Re: Is The King James Version The Only Perfect Translation Of The Bible?

N

No One

Jan 1, 1970
0
Meltdarok said:
No One wrote, On 1/11/2008 1:26 PM:

You've obviously given up trying to think.
Have a nice life be that as it may.

I guess you don't like being written off as the nut that you are.
 
D

Dionisio

Jan 1, 1970
0
No said:
ROTFLAO - he cut a deal in the futile hope of sweeping it under the
rug and when it came out, he denied he did anything wrong. He did not
"admit his sins".

Shall we trot out the signed document wherein he refutes your claim and states to the
court that what he signed is the truth? Again?


--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:

I named my cat "Thwap," because that's the noise he makes when he slides head-first into
the fridge.

--Jason Boone

(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)
 
N

No One

Jan 1, 1970
0
Dionisio said:
Shall we trot out the signed document wherein he refutes your claim
and states to the court that what he signed is the truth? Again?

His "signed document" was to a reduced charge and does not refute my
claim.

He signed a plea bargain. Signing whatever the D.A. wanted him to
sign was part of the deal. He's also a politician, a U.S. senator,
specifically. Truthfulness is not a characterisitic they are noted
for. They do, however, understand deals.

Get real. The dude made a deal, and what he pleaded guilty to was a
vague charge of "disorderly conduct". He hoped nobody would notice or
that, if they found it, they'd figure he was a bit tipsy or having a
bad hair day and being obnoxious.

If being truthful was a requirement for being a senator, the U.S.
Senate would not have had a quorum anytime in its history.
 
D

Dionisio

Jan 1, 1970
0
No said:
He signed a plea bargain. Signing whatever the D.A. wanted him to
sign was part of the deal. He's also a politician, a U.S. senator,
specifically. Truthfulness is not a characterisitic they are noted
for. They do, however, understand deals.

And yet you claim that he was truthful, and should be believed... Hmm.

Moral folks don't do deals. They stand on principles, and defend those to the death. But,
whoopsie! He is on record -- public record no less -- as not doing so. With "moral" and
"truthful" friends like that, who needs crack?

Get real. The dude made a deal, and what he pleaded guilty to was a
vague charge of "disorderly conduct". He hoped nobody would notice or
that, if they found it, they'd figure he was a bit tipsy or having a
bad hair day and being obnoxious.

<smirk> Yep, the man who was all discombobulated over being investigated by journalists
went out and engaged in an activity that he *knew* would be part of the public record if
he got caught. He got caught. His defense? "They won't be able to figure out what I really
did if I sign something that leaves little to the imagination." And all the while knowing
that the reporters were looking...

In his defense, he hasn't claimed to be Einstein.


--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:

You can take away our jobs;
You can refuse us the basic rights of citizenship;
You can withhold our economic and civil liberty;
You can beat us, jail us, curse us, and kill us;
You can threaten us with Hell;
And you can take away our children;
But you can never take away our Dignity.

(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)
 
N

No One

Jan 1, 1970
0
Dionisio said:
And yet you claim that he was truthful, and should be believed... Hmm.

I never said that. What I said is that there was a lack of evidence
beyond a reasonable doubt. I quoted some of what he had said (e.g.,
in the police interview tapes) because that is part of the evidence
they would use, and it just wasn't compelling.

Show me one post where I stated that Craig was "truthful". I doubt
that you'll find one and the only reason I say "doubt" is the
possibility of a typo. If you can't produce such a post, I'll take
that as more evidence that you are a iiar.
Moral folks don't do deals. They stand on principles, and defend those
to the death. But, whoopsie! He is on record -- public record no less
-- as not doing so. With "moral" and "truthful" friends like that, who
needs crack?

ROTFLMAO. The guy is a U.S. senator! They do deals. It is part of the
job. If "moral folks don't do deals" as you claim, then there are no
"moral folks" in the U.S. Senate.
<smirk> Yep, the man who was all discombobulated over being
investigated by journalists went out and engaged in an activity that
he *knew* would be part of the public record if he got caught.

You don't know that, and they arrested him before he even had a chance
to engage in any alleged activity.

After it became a national joke, the Idaho newspaper investigating him
finally gave a description of the 8 guys he supposedly had sex with.
4 were not described at all, so who knows. Of the other 4, we have

* Mike Jones, the rent boy who ratted on Teddy Haggard. The
blogger who spilled the beans about Craig's arrest said that
he didn't believe Jones. I don't either - it is too much of a
coincidence, and Jones has an incentive to lie so that he
could get another round on the talk show circuit.

* A guy who claims to have had sex with Craig 20 years ago,
and only recognized his voice after hearing him on the radio
or TV. Was it Craig or someone else, and how good is someone's
memory of a one-hour stand 20 years ago?

* A guy whose only indication was his gaydar.

* Another guy who thought Craig looked at him kind of funny.

Maybe that passes as evidence in Homophobiaville, but anyone with
half a brain would consider it laughable. If that's the best they
can do, the evidence is pretty weak: if Craig is gay, he must be
nearly celebate.
 
Top