Intarweb

Quit trying to suck up. I've never seen someone more wrong than you were in that petty argument you just had. It was pretty laughable. Not only were you wrong, but you suck at arguing. At least Brad was correct in what he was saying - whether or not he argued as well as that snob Locke or whatever is irrelevant - at least he can walk away from this saying he was right. Oh well..this place bores me. Holler.

So I get home from uni today and am informed that someone else is being accused of me being me. Someone named Locke? For the record, that's not me. From just scanning that ridiculous debate it looks like Carlo is terribly wrong but MPC is just terrible at arguing. That's how it usually goes. Peace out homies. -Ghost

So it no longer is a mistake?

But So was it a mistake, or was it not a mistake?

So you don't think it was a mistake? Why not actually respond to our posts then where we show you why you're wrong?

I was making the obvious statement that the big time media corporations owe more apologies than me, after all, they are the ones calling this a crisis and what not. Complain to them, not me. I was influenced into thinking that, and I was so young during the Clinton campaign I had no idea about any of that. Happy? No one wants you to apologize. They, if you read their posts, want you to admit your mistake. Blaming the media is just a cop out for you. Anyone who's going to take the time to make a discussion about a current event should have some basic knowledge of the facts and history behind what they're talking about before they post.

Because you created the discussion and so when people respond, showing you that you're wrong, and you don't reply - that's called "ignoring." It's not like you were just reading it, you started the discussion - you argued back - and then you ignored our replies and tried to blame CNN in order to make it look like your weren't wrong. I didn't say you need to apologize to me or anyone else so I don't know why you're asking me that.

Why defend a statement I no longer agree with? Why not say you were wrong instead of ignoring people's posts and blaming CNN?

Don't you understand Chris? Vickie never does anything wrong. If he screws up or makes a mistake it's someone else's fault. This time poor little Vickie was taken advantage of by the big bad media. :cry:

Yes? :lol: Duke Freedom - absolute legend And yes, they do. They werent really kidnapped - just captured. And I heard something on radio about them being in iranian waters, in which case, I guess they deserve it. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Next, please?

I want to show that a war is possible and planned, not that it will happen. The pieces are in place. Sorry. Your first post is horribly misleading. You should be hung for blatant deception.

You have still failed to give any factual evidence to support the idea that the US will attack Iran by the end of April. What a surprise.

Please pull out the excerpt where it's been revealed that the U.S. will be attacking Iran by the end of April.

Right. The major difference being that the US is preparing to use this plan. That's according to the Kuwait-based Arab Times. :roll:

This guy is quoting an article written almost a year and a half ago. 2 months ago is still in his future. He probably won't be caught up in time to get to read the book when it's released.

Except that article was written before the book was announced. If you read that article you would see this at the beginning: 2 weeks off? That would make the release date the 21st, not the 7th. So next time you send me an article to back up your made up facts, make sure you've actually read it yourself. It clearly says you're wrong.

My thoughts are that the book isn't being released until July 21st. I think you need to recheck your source.

Actually, I did mention it. You just can't read. Yeah. Everyone on this board knows how the American political process works except for Vickie. You'll just have to excuse him for having no brain.

No human rights violations here! Are you going to deny that human rights has to do with morality? That's just silly. Apparently you're also denying the long history of your country's belief in the supernatural. That's also silly.

Uh...can you elaborate on that? Are you going to deny the religious and pseudo-religious influences on Chinese culture over the thousands of years its been a country? Because that would be one of the silliest thing I've ever heard of.

Agressor, that only works if you blatantly ignore the entire history of China as a country - which you can't do.

But then it's not absolute, it's only apparently absolute. BIG difference. Explain please. Absolute morality means there is a right and there is a wrong. If we have a concept of God to define absolute morality, who doesn't exist, then we are just defining it for ourselves. That means that morality is only APPARENTLY absolute, because there isn't actually anything that says it is absolute. It's not absolute just because everyone might agree, it's absolute when it is STILL the definition of right and wrong, even when not a single person on the planet thinks so. The difference between your book and a God that actually defined absolute morals is the fact that your God doesn't exist. The rules you came up with may be absolute in YOUR belief - as in they are unchanging no matter the circumstance in your belief - but there is nothing absolute about them for all existence. When we talk about absolute morals we don't just mean a clear definition of right and wrong - we mean something that is absolutely right and wrong - was absolutely right and wrong before existence - and will be absolutely right and wrong after existence. It's a right and wrong that transcends our Natural world. It exists no matter what. Your absolute morality can be compared to a building that one might build, and claim that it is indestructible. Even if everyone on the planet agrees that it's indestructible, it doesn't make it so. Something could still destroy that building. Whereas what we mean by absolute morality is a building that IS indestructible. Even if everyone on the planet denies the indestructibility of the building, it is STILL indestructible. Am I doing anything at all to clarify this?

Do me a favor? Find an example of a normal group who has had no religious influence on their life at all. Okay. But you're wrong. If you want to live in denial of it that's fine though. I don't care either way. You do realize that you have now qualified your position so much you have been forced to admit that you believe in our natural state without religion, killing people outside of your own society is perfectly moral. Do you honestly believe that? Then I'd assert that they haven't read the Bible. But then it's not absolute, it's only apparently absolute. BIG difference.

Read his response.

We can agree to disagree on this one.