Strife767

The title/subtitle of the topic are "Oakwood Ave Fire/Good Job." What does that sound like to you, at first glance? Yes, there must be something wrong with me for noticing how something sounds strange/funny (as I never took it seriously) read literally. What a foolish thing to say. I think there's something wrong with you for making such an idiotic comment and missing the extremely obvious observation.

Okay, so what is it? Considering that regardless, there isn't any job title I could hold that would magically change the validity of what I say, you're still full of shit.

Oh no, conflict and drama in a movie! What were they thinking?!

I'd rather try to unravel the mysteries--the more we know, the better off we are, after all. I agree with the rest of the post though, which reminds me once again of this quote: "...to emphasize the afterlife is to deny life. To concentrate on Heaven is to create hell. In their desperate longing to transcend the disorderliness, friction, and unpredictability that pesters life; in their desire for a fresh start in a tidy habitat, germ-free and secured by angels, religious multitudes are gambling the only life they may ever have on a dark horse in a race that has no finish line." --Tom Robbins

Why is someone who didn't attack us a higher priority than someone who did? Answer that, hotshot.

You have to read past the first two words to know what I was actually saying, stupid.

I just happened to glance at this block of four posts in a row (only fully read this short one, though), so I happened to notice this. Newsflash: ignoring you doesn't stop your posts from appearing in others'

Sounds fine. Ideas?

Proclamations proclaim? Huh? 'Thank God for 3800+ dead in an unwinnable 'war?'' This reminds me of: "Yes, the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely! In broad daylight! Openly wearing the symbols of their religion.... perhaps around their necks? And maybe -- dare I dream it? -- maybe one day there can be an openly Christian President. Or, perhaps, 43 of them. Consecutively." --Jon Stewart

I'm glad you're at peace with your irrationality. Um, no one's asked you to do the latter. Kind of a non-sequitur, don't you think? 1. Maybe it just seems that way because every time he asks someone else for answers, they tend to make personal comments about him instead. 2. How do you know what has or hasn't happened to him? How presumptuous. "To!" Also, this is just more of the same tired tripe your kind pushes around: variants of "he'll believe when things are bad." No. You might not know what it's like to not rely on belief in a deity to get through rough times, but many, many people do. An atheist will not magically poof into a believer the moment something bad happens--this is just wishful thinking on your part, and/or the delusion that atheists are all actually theists "deep down." Possibly because it's something you're just projecting onto him?

<edited into previous post>

They have FIRST-HAND EXPERIENCE with American military, and to anyone with the slightest bit of logic, it is obvious they would more likely get their ideas from what they actually experience than some random movie in the US. What results in American deaths is keeping military over there on an impossible "mission." Sad fact: We could have had 9/11 happen TWICE and have lost fewer lives than 9/11 plus the debacle in Iraq. What good is all this hot air about not being attacked again when we're still losing lives on a regular basis in a country that never attacked us?! http://www.infoshout.com/

<double post removed>

That's Howard Dean, you imbecile. Glutton for punishment, eh? I guess liars are attracted to other liars: http://www.boingboing.net/2004/02/16/ann-c...rs-lies-ab.html http://www.newshounds.us/2005/07/14/ann_co...t_karl_rove.php She's also an ignoramus: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06...ence_for_ev.php And a plagiarist: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog...ves/003335.html Ann Coulter is a disgraceful person.

Yes, despite the size of the blaze, it has been confirmed that there were no casualties nor injuries at all. ...gotta say though, you could have constructed the title a bit better. Sounds like you're praising the fire at first glance.

lol, you can't even say it without saying "possibly," yet you manage to construct the rest of the sentence as if it's the most obvious thing in the world. Hey, by the way, you never answered my question. How many supporters do you have? I'm not even asking for names or any personally identifiable information, just a number. Why haven't you answered it? Too ashamed of the answer, maybe?

lol, it's hard to make a post referencing relative time on a forum with such large posting delays. It's better to just say what day it is, lest your info is out of date by the time everyone else sees it.

1. You don't know either. 2. One's job title has no effect on the validity (or lack thereof) of one's words, simpleton.

(Questions end with question marks, remember? Also, the expression is "who died and made," as in describing someone being appointed for a job, or otherwise 'receiving' it as a result of the death of the title's previous holder. Objects (as implied by the "what" in your statement) hardly fit the role of the person in the original expression. Now, I know what you're thinking: "I can't wait to call him names for correcting me." One step ahead, as usual. ) It's not a command (but it sounds that way because it was originally coined in 'commandement-speak'), but consider it a very strong suggestion. What happened to "do unto others?" Would you want Muslims to tell you "you should thank Allah for" this and that? I'd wager not. So why do it to others? Better yet, you could do your part to end the double standard where Christians can say stuff like what was in the post I replied to, yet non-Christians always have Christians jumping down their throat anytime they open their mouths to say anything about religion, as if only Christians are "allowed" to talk about religion. Which would you prefer? I'm partial to the second option myself, as I would rather all speak than all silence themselves. How amusingly hackneyed.

Where did you go to school, so that I may forever avoid it?

I wouldn't call one inch of rain after months of drought a "blessing," but one's interpretation will vary according to his/her level of brainwashing, especially considering that the same storm's winds blew a roof off a church, injuring three children. So not only would there not be any justification to give some god or another credit for the event if it was 100% Good (since I know how people like you will give "God" credit for all the good stuff, but blame him for none of the bad stuff--that mentality is the result of textbook cult tactics, by the way), but this even was far from being the 'godsend' you're acting like it was. a.k.a. Attributing mundane events to supernatural agents. That's because you're so indoctrinated that you literally (by your own admission) can't imagine what life is like without theistic faith. You think that reflects badly on those who don't believe (or even those who believe but in a more deistic way), but your inability to understand how one can live life and enjoy life to its fullest is a negative reflection on you, my friend. Life is that brief, precious moment after birth and before death. Its brevity only makes it more worth cherishing and living to the fullest. Usually, it is used as a synonym for "self," describing the collective of all of one's attributes. In a theistic sense, it (and the other word for it, "soul") is an imaginary construct invented to facilitate the idea that one's consciousness can survive death. Of course, I wouldn't waste my time with something like that. If only you realized that it is your own imagination you worship.

Yes, let's ignore all of the personal comments (and many false statements) directed at Paul (not to mention his wife and children) for good reason, and come down on Paul for calling a troll a "knucklehead," a term that's far too kind for that liar. At least you make your biases really obvious. Proof that you don't actually read his posts. That's a senseless assumption. If someone has a bad idea for a solution to a problem, another person can say it's a bad idea without necessarily having an alternate idea. It's like saying I can't say that any food tastes bad unless I'm a master chef. Ridiculous. Just pointing out that a bad idea is bad helps too, especially when few seem to realize it. Why am I not surprised you offered no explanation for this 'point?' So, basically, what you're saying is "we might have done a lot of bad things, but it's just as much your fault because even though you're trying to correct our mistakes, you haven't come up with perfect solutions that solved everything all by yourselves." Give me a break. Here's an idea--forget the partisan nonsense altogether. This two-party system is a large part of the problem. The issues are what's important, and people are wasting way too much time with party affiliation to actually focus on them. The "many news channels" huh? How many media corporations control all of those news channels? Five? And as far as the Internet, there is the whole net neutrality issue, where these corporations want to split it up in the same way ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutr...e_United_States ). That must not happen. Except they are.

Yeah, when you have some jackass trying to sneak by legislation to further 'consolidate' media, expect people to be pissed off about it at the 5-day-notice (!) hearing, for example. And that's just one example--we're tired of being lied to. LOL, are you seriously going to tell me that you think the Phelps clan is "radical-left?" The most infamous anti-gay group in the country today? Please. Probably because they haven't done anything so outrageous as what has become standard fare for the neocon scum around here. Yes you have, you just refuse to refer to them as "conservative" becauese they have a bad reputation. It's just the political version of the "No True Scotsman" argument Christians use against other Christian sects. Despite how Bush and his cronies are heartlessly using them. Why again is it that so few Republicans are in favor of undoing the disastrous legislation that forces soldiers wounded in combat during their tours to give back their sign-on bonuses? At least with a movie you pay to see it, and can stay home if you want--and there are lot of crap movies out there. But neocons would like to see that all media ultimately comes from one source, one point of view, one conglomerate, and only a fool would not realize just how much worse that is.

It's not because of any democrat that nearly 4,000 of our men and women perished in Iraq.

Forget terrorism. We should go after the terrorists. THEY are the culprits. Despite what you and your fellow Bushtards squawk about, declaring war on a concept is a retarded idea. Why have we stopped pursuing the man who orchestrated 9/11? Do you have the guts to give that a straight answer?