an area in CA to grow crops, shut down the coal industry, etc and etc, disguised as noble endeavors to save the planet or some worm in the ground, all for the good of concentrating power to dominate in the hands of the few. Sort of like the abuses of industry around the 1900's but with Govt providing cover for those abuses.

And now you're back to making stuff up. I didn't say, imply, or intend to convey any of that. You took a single word and turned it into the strawman version of a progressive manifesto.

B. W. wrote:The current Dem control administration is filled with radicals and even the President is a self professed Community Organizer, these folks know what they are doing and are anti regulated Capitalist and more for well regulated Capitalism to silence opponents as well as shred the US Constitution, they have a clear agenda and it is well documented in their own words and writings.

And we're back in tinfoil hat territory...

Dude, both sides have agendas. Both sides get away with what they can. Both sides play rhetorical games. Both sides have connections to the business world and to fringe radicals. Both sides have members with good ideas and good intentions as well as members who are just there to get rich any way they can. Both sides use gerrymandering to lock up safe seats. Both sides close ranks to protect their members when they screw up. Both sides have scandals. Both sides have good and bad ideas. Both sides break promises, make mistakes, and spin events to suit their purposes. Your narrative is ignorant, biased, and wrong.

B. W. wrote:Have you actually thought to be as harsh toward them rather than toward those that do not share your POV?

I haven't judged Christians, conservatives, the Tea Party, or any other political or religious group harshly in this thread. You've made a bunch of left-wing strawmen, attributed them to me, and then complained about how judgmental I've been. I have been rather harsh toward you, but not because of your politics. I've treated you harshly because you're being incredibly closed-minded, rigid, dishonest, and hypocritical, and because you've been putting words in my mouth. The fact is you don't even know my most of my political views because I haven't told you what they are. And judging by your behavior so far, no matter what I say you're just going to ignore it and make up your own version of my position.

B. W. wrote:Were you trained in Community Organizing for social change?

No, but I understand the concept. It's a method by which people who have no individual wealth, power, or influence band together to lobby for the things that they want or need. I don't get why you think it's so sinister. People all across the political spectrum organize themselves in order to protect themselves and advance their own interests. How else can ordinary people protect their interests from powerful business or political lobbies?

Posted: **Tue Dec 31, 2013 6:49 pm**

First off, you haven't insulted me at all...

Next, from several of your comments concerning Govt oversight, you are following the well traversed talking points of the left uses by posing as a moderate of sorts.

I do agree that both Parties are beholden to corruption. However, earlier back you mentioned that it if only the Republicans would just cooperate with the program actually proves my point, you are partisan and beholden to a left leaning POV. Either you do so due to innocent accepting the left's didactic group think, or by design - whatever that's not important. You sure come across as left leaning with ridicule and bear all the old talking points and left leaning verbal tactics.

About word definitions

There is a very important reason we define terms because the left is skilled at word plays. How they define things and programs tells much. I defined what "well regulated capitalism"means to them as opposed to how Conservatives hold to the view of "regulated capitalism." There is a big difference. Let me try to explain it this way. you came on here and began bashing how Conservatives think and tossed all the stereotypes at me in the process. In fact, you do not know how conservative or Christians think as evidence by your comments. Most of the left does not understand nor even cares to understand what conservatives really think and how they define things because, it is only their way or the highway. If you can't define terms, then another left leaning tactic...displayed.

After new years, I'll point out what conservatives actually believe. We never get the chance because we are constantly insulted and lambasted. If you would like to have an intelligent conversation - are you actually prepared to listen instead of going on rants against this and that for a minute? If not, we are both wasting our time.

Happy New Year!
-
-
-

Posted: **Wed Jan 01, 2014 9:20 am**

SkepticalSkeeter wrote:
B. W. wrote:Were you trained in Community Organizing for social change?
No, but I understand the concept. It's a method by which people who have no individual wealth, power, or influence band together to lobby for the things that they want or need. I don't get why you think it's so sinister. People all across the political spectrum organize themselves in order to protect themselves and advance their own interests. How else can ordinary people protect their interests from powerful business or political lobbies?

Again why it is important to define terms on what a person means by Community Organizing (C-O) ..We'll use you standard definition for now.

It can either be used for good or for bad. Next, here is hypothetical simplistic example of good C-O: If the City desires to tear up your neighborhood to build a Park - you can organize your neighbors to fight this and win in court, peaceful protest, petitions, public perception, all in lawful manner. That originally is the intent of this profession. To give people a voice.

Now here is the change: the City desires to tear up you neighborhood to build a Park - an organizer comes to your neighborhood to fight the city and in the process signs everyone up to vote socialist or Democrat in the process. They go beyond the role by writing and giving speeches demonizing the City Planners and even inciting people to storm the Mayors home and frighten his family. They call in union members and college education, social work, and sociology students to make protest. They threaten the opposition, and union members beat up those wanting to build the park during a counter protest. End result, an ever present professional organizing group in that area using the crisis to sign up a voting block for the left leaning political parties by providing temporary freebies.

That is how it works for the bad and the bad is how those on the left use Community Organizing - for political purposes to further a political agenda of bring down Western style Govt by means of fundamental change. Under that mantra, a community organizer takes the role of the old communist agitator and stains what C-O is really all about.

A conservative group would use the process of community organizing - to protect something or help stop, for example, crime by a neighborhood watch program, or stop builders from tearing down a historic building. Much as you definition suggest, they do. Often when their political voice is threatened, a real grassroots movement is begun, like the Tea Party, did. They then organize get out the vote programs due the Govt refusal to hear their voice. This is protected by the US Bill of Rights. Good C-O uses the law-lawfully and will use media lawfully to get the change needed lawfully.

Now a bad community organizer would organize other people to come against the tea party folks and attempts to shut them up by use of ridicule, slander, send it union thugs to beat up members of the tea party during a rally, send forth thugs to surround home of the opposition, uses the news media to demonize those that oppose the status quo. They would even have the IRS target all conservative groups who do not hold the status quo POV and prevent them from organizing. In the process sign up many voters to vote democrat or socialist party through use of inciting fear of the enemy taking away their freebies. They do not do things lawfully as the ends justify the means.

Can you see the difference?

Bad C-O is used to silence political dissent through use of ridicule, fear, intimidation, brow beating, slander, character assassination, etc and etc. It will use talking points a slogans to rouse people up against other people, they will lie and through lies polarize people into groups. On example is this is from the LA Times (not a conservative news group) article 9/13 (link posted a few frames above), concerning how the gap between rich and poor is wider now than anytime in the past 100 years. This is what happens when Democrats control the Govt, yet, the left's minions will blame the Republicans and conservatives for this gap by citing Reagan and Bush. Never point to Carter or Obama - it always blame. Another tactic used by such folks is to discredit anyone pointing this out is to make them look like a conspiracy nut. The use of ridicule is used without abandon against anyone who opposes fundamentally transforming America into what they want it to be. So we have that type and kind of C-O in the white house as well in congress.

It is true Republicans can be bad in rhetoric as the Dem's but they have no backbone and many have the Stockholm syndrome and attack those Repbs waking up to great danger of what what fundamentally transforming America really means. Bad Community Organizers always want to fundamentally transform something into political reality (goal). In fact, they abuse what actual C-O is all about in the good sense.

Now Skpetic is America really so bad that is needs a fundamental change? If so, into what?
-
-
Let me remind the reader that if GW Bush ever used the IRS,as the current powers that be have used it, to silence political voice, would the media ignore it? Or if Bush used Benghazi, Fast and Furious cover ups as the current admin has, would he have remain in power as president? Of If the Republicans voted to use the Nuclear option to appoint political left leaning Judges - you think there would have been no outcry?

No, the political community organizers organize the community into a group think that libeliously labels conservatives as hompohobes, racist, bigots, narrow minded, hate filled, brainwashed by Beck, robots, dumb, ignorant stooges, fanatics, who hate the poor, hate the elderly, hate the disabled, hate well everything, are all a bunch of lazziefare exploiting Capitalist swine... and now called even libealphobes... they slander the tea party movement and wish to destroy it, and want no divided govt with its checks and balances to power, instead they proclaim - if only the Conservative Republicans just agree with the Democrats - all would be well.

Interestingly, if during the Bush admin had He done this and polarized American as Obama has, he would have been impeached and forced to resign. If Bush ever said, "You can keep your health Care Plan and your Doctor, period" and then full steam ahead with a faulty Health Care overhaul and website - would he survived politically? If the Gap between rich and poor was the greatest in a hundred years during the Bush years - would he have survived politically?

Yet, we are told - Obama Saint - Bush bad. Well, all this is a prime example of community organizing techniques used as they were not intended.

Have a Happy New Year...
-
-
-

Posted: **Wed Jan 01, 2014 8:08 pm**

B. W. wrote:It can either be used for good or for bad. Next, here is hypothetical simplistic example of good C-O: If the City desires to tear up your neighborhood to build a Park - you can organize your neighbors to fight this and win in court, peaceful protest, petitions, public perception, all in lawful manner. That originally is the intent of this profession. To give people a voice.

I can't help but think that "good" is code for "stuff I agree with" and "bad" is code for "stuff that I strongly oppose."

B. W. wrote:That is how it works for the bad and the bad is how those on the left use Community Organizing - for political purposes to further a political agenda of bring down Western style Govt by means of fundamental change. Under that mantra, a community organizer takes the role of the old communist agitator and stains what C-O is really all about.

And there's that bias again. You're still attacking a strawman. This "left" that you keep railing against doesn't exist.

B. W. wrote:A conservative group would use the process of community organizing - to protect something or help stop, for example, crime by a neighborhood watch program, or stop builders from tearing down a historic building. Much as you definition suggest, they do. Often when their political voice is threatened, a real grassroots movement is begun, like the Tea Party, did. They then organize get out the vote programs due the Govt refusal to hear their voice. This is protected by the US Bill of Rights. Good C-O uses the law-lawfully and will use media lawfully to get the change needed lawfully.

B.W., this is a load of crap. Protecting historic buildings is not "liberal" or "conservative," it's community action. It's a safe bet that any group trying to protect the city library or renovate the historic downtown is going to be made up of people across the political and religious spectrum.

As far as the Tea Party goes, their grassroots organizing is precisely the same as the grassroots organizing being done people with more progressive politics. This good/bad distinction is based entirely on your personal biases. I'm not going to bother responding to the next few paragraphs because you're just repeating the same good guys vs. strawmen narrative I just addressed. It's not reality.

B. W. wrote:Now Skpetic is America really so bad that is needs a fundamental change? If so, into what?

Yes, actually. I think that we (the people) have lost control of our economy and our government. We need to get those back. That means kicking the money out of politics, rebuilding the unions, reforming the political process to allow more parties to have a voice and decrease the number of gerrymandered "safe" seats in Congress, reenacting the Fairness Doctrine to help improve the quality of debate, and redirecting a big chunk of the defense budget to research and development, education, and infrastructure. For a start. There's plenty more we could do, but that's a start and anyway I think you're looking for ammunition, not discourse. Feel free to prove me wrong.

And I'm going to ignore the remaining paragraphs, because you're back to heroes and strawmen and it's giving me a headache.

B. W. wrote:Have a Happy New Year...

Same to you.

Posted: **Thu Jan 02, 2014 12:34 am**

Skept so if I am hearing you correctly, the flowing news clips are bogas and it is okay to target people to silence them? Correct..

Not sure where you live but is must be so isolated I am surprised you have the internet... Do you live in Toronto Canada in the boondocks?

Get a life man - the left does exist and they do target using community organizing in a negative way - to strip power against opponents and discredit them - read the news...

Get out of the lala land you are in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_IRS_scandal

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... s/2165647/

http://www.examiner.com/article/white-u ... care-rally

Here is one how to fight conservatives...

http://www.fightconservatives.com/Links-and-Resources/

http://patdollard.com/2013/12/leftist-l ... ervatives/

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/10/de ... gone-wild/

http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/dems-call-go ... errorists/

You counter and say, this s okay to do cause the other side does it.

Man you need to get a life - and stop the left leaning mongering and disinformation.

If I am understanding what you are saying from your written tone here is that conservative groups deserve to be silenced.

I do not think you even understand what conservatives believe concerning social issues because you been drinking and smoking too much while reading liberal blogs for too long - how much do you get paid to go to Forums and spout dribble?

Interesting article... quoted below from... http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/leftist-trol ... -with-wnd/

NEW YORK – WND Internet forum moderators have conducted extensive studies of leftist, pro-Obama “trolls” who post misinformation.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/leftist-trol ... -with-wnd/

In the process, the moderators have blocked from WND forums participants who post abusive language aimed at angering or otherwise insulting forum members, WND authors, management and staff.

Trolls appear to perform a “disinformation” function typical of counter-intelligence efforts by intelligence agencies to confuse political enemies and refute or deflect opposing political views that are less susceptible to refutation by more traditional methods of debate and argumentation.

Typically, trolls operating on WND forums attempt to defend Obama by posting specious and diversionary arguments with the goal of changing the subject and obscuring topics that could damage Obama, such as his birth records, life narrative, political history and policy preferences, including his current positions as president.

Particularly offensive is the proclivity of trolls to use obscene or blasphemous language mixed with personal invective.

Repeat offenders

Trolls operate on WND forums under various identities, often using the same IP address but with different usernames and email addresses.

One troll who was banned from participating in WND forums, was found to have posted more than 4,794 comments over 664 days on a wide range of websites in addition to WND.

Another posted 3,575 comments over 560 days on website forums in addition to WND that ranged from CNN to Fox News.

A third troll posted more than 10,000 comments on various user forums, including 4,306 on Fox News alone.

A fourth posting under different usernames used various email addresses and nine different IP addresses to post 15,200 comments over 787 days on WND and Fox News, as well as several smaller news websites, some of which had a local focus or interest.

Many of the trolls banned from participating in WND forums appear to have been operating on a professional level.

Some could be leftist “plants” whose purpose is to damage the reputation of WND by posing as supporters and utilizing offensive language and making obscene claims or suggestions.

Categories of abuse

Trolls use a wide variety of strategies, some of which are unique to the Internet, including these:

-Making outrageous comments designed to distract or frustrate. This is a Saul Alinsky-style tactic employed to stir emotion and angry reactions.

-Posing as a conservative and making comments that discredit the movement. After claiming to be a member of the movement, such as a tea party organization, the troll then proceeds to post long, incoherent diatribes to appear either racist or insane. In some cases, these “Trojan Horse Trolls” have been known to make posts that advocate or incite to the use of violence in an apparent attempt to provide evidence to leftist critics and government sources that the right is comprised of “radical extremists.”

-Dominating discussions. Trolls may attempt to throw a discussion off course and frustrate participants whose purpose is to engage in a serious and respectful exchange of views.

-Posting prewritten responses. Many trolls appear to have been supplied with a list or database of pre-planned “talking points” designed as generalized and deceptive responses to honest arguments. When trolls post prewritten responses, their words typically feel strangely plastic and rehearsed.

-Making false associations. In this technique, the position of honest posters is characterized in derogatory terms. For example, a troll may call advocates of Federal Reserve reform or abolition “conspiracy theorists” or “lunatics.” Or, by suggesting certain political arguments are “racist” or otherwise outside the accepted confines of serious political discourse, trolls attempt to dissuade readers from examining the evidence objectively.
-
Exhibiting false moderation. By pretending to be the “voice of reason” in an argument with obvious well-defined sides, trolls attempt to move readers to relegate the argument to a “gray area,” such that holding or seriously considering the argument is a leap away from reasoned judgment.

-Raising straw-man arguments. Here a troll will accuse his opposition of subscribing to a certain point of view, even if the argument is irrelevant and never actually raised.

Professional trolls

WND moderators have developed criteria for helping to identify a professional troll:

-The person’s posts are usually short and snarky, with reasonably correct spelling, grammar and punctuation, suggesting both intelligence and education.

-The posts are on the edge of acceptability, with little or no profanity or vulgar language that would get the post flagged immediately.

-The person has a high ratio of posts to the number of days on the site, suggesting he’s posting comments nearly full time and is getting paid to troll.

-The person posts politely on progressive websites but nastily on conservative websites, using the same username and IP address.

-The person’s posts are consistently belittling, rather than intelligent objections and points.

-The person’s posts address a broad spectrum of topics rather than focusing on one or two subjects of particular interest. The consistency is in the support of leftist policies and positions taken by the Obama administration.

Once the person is blacklisted, the WND moderators do not receive a complaint. Instead, the person quietly returns to post on WND forums in a different incarnation, perhaps using a different username, IP address or email.

WND moderators have concluded the purpose of a troll is not to intelligently discuss various issues but to minimize the importance of dissenting opinions by ridiculing serious participants expressing political views the troll finds objectionable.

Sometimes trolls appear to needle serious participants with the goal of inciting irrational retorts that can embarrass them, perhaps even to the point of being reported to employers or to the government.

WND moderators frequently experience waves of troll attacks that they suspect occur in response to a “call to arms” from a progressive website or blog.

Pajama bandits

A person identified as “AMA” posted a comment on the website Above Top Secret that apparently offers insight into how professional trolls operate.

I was a paid Internet troll

For almost five years, I was a paid Internet troll. Yes, I admit.

But first let me state that I never performed my job here on ATS, though I believe I have occasionally seen a handful on here who were using a script similar to what I was assigned.

I cannot and will not name names, but after an internship at a firm with government and political party (Republican) contracts, I was offered the position of “Online Communications Associate” at another company by someone from the original firm for which I interned. My contract completed one year ago, and I have since moved on.

Utilizing six artificial personas, I was active in social networks and bulletin boards. But since I came to love and respect this site, as I stated, I never performed my functions here. Each week, I and presumably several others, were provided with information to use in our online postings. At first the information was comprised of fully conceived scripts, but as I became more and more experienced, it eventually became simple bullet or talking points.

At first I needed to provide links to my postings, but when the company name changed (never knew the real names of any people there), that requirement stopped.

The pay wasn’t very good, but since I was working from my apartment, I suppose it wasn’t bad, and I was able to do several other writing assignments on the side.

AMA

WND will maintain an open posting policy on its forums, but will continue identifying and removing trolls who abuse the privilege.

WND staff member Janet Falkenstein contributed to this article.

Well, In my opinion - Skepticseeker -you most certainly fit the bill...
-
-
-

Posted: **Thu Jan 02, 2014 5:36 pm**

B. W. wrote:Skept so if I am hearing you correctly, the flowing news clips are bogas and it is okay to target people to silence them? Correct..

Not sure where you live but is must be so isolated I am surprised you have the internet... Do you live in Toronto Canada in the boondocks?

Get a life man - the left does exist and they do target using community organizing in a negative way - to strip power against opponents and discredit them - read the news...

Get out of the lala land you are in

So you figure you can prove that I'm biased by linking a Wikipedia article about the IRS scandal, a story in which a religious conservative complains about the IRS scandal, four extremely biased and overblown articles from four conservative web sites, and one "leftist" site that says that if you're going to engage a conservative in a debate you should take time to read up on the issues first.

I have to admit, that last article is actually pretty chilling. I mean, how can any red-blooded, God-fearing, right-thinking, conservative A'merkin hope to contend with the leftist plot to get informed about the issues prior to discussing them? Terrifying...

Sorry, sport, all you did there was prove that you're going to keep reframing anything and everything I say as a progressive assault on you and others like you.

B. W. wrote:Interesting article... quoted below from... http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/leftist-trol ... -with-wnd/

My favorite part of that article was this:

I cannot and will not name names, but after an internship at a firm with government and political party (Republican) contracts, I was offered the position of “Online Communications Associate” at another company by someone from the original firm for which I interned. My contract completed one year ago, and I have since moved on.

In order to demonstrate that "liberals" are paying people to troll conservative forums you link an article that uses the testimony of a Republican plant to shore up their story. Personally, I have no doubt that there are people on both ends of the political spectrum engaging in shady online practices like that, but the only evidence I've seen actually points the finger at conservatives.

B. W. wrote:Well, In my opinion - Skepticseeker -you most certainly fit the bill...

You know, there was a time that I was pretty down on conservatives, Christians, and most especially, conservative Christians. I spent time on forums arguing with myopic, unreasonable, cement-headed lunatics, and I made the mistake of believing that they were a representative sampling of both Christians and conservatives. Then I began volunteering at a Christian charity and getting to know the people who run it and the other volunteers. It was eye-opening. I'm still puzzled by their religious convictions and their politics often baffle me, but I recognize that they're good people. I disagree with them on a great many issues, but we agree completely about the need to do treat people decently, and do what we can to help those in need. Perhaps you should try speaking to some actual, in-the-flesh liberals some time, rather than just hacking away at the same old strawman.

Just a thought...

Posted: **Thu Jan 02, 2014 7:24 pm**

Ditto skepticalskeeter

Sorry, sport, all you did there was prove that you're going to keep reframing anything and everything I say as a conservative assault on you and others like you.

You know, there was a time that I was pretty down on conservatives, Christians, and most especially, conservative Christians. I spent time arguing with myopic, unreasonable, cement-headed lunatics, and I made the mistake of believing that they were a representative sampling of both Christians and conservatives. I was liberal and an atheist.

I then died and my life changed. I became a Christian with a current ministry helping the poor and needy.

I keep running into myopic, unreasonable, cement-headed liberals, who are puzzled and baffled by religious convictions. They can't get it - why someone can actually help those in need and not be liberals like themselves. Since I run into these types of folks a lot, real liberals, most claim to be good people but their home life and how they treat conservatives, often betray that they are not as good as they think. I often find them citing how important it is to treat people decently when they are challenged with truth, but they instead keep impugning, maligning, using abusive or insulting or snarky language and are so shocked when those they mock do unto them (Liberals) as they do unto conservatives. Cuts both ways. So they often resort to the poor me, i am so nice and understanding and you aren't, card. Very childish

Perhaps you should try listening to actual, in-the-flesh Christian conservatives some time, rather than just hacking away at the same old strawman...
-
-
-

Posted: **Thu Jan 02, 2014 10:11 pm**

B. W. wrote:Ditto skepticalskeeter

Sorry, sport, all you did there was prove that you're going to keep reframing anything and everything I say as a conservative assault on you and others like you.

Everything that you say has been a conservative assault, but no, it hasn't been on me or anyone like me, it's been on an imaginary "leftist" strawman. I'm not taking it personally because that's not me and I've never met anyone anything like the "leftists" you describe. Frankly, I doubt that you have either. You're just ranting against some conservative pundit's caricature of a big, bad liberal.

B. W. wrote:I then died and my life changed. I became a Christian with a current ministry helping the poor and needy.

Interesting. I'd like to hear less about alleged professional forum trolling and more about that.

B. W. wrote:Perhaps you should try listening to actual, in-the-flesh Christian conservatives some time, rather than just hacking away at the same old strawman...

I get that you wanted to keep the sarcastic symmetry, but this is a load of crap. I volunteer with conservative Christians. I consider a couple of them friends, and none of them are enemies. We talk all the time, and we listen politely to each other. We disagree about a great many issues, but we don't denigrate one another as people because of those disagreements. Instead we find common ground and move forward on good terms.

And I'm not attacking conservatives (strawmen or otherwise). You don't represent Americans, conservatives, or Christians, and in my experience you're not representative of any of those groups as a whole. I'm arguing with you, you represent only yourself, and an attack on you doesn't go any further than that. This isn't some epic battle between the left and the right - it's just you and me talking.

Posted: **Fri Jan 03, 2014 12:11 am**

SkepticalSkeeter,

Likewise, you do not know me, nor shall you. I know many liberals and progressives, even in my own family. So this isn't about you or me. You have demonstrated a complete lack, or plain inability to read, or discuss anything regarding truth. All you do is claim I am attacking you. Well I am not. Just responding to you as you have me; that’s all.

You use conservative strawmen of Reagan and Bush and ignore why, and how, the rich get richer and the income gap gets greater under progressive rule, such as now is the case with Obama. You deny what the news reports and even Obama has said about himself and others: the most leftist ie liberal member of Congress:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/national-jo ... r-in-2007/

You deny there are leftist yet they do exist and hold the halls of power and now NY City has its Mayor and to illustrate this see these links - two not from Conservative sites Mother Jones - Bill de Blasio, Bill de Blasio Marxsit, Obama endorses Blasio

Enough is enough. I have illustrated quite well, that you sport, are not here to learn or seek or listen to Christians or find out what Conservative Christians really think. You have an agenda to discredit and malign and spread constant misinformation. You continually do not read post, constantly talk talking points, take nothing said from those who disagrees with you seriously. You flippantly brush them off, with disdain.

Then you attack a person’s character without knowing them as you have done so toward me. My apologies for setting you up, but you sport, had no clue. Set up for what: show that you are not here to actually reason, or look at another’s POV. Well, sport, you do not know me, nor shall you. In that, is great wisdom for the both of us.

Just because, you claim to have never met leftist I described does not mean that I have not. I know nothing of you nor your life story. In my opinion, no one can prove to you anything, even if God almighty came down from heaven and tapped danced your head – you would deny it.

Sport, I do not live according to your standards and nor do you mine. So do not come here and try to make any of us live up to your standards of proof. Therefore, the burden of proof is upon you, not me, for you to prove that there are no leftist as you claim. Be straight forward and not beat around the bush.

As for my personal life and ministry, I would never tell you any more than the little I have because, as you sport, well, are not on the up and up – not trustworthy. I would suggest that you speak with those Christians friends you have and ask them how they died to Christ and let them explain it to you. You might learn something about the Christian Faith and glory be, I pray you actually get saved.

Next, I did set you up to express your real tone and you have done just that. If you are really polite as you say you are with your Christian friends where is that politeness here?

Therefore:

The burden of proof is upon you to prove Christians are not persecuted in the USA.

It is up to you to prove that there are no leftist and that progressives do not consider conservatives – the enemy. I gave you just a few links in another post, some from not conservative organizations, clearly citing that they do exist and consider us – the enemy.

Not for us here on this forum to prove to you, anything. In other words, live up to your own standards. Put up or exit…
-
-
-

Posted: **Fri Jan 03, 2014 10:54 am**

B. W. wrote:You use conservative strawmen of Reagan and Bush and ignore why, and how, the rich get richer and the income gap gets greater under progressive rule, such as now is the case with Obama. You deny what the news reports and even Obama has said about himself and others: the most leftist ie liberal member of Congress:

Nope, no strawmen. I said that they added to the deficit, which they did. My point was that a lot of the criticisms that you've been leveling at Democrats apply equally to Republicans, which is true. You're the one who responded by accusing me of being a liberal plant here to sabotage the forums.

B. W. wrote:You deny there are leftist...

I deny that "the left" as you describe it in your rants actually exists. I don't deny the existence of progressives, just your position that they are a monolithic force Hell-bent on destroying the nation. Come to think of it, your behavior rings a bell for me. I recall reading that according to a prominent conservative website, WND.com, leftist trolls have been seen:

WND.com wrote:- Posing as a conservative and making comments that discredit the movement. After claiming to be a member of the movement, such as a tea party organization, the troll then proceeds to post long, incoherent diatribes to appear either racist or insane.
- Making false associations.
- Raising straw-man arguments. Here a troll will accuse his opposition of subscribing to a certain point of view, even if the argument is irrelevant and never actually raised.

Can you prove that you're not a leftist plant, here to discredit conservatives?

B. W. wrote:Then you attack a person’s character without knowing them as you have done so toward me. My apologies for setting you up, but you sport, had no clue. Set up for what: show that you are not here to actually reason, or look at another’s POV. Well, sport, you do not know me, nor shall you. In that, is great wisdom for the both of us.

I responded to your constant insults, rants, and insistence on reframing everything that I said into a progressive attack on liberty. Since that's the only you that I've encountered I have no choice be to take your words at face value and assume that they represent your actual thoughts and opinions.

B. W. wrote:Next, I did set you up to express your real tone and you have done just that. If you are really polite as you say you are with your Christian friends where is that politeness here?

My Christian friends don't say insulting and inflammatory things, put words in my mouth, and call me a liberal provocateur in order to set me up so that they can try to use my irritated responses to prove that I'm insincere. If they did that then they wouldn't be my friends, they'd be hypocritical jerks.

B. W. wrote:The burden of proof is upon you to prove Christians are not persecuted in the USA.

Prove? Seems like it's kind of a matter of opinion. Still, if there's proving to be done then that's on you - you're the one who said that it's happening. Or maybe on Fox, since that's where I heard it first. I haven't even stated a position, although as you probably imagine, I'm skeptical.

B. W. wrote:It is up to you to prove that there are no leftist and that progressives do not consider conservatives – the enemy. I gave you just a few links in another post, some from not conservative organizations, clearly citing that they do exist and consider us – the enemy.

Of course there are some left-wing radicals out there that think conservatives are the enemy. It's equally true that there right-wing radicals out there who think that progressives are the enemy. My position is that the radicals on both ends of the spectrum are wrong. Thankfully, neither the ridiculous clowns in PETA nor the lunatic fringe of the Tea Party have enough pull to influence anything more than the tone of the discussion.

Where I get frustrated with you is that you continue to imply that ALL progressives are members of the radical fringe. That's your "the left" strawman. It's not true. The nation doesn't divide neatly into liberals and conservatives, and neither of those groups is remotely homogeneous either. The solutions to the issues that we face are not limited to the liberal choice or the conservative choice. The idea that liberals are wrong about everything and conservatives are right about everything is completely asinine. Holding that position requires you to reframe every piece of information that you see into us vs. them, liberal vs. conservative and good vs. evil. It's ridiculous.

B. W. wrote:Not for us here on this forum to prove to you, anything. In other words, live up to your own standards. Put up or exit…

When did I ask anyone to prove anything (apart from a minute ago when I sarcastically asked you to prove that you're not a leftist plant)? This is another one of your conversational shifts.

Posted: **Sat Jan 04, 2014 10:48 am**

Skeeter:
My Christian friends don't say insulting and inflammatory things, put words in my mouth, and call me a liberal provocateur in order to set me up so that they can try to use my irritated responses to prove that I'm insincere. If they did that then they wouldn't be my friends, they'd be hypocritical jerks.

Skeeter....What I am finding on Christian discussion sites....is an amazing acceptance of hypocrisy....but an intolerance of

statements from those of us who strongly oppose it......

Things have not changed in debates for 2,000 years....If hypocrites have power and authority.....it's amazing how they
somehow manage to be above their own guidelines...

Good luck ...brother

Posted: **Sat Jan 04, 2014 12:45 pm**

jcgood wrote:Skeeter....What I am finding on Christian discussion sites....is an amazing acceptance of hypocrisy....but an intolerance of

statements from those of us who strongly oppose it......

Yeah, there's some of that anywhere you go, but in keeping with my overall theme I have to mention that I've seen obnoxious, hypocritical behavior from liberals and conservatives, atheists and Christians, and so on and so forth. No position is right about everything and no group has a monopoly on jackasses and clowns.

Evidence for God from Science

Capitalism That Serves.....Not Deserves

Re: Capitalism That Serves.....Not Deserves

Re: Capitalism That Serves.....Not Deserves

Re: Capitalism That Serves.....Not Deserves

Re: Capitalism That Serves.....Not Deserves

Re: Capitalism That Serves.....Not Deserves

Re: Capitalism That Serves.....Not Deserves

Re: Capitalism That Serves.....Not Deserves

Re: Capitalism That Serves.....Not Deserves

Re: Capitalism That Serves.....Not Deserves

Re: Capitalism That Serves.....Not Deserves

Re: Capitalism That Serves.....Not Deserves

Re: Capitalism That Serves.....Not Deserves

Re: Capitalism That Serves.....Not Deserves

Re: Capitalism That Serves.....Not Deserves

Re: Capitalism That Serves.....Not Deserves