Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below labiamaster
New member
broley said:
It is 1:45 am on the East coast and you must be high. What I meant was no one will know if there is a god, jesus, allah, 72 virgins or really anything after death for that matter until they die.
The hypocracy on this site is unbelievable
- Thread starter IvanOffelitch
- Start date
It is 1:45 am on the East coast and you must be high. What I meant was no one will know if there is a god, jesus, allah, 72 virgins or really anything after death for that matter until they die.
Robert Jan
New member
I don't discriminate between christianity and islam, they're equally stupid and evil
sorerotators
Well-known member
Great post!
Anti-Amercian rhetoric is perfectly acceptable.
Being "Anti American GOVERNMENTAL POLICY" is more than acceptable, its needed as form of check and balance that was and is guaranteed by the constitution. Without it, horror reigns in the form of a unchecked nightmare like permanent McCarthyism or ongoing Slavery. Without vociferous opposition, democracy is doomed.
Anti-Bush rhetoric is perfectly acceptable
What? Are you joking with this one? OF COURSE IT IS OK! He is a POLITCAL FIGURE! Listen carefully: All politicos need bashing in the worst way, if you think that because he is president that absolves him of deep, passionate critism then you have the essence the whole process backwards. Next you will be suggesting that its wrong to be Anti-Tunafish Salad because you prefer Tuna to Roastbeef.
Anti-Christian rhetoric is perfectly acceptable (embraced is a more appropriate description)
The institution of Christianity is the same as any other, Islam, Judaism, etc, and is open to critacism like any other. The INDIVIDUALS that follow that institution, like any other, deserve to have their personal, private beliefs defended by the bullies on the block. You have heard me bash the living shit out of the DOCTRINES of hate, seperatism, racism and ignorance that are inherant in ALL strict religeous teaching, but NEVER, NOT ONCE, have you heard me say that someone should be killed, or imprisioned, or forceably converted from one religeous belief set to another, regardless of how silly it is. THAT is the predominant set of rantings toward Islam that flourish on this board by idiots of multiple religeons and I will gladly call them the assholes that they are. I have done it when that ignorant racist blather is turned at any group. So because you are devout Christian, you believe that 'bashing' the doctrines of your institution of choice is wrong? Fine, defend them with logic and reason, but don't go throwing this "IF you don't believe in my flavor then you are destined to the eternal fires of hell' HORSESHIT. Keep that ignorant crap to your self, or you deserve to be bashed for foisting your own beliefs onto others. You think that crap should be defended? Go to a christian board then. See ya.
Anti-semetic rhetoric is perfectly acceptable
Read my post above, insert changes where needed.
Anyone who speaks up in favor of traditional values and (dare I say?) morals is immediately lambasted and labeled a closed-minded idiot...or worse
WHOSE traditional values? You stick up for traditional Middle Class White Protestant Values so it's supposed to be off limits? But someone who sticks up for traditional (insert other school of thought) values is wrong? That assertion is closed minded AND worse.
......on the other hand......
Anything even remotely anti-islamic either gets locked or gets someone banned. How does this differ from an anti-Christian topic? Most of the anti-Christian topics get MUCH more vulgar and brutal than the anti-islamic threads (see this thread), yet they seldom (if ever) get locked, and I'm not aware of anyone being banned for participating in an anti-Christian thread. Hell, even some of the MODERATORS take part in them.
Snore. Re-read my comments above.
Point to the thread where someone has called for the wholesale extermination of all christians.
Show me where a member has suggested that all christians are blood thirsty murderers.
Could you remind me where someone has professed the virtues of converting all christians to their religion at gun point and if they don't like it, they should be killed?
This is what is NOT tolerated:
yes, that is a quote.
You ever see anyone say THAT about christians, they will get banned like the fool that posted that idiocy.
It's perfectly acceptable to make off-hand remarks about wanting to have sex with someone's underage daughter. So pedophilia is welcomed here too?
You, sir, need to be able to distinguish the banter of those who live life on the fringe from actual offers of disrupting the sanctity of children. Until you can, you might want to try to relax.
Red K attacks are executed on various members by certain "clicks" because their opinions/beliefs differ from that of said "clicks." How pathetic is that?
Pathetic indeed. Welcome to the internet. Glad you could come. I am among the loudest of loudmouths on this board and bashed as much or more than most. Yet I have yet to receive one red K attack for my beliefs, nor have I ever given red but to those that get rude. Why haven't I been crushed by red for my outspoken opinions? Because, although I disagree with you, I never attack you as a person, just your frothing, festering, ignorant beliefs...
So, it seems to me that as long as someone conforms to the common ultra-liberal, anti-American, anti-traditional, anti-moral, anti-Christian, anti-semetic mindset which is so prevalent here, then all is good. But anyone who goes against this grain is considered an outcast and unable to think for themselves.
<cough> HORSESHIT. Read my coments above to crush that rant.
How ironic is that?!? "Conform to the common mindset here and you're golden. Stray from it and you're an idiot." If that wasn't so pathetic, it would be amusing.
Uh... so your suggesting that they need to conform to your mindset? Contradictions like that are what make your arguments easy to ignore. I mean that in a loving, brotherly way, brother.
I do find one thing amusing though...
The ultra-liberals demand that everyone else be tolerant of them and their beliefs, but they refuse to tolerate the beliefs of others.
Snore. Yawn. Read above.
That is so inane that it's crossed over from amusing to pathetic and back to amusing again. That, ladies and gentlemen (and everything in between), is hypocracy at its finest. Congrats. As Bill Engvall would say: "Here's your sign."
Yet at the same time you are saying "If you dont believe in my opinion, you are not not tolerant." You want me to milk-toast around when I disagree? Not gonna happen, if you have ever been unfortuneate enough to read my posts you would know that for certain. I will fight anyone that pulls a curling on you, or that suggests that you change your personal belief set purely because it is different from theirs. You try and cram any of those down my throat, or suggest that I must be 'unsaved' or 'unable to see the truth' by virtue of the fact that I don't fall into your flock, then hell yes you will get bashed, you should be.
Carry on.
Being "Anti American GOVERNMENTAL POLICY" is more than acceptable, its needed as form of check and balance that was and is guaranteed by the constitution. Without it, horror reigns in the form of a unchecked nightmare like permanent McCarthyism or ongoing Slavery. Without vociferous opposition, democracy is doomed.
Anti-Bush rhetoric is perfectly acceptable
What? Are you joking with this one? OF COURSE IT IS OK! He is a POLITCAL FIGURE! Listen carefully: All politicos need bashing in the worst way, if you think that because he is president that absolves him of deep, passionate critism then you have the essence the whole process backwards. Next you will be suggesting that its wrong to be Anti-Tunafish Salad because you prefer Tuna to Roastbeef.
Anti-Christian rhetoric is perfectly acceptable (embraced is a more appropriate description)
The institution of Christianity is the same as any other, Islam, Judaism, etc, and is open to critacism like any other. The INDIVIDUALS that follow that institution, like any other, deserve to have their personal, private beliefs defended by the bullies on the block. You have heard me bash the living shit out of the DOCTRINES of hate, seperatism, racism and ignorance that are inherant in ALL strict religeous teaching, but NEVER, NOT ONCE, have you heard me say that someone should be killed, or imprisioned, or forceably converted from one religeous belief set to another, regardless of how silly it is. THAT is the predominant set of rantings toward Islam that flourish on this board by idiots of multiple religeons and I will gladly call them the assholes that they are. I have done it when that ignorant racist blather is turned at any group. So because you are devout Christian, you believe that 'bashing' the doctrines of your institution of choice is wrong? Fine, defend them with logic and reason, but don't go throwing this "IF you don't believe in my flavor then you are destined to the eternal fires of hell' HORSESHIT. Keep that ignorant crap to your self, or you deserve to be bashed for foisting your own beliefs onto others. You think that crap should be defended? Go to a christian board then. See ya.
Anti-semetic rhetoric is perfectly acceptable
Read my post above, insert changes where needed.
Anyone who speaks up in favor of traditional values and (dare I say?) morals is immediately lambasted and labeled a closed-minded idiot...or worse
WHOSE traditional values? You stick up for traditional Middle Class White Protestant Values so it's supposed to be off limits? But someone who sticks up for traditional (insert other school of thought) values is wrong? That assertion is closed minded AND worse.
......on the other hand......
Anything even remotely anti-islamic either gets locked or gets someone banned. How does this differ from an anti-Christian topic? Most of the anti-Christian topics get MUCH more vulgar and brutal than the anti-islamic threads (see this thread), yet they seldom (if ever) get locked, and I'm not aware of anyone being banned for participating in an anti-Christian thread. Hell, even some of the MODERATORS take part in them.
Snore. Re-read my comments above.
Point to the thread where someone has called for the wholesale extermination of all christians.
Show me where a member has suggested that all christians are blood thirsty murderers.
Could you remind me where someone has professed the virtues of converting all christians to their religion at gun point and if they don't like it, they should be killed?
This is what is NOT tolerated:
Curling said:
yes, that is a quote.
You ever see anyone say THAT about christians, they will get banned like the fool that posted that idiocy.
It's perfectly acceptable to make off-hand remarks about wanting to have sex with someone's underage daughter. So pedophilia is welcomed here too?
You, sir, need to be able to distinguish the banter of those who live life on the fringe from actual offers of disrupting the sanctity of children. Until you can, you might want to try to relax.
Red K attacks are executed on various members by certain "clicks" because their opinions/beliefs differ from that of said "clicks." How pathetic is that?
Pathetic indeed. Welcome to the internet. Glad you could come. I am among the loudest of loudmouths on this board and bashed as much or more than most. Yet I have yet to receive one red K attack for my beliefs, nor have I ever given red but to those that get rude. Why haven't I been crushed by red for my outspoken opinions? Because, although I disagree with you, I never attack you as a person, just your frothing, festering, ignorant beliefs...
So, it seems to me that as long as someone conforms to the common ultra-liberal, anti-American, anti-traditional, anti-moral, anti-Christian, anti-semetic mindset which is so prevalent here, then all is good. But anyone who goes against this grain is considered an outcast and unable to think for themselves.
<cough> HORSESHIT. Read my coments above to crush that rant.
How ironic is that?!? "Conform to the common mindset here and you're golden. Stray from it and you're an idiot." If that wasn't so pathetic, it would be amusing.
Uh... so your suggesting that they need to conform to your mindset? Contradictions like that are what make your arguments easy to ignore. I mean that in a loving, brotherly way, brother.
I do find one thing amusing though...
The ultra-liberals demand that everyone else be tolerant of them and their beliefs, but they refuse to tolerate the beliefs of others.
Snore. Yawn. Read above.
That is so inane that it's crossed over from amusing to pathetic and back to amusing again. That, ladies and gentlemen (and everything in between), is hypocracy at its finest. Congrats. As Bill Engvall would say: "Here's your sign."
Yet at the same time you are saying "If you dont believe in my opinion, you are not not tolerant." You want me to milk-toast around when I disagree? Not gonna happen, if you have ever been unfortuneate enough to read my posts you would know that for certain. I will fight anyone that pulls a curling on you, or that suggests that you change your personal belief set purely because it is different from theirs. You try and cram any of those down my throat, or suggest that I must be 'unsaved' or 'unable to see the truth' by virtue of the fact that I don't fall into your flock, then hell yes you will get bashed, you should be.
Carry on.
Last edited:
G
Gonzosc1
Guest
QUOTE...............from Chefwide
Red K attacks are executed on various members by certain "clicks" because their opinions/beliefs differ from that of said "clicks." How pathetic is that?
Pathetic indeed. Welcome to the internet. Glad you could come. I am among the loudest of loudmouths on this board and bashed as much or more than most. Yet I have yet to receive one red K attack for my beliefs, nor have I ever given red but to those that get rude. Why haven't I been crushed by red for my outspoken opinions? Because, although I disagree with you, I never attack you as a person, just your frothing, festering, ignorant beliefs...
.................................................................................................................
Agreed for the most part, but where do you draw the line..............
For exmaple; as a recent RED K victim myself from Chefwide(tongue in cheek)
I won't deny that I might have had it coming. but as a result of reflaming someone who flamed me. where do you drawn the line. Did the person who started the flame receive some RED k also?? rude is rude anyway you cut it.
Like I said I may have had it coming cuz I did jump right on the other guy. the whole subject matter of our replies was pretty,,,, uncalled for as this guy misread or couldn't comprehend what I said to begin with, So he flamed me and also gave me the RED K..... So now I have 2 RED K' for the same thing that he started. where do you draw the line of rudeness? are there different degrees of it? if so then you are forcing your beliefs on other people cuz there is no set list of what is rude. one mans rudeness can be another mans light play or fun.....
Example; if someone suggest that I am a shithead,, and someone else calls me a shithead. Is there a real line between the two? there is NO difference in either remark.
both remarks would be considered rude! the intent is the same. So unless both parties receive RED K it would indicate bias which can only end in the true meaning ..ie..
HYPOCRACY
Red K attacks are executed on various members by certain "clicks" because their opinions/beliefs differ from that of said "clicks." How pathetic is that?
Pathetic indeed. Welcome to the internet. Glad you could come. I am among the loudest of loudmouths on this board and bashed as much or more than most. Yet I have yet to receive one red K attack for my beliefs, nor have I ever given red but to those that get rude. Why haven't I been crushed by red for my outspoken opinions? Because, although I disagree with you, I never attack you as a person, just your frothing, festering, ignorant beliefs...
.................................................................................................................
Agreed for the most part, but where do you draw the line..............
For exmaple; as a recent RED K victim myself from Chefwide(tongue in cheek)
I won't deny that I might have had it coming. but as a result of reflaming someone who flamed me. where do you drawn the line. Did the person who started the flame receive some RED k also?? rude is rude anyway you cut it.
Like I said I may have had it coming cuz I did jump right on the other guy. the whole subject matter of our replies was pretty,,,, uncalled for as this guy misread or couldn't comprehend what I said to begin with, So he flamed me and also gave me the RED K..... So now I have 2 RED K' for the same thing that he started. where do you draw the line of rudeness? are there different degrees of it? if so then you are forcing your beliefs on other people cuz there is no set list of what is rude. one mans rudeness can be another mans light play or fun.....
Example; if someone suggest that I am a shithead,, and someone else calls me a shithead. Is there a real line between the two? there is NO difference in either remark.
both remarks would be considered rude! the intent is the same. So unless both parties receive RED K it would indicate bias which can only end in the true meaning ..ie..
HYPOCRACY
Last edited:
IvanOffelitch
Well-known member
ChefWide said:Anti-Amercian rhetoric is perfectly acceptable.
Being "Anti American GOVERNMENTAL POLICY" is more than acceptable, its needed as form of check and balance that was and is guaranteed by the constitution. Without it, horror reigns in the form of a unchecked nightmare like permanent McCarthyism or ongoing Slavery. Without vociferous opposition, democracy is doomed.
Anti-Bush rhetoric is perfectly acceptable
What? Are you joking with this one? OF COURSE IT IS OK! He is a POLITCAL FIGURE! Listen carefully: All politicos need bashing in the worst way, if you think that because he is president that absolves him of deep, passionate critism then you have the essence the whole process backwards. Next you will be suggesting that its wrong to be Anti-Tunafish Salad because you prefer Tuna to Roastbeef.
Anti-Christian rhetoric is perfectly acceptable (embraced is a more appropriate description)
The institution of Christianity is the same as any other, Islam, Judaism, etc, and is open to critacism like any other. The INDIVIDUALS that follow that institution, like any other, deserve to have their personal, private beliefs defended by the bullies on the block. You have heard me bash the living shit out of the DOCTRINES of hate, seperatism, racism and ignorance that are inherant in ALL strict religeous teaching, but NEVER, NOT ONCE, have you heard me say that someone should be killed, or imprisioned, or forceably converted from one religeous belief set to another, regardless of how silly it is. THAT is the predominant set of rantings toward Islam that flourish on this board by idiots of multiple religeons and I will gladly call them the assholes that they are. I have done it when that ignorant racist blather is turned at any group. So because you are devout Christian, you believe that 'bashing' the doctrines of your institution of choice is wrong? Fine, defend them with logic and reason, but don't go throwing this "IF you don't believe in my flavor then you are destined to the eternal fires of hell' HORSESHIT. Keep that ignorant crap to your self, or you deserve to be bashed for foisting your own beliefs onto others. You think that crap should be defended? Go to a christian board then. See ya.
Anti-semetic rhetoric is perfectly acceptable
Read my post above, insert changes where needed.
Anyone who speaks up in favor of traditional values and (dare I say?) morals is immediately lambasted and labeled a closed-minded idiot...or worse
WHOSE traditional values? You stick up for traditional Middle Class White Protestant Values so it's supposed to be off limits? But someone who sticks up for traditional (insert other school of thought) values is wrong? That assertion is closed minded AND worse.
......on the other hand......
Anything even remotely anti-islamic either gets locked or gets someone banned. How does this differ from an anti-Christian topic? Most of the anti-Christian topics get MUCH more vulgar and brutal than the anti-islamic threads (see this thread), yet they seldom (if ever) get locked, and I'm not aware of anyone being banned for participating in an anti-Christian thread. Hell, even some of the MODERATORS take part in them.
Snore. Re-read my comments above.
Point to the thread where someone has called for the wholesale extermination of all christians.
Show me where a member has suggested that all christians are blood thirsty murderers.
Could you remind me where someone has professed the virtues of converting all christians to their religion at gun point and if they don't like it, they should be killed?
This is what is NOT tolerated:
yes, that is a quote.
You ever see anyone say THAT about christians, they will get banned like the fool that posted that idiocy.
It's perfectly acceptable to make off-hand remarks about wanting to have sex with someone's underage daughter. So pedophilia is welcomed here too?
You, sir, need to be able to distinguish the banter of those who live life on the fringe from actual offers of disrupting the sanctity of children. Until you can, you might want to try to relax.
Red K attacks are executed on various members by certain "clicks" because their opinions/beliefs differ from that of said "clicks." How pathetic is that?
Pathetic indeed. Welcome to the internet. Glad you could come. I am among the loudest of loudmouths on this board and bashed as much or more than most. Yet I have yet to receive one red K attack for my beliefs, nor have I ever given red but to those that get rude. Why haven't I been crushed by red for my outspoken opinions? Because, although I disagree with you, I never attack you as a person, just your frothing, festering, ignorant beliefs...
So, it seems to me that as long as someone conforms to the common ultra-liberal, anti-American, anti-traditional, anti-moral, anti-Christian, anti-semetic mindset which is so prevalent here, then all is good. But anyone who goes against this grain is considered an outcast and unable to think for themselves.
<cough> HORSESHIT. Read my coments above to crush that rant.
How ironic is that?!? "Conform to the common mindset here and you're golden. Stray from it and you're an idiot." If that wasn't so pathetic, it would be amusing.
Uh... so your suggesting that they need to conform to your mindset? Contradictions like that are what make your arguments easy to ignore. I mean that in a loving, brotherly way, brother.
I do find one thing amusing though...
The ultra-liberals demand that everyone else be tolerant of them and their beliefs, but they refuse to tolerate the beliefs of others.
Snore. Yawn. Read above.
That is so inane that it's crossed over from amusing to pathetic and back to amusing again. That, ladies and gentlemen (and everything in between), is hypocracy at its finest. Congrats. As Bill Engvall would say: "Here's your sign."
Yet at the same time you are saying "If you dont believe in my opinion, you are not not tolerant." You want me to milk-toast around when I disagree? Not gonna happen, if you have ever been unfortuneate enough to read my posts you would know that for certain. I will fight anyone that pulls a curling on you, or that suggests that you change your personal belief set purely because it is different from theirs. You try and cram any of those down my throat, or suggest that I must be 'unsaved' or 'unable to see the truth' by virtue of the fact that I don't fall into your flock, then hell yes you will get bashed, you should be.
Carry on.
Good grief....you really are that clueless. The point of that post cleared the top of your head by a mile.
Yes, Curling could accurately be called a "clown prince" of Christianity. But, if you think he was an example of all Christians, then you are delusional. EVERY "religion" (how I detest that word) has it's share of buffoons, as does any other sect of society. Was what Curling said acceptable? Obviously not. But, on the other hand, this IS???
ChefWide said:
You, sir, are as big a buffoon, if not moreso, than he was.
From Zero said:
Add another one to the list.
Curling was obviously out of line making the comments he made, but no moreso than 90% of the other garbage that gets spewed forth here on a regular basis...yet it continues on un-checked. Again, I am NOT defending Curlings statements in any way...but the double-standard is blatantly obvious.
Curling was not an accurate representation of what a Christian "should" be. Here's a newsflash... no one is! Why do I say that? Because we're humans, not God...we make mistakes, we say and do stupid shit at times, and we at times hurt other people that we didn't intend to hurt. And yes, I've known more than my fair share of "Saturday night sinners, Sunday morning saints." On the other hand, I've also known some Christians who walked the walk better than they talked the talk. Some people take their faith more seriously than others do. That shows in their lives, when they're faced with tough decisions and temptations. NO ONE is perfect, Christian, muslim, buddhist or otherwise. We do the best we can with what we have, and when we screw up, we try to make amends. Unfortunately, the bad apples cast a very unfavorable image on the rest of us, and everyone assumes we're all just another Curling...or Jerry Falwell...whatever. Nothing could be further from the truth.
You will not see me bash anyone else for their beliefs...to do so is below childish. You believe what you will, as will I. However, when someone tries to pigeon-hole me into some imaginary stereotype that they've gleaned from the internet, TBN, a bad experience they had as a kid at sunday school, or some liberal college professor, then yes, you're gonna get called out.
As far as the anti-Bush rhetoric...
I am not a Bush supporter either...I was "cautiously optimistic" when he entered office, but I'm not satisfied with everything he's done. That is all I have to say about that subject, I do not discuss my personal political beliefs with anyone, much less people on the internet. The reason why should be obvious by this point. To those who take such delight in bashing the man, I ask you this; do you seriously think you could do a better job than he has? If so, then shut your pie hole and run for office. If not, then shut your pie hole. You're succeeding at little more than embarrasing yourselves.
As far as the anti-American sentiment...
There's no question the US has it's fair share of problems and political issues...always has, always will. However, I think it's more than fair to say that we, as a nation, have done more than our fair share to make the world a better place to live in. Yes, the US has screwed the pooch on several occasions...no one ever said we're perfect. On the other hand, how many times have we been there to bail out other nations when they got into something that went over their head? Who does everyone come to when they need $$$?...or food???...or medical aid???
As far as the pedophilia "banter"...
If ANYONE thinks that making light of molesting children is in any way amusing, then you are the lowest form of life on the planet. Please do the gene pool a favor and go play on a busy highway before you contaminate the population any further.
I could go on, but it's not worth it. The evidence speaks for itself.
`Nuff said.
Similar threads
