Just remember the Repubs did this
- Thread starter uscitizen
- Start date
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
DIXIE: “I don't recall ever discussing how I was raised, so you are making an assumption based on what, exactly?”
Fullpolitics.com:
-Dixie: “Tiana, I am flattered that you are so concerned with my salvation. I can assure you, I am a Christian believer in the Word of God.”
Do you have a dedicated server to handle all of my posted words? Just curious, since you seem to always have them at your fingertips. What's it like to be so utterly obsessed with one person? It must be frustrating!
Now... let's take a look at what was actually said....
I don't recall ever discussing how I was raised.
I am a Christian believer in the Word of God.
Can you show me where, in my comment to Tiana, I ever mentioned a word about how I was raised? I don't see it there, please point out to me, where I stated anything about how I was raised?
Keep in mind, the question was not whether I was a Christian, it was whether I was raised as a Christian. Do you see the word I highlighted? It's very important here, it completely changes the complexion of the statement, and is causing you to completely misconstrue what was said. In most of the cases where pinheads have amassed volumes of threads and posts, "proving me wrong", this is the case. 99% of the time, if you read all the words I post, in context, you'll find that I am not wrong at all.
Fullpolitics.com:
-Dixie: “Tiana, I am flattered that you are so concerned with my salvation. I can assure you, I am a Christian believer in the Word of God.”
Do you have a dedicated server to handle all of my posted words? Just curious, since you seem to always have them at your fingertips. What's it like to be so utterly obsessed with one person? It must be frustrating!
Now... let's take a look at what was actually said....
I don't recall ever discussing how I was raised.
I am a Christian believer in the Word of God.
Can you show me where, in my comment to Tiana, I ever mentioned a word about how I was raised? I don't see it there, please point out to me, where I stated anything about how I was raised?
Keep in mind, the question was not whether I was a Christian, it was whether I was raised as a Christian. Do you see the word I highlighted? It's very important here, it completely changes the complexion of the statement, and is causing you to completely misconstrue what was said. In most of the cases where pinheads have amassed volumes of threads and posts, "proving me wrong", this is the case. 99% of the time, if you read all the words I post, in context, you'll find that I am not wrong at all.
Neither of those posts seem to speak to how he was raised, only to how he currently believes.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
So, when you said that "you don't recall" talking about your faith and how you were raised, that makes it - what - the third or fourth time you've been WRONG, on this thread alone?
Again, here are my exact words...
"I don't recall ever discussing how I was raised, so you are making an assumption based on what, exactly?"
Where did I mention discussing my faith? See? I never mentioned my faith, I said that I hadn't discussed how I was raised, and I haven't. If you can find a quote from your database to 'prove me wrong' then go for it! Otherwise, we will assume it is YOU who is WRONG here!
Again, here are my exact words...
"I don't recall ever discussing how I was raised, so you are making an assumption based on what, exactly?"
Where did I mention discussing my faith? See? I never mentioned my faith, I said that I hadn't discussed how I was raised, and I haven't. If you can find a quote from your database to 'prove me wrong' then go for it! Otherwise, we will assume it is YOU who is WRONG here!
" I have not read the Baker report, so I doubt that I have posted anything to contradict it yet. Any commentary I made about the conditions in Iraq, were made before the Baker report was public, so I can't be "wrong" about something that didn't previously exist"
The conditions it describes have existed for quite awhile, Dixie. The Baker report only confirms observations that MOST discerning Americans have made, by the news reports that you have called so biased & one-sided. You are not "wrong" about the Baker report. You are "wrong" about the situation in Iraq, and have been since March of 2003.
Even your tapdancing is getting pretty bad....
The conditions it describes have existed for quite awhile, Dixie. The Baker report only confirms observations that MOST discerning Americans have made, by the news reports that you have called so biased & one-sided. You are not "wrong" about the Baker report. You are "wrong" about the situation in Iraq, and have been since March of 2003.
Even your tapdancing is getting pretty bad....
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I believe in Revelations where it says to take nothing away or add anything to this book, it means the whole Bible. So, my faith requires me to believe in the whole Bible, not just one testament. And I am Christian.
Nothing in the Bible says that the New Testament "trumps" the Old Testament, and if that were the case, people who believe in the Bible would have simply dropped the Old Testament long ago, and it wouldn't be included in the Scripture, because it would be of no use and have no relevant purpose.
As I said before, you are free to worship as you please, and if you truly believe in the Bible as you have articulated it, then I will expect to see you demonstrate these beliefs in the future. Unless, of course, you are a hypocrite, and really don't believe you have to walk the walk, and just keep talking the talk. I'm sure you're not a hypocrite, and I am proud of you for acknowledging your beliefs here, it takes a big man to profess his faith in God on a message board these days, and it takes an even bigger man to live up to them. Congratulations on your new-found path to salvation, I'll be praying for you!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Well, there is no tapdancing here, except from pinheads who seem to have a problem including ALL the words in context, when it comes to what I say. As I stated before, I have not read the Baker Report, I have no idea what is in it, or whether it "proves me wrong" on Iraq or not. I don't believe I will just simply take your word for this, I think I need something substantially more, to conclude I was "wrong" about anything.
If I was wrong, it is because I based my opinions on relevant information at that time, and the information turned out to be inaccurate or wrong. This doesn't make me right, it just explains why I was wrong, if indeed I was. Since we aren't blessed with the power to see into the future, I can't very well hold myself accountable for the unknown. I don't have a problem admitting when I am wrong, I do have a problem with pinheads like Prissy, who want to misconstrue and distort what I've said, merely to make me "wrong", and pinheads like yourself, who want to point to a mound of message board threads by pinheads, as proof I am always wrong.
So Dixie, you belive that a woman who has a child should be required to take a lamb to church as an offering....
Leviticus, chapter 12
1: And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2: Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
3: And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
4: And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
5: But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.
6: And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:
7: Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.
8: And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.
Leviticus, chapter 12
1: And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2: Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
3: And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
4: And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
5: But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.
6: And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:
7: Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.
8: And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Perhaps you would be so kind as to scroll back and take note of WHO introduced "religion" into this discussion? I don't believe that my addressing a bonehead about his inaccurate point, is considered "spinning off" on my part. It's called "clarifying an inaccuracy" and is part of general debate and reasoned discussion.
Anytime you want to get back to the point of this thread, and explain again how Republicans were scared of pissing off Florida, so they adopted legislation Floridians are vehemently opposed to, then pulled it, feel free to do that! I am simply responding to the barrage of lies and distortions foist upon me by a bunch of punk ass pinheads without an apparent life.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Jarhead! WOW! I am impressed! You are becoming a regular Billy Graham! Keep it up and you might give Brent a run for his money here! I bet that is the most Scripture you've read in the past year! Isn't it amazing how much my influence has accomplished? I'm so proud of you! Bravo!
As for the sacrifice of animals, this was rendered unnecessary by the Crucifixion of Christ. We no longer have to sacrifice animals to God, as Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice for us. Besides, I think PETA has a thing about sacrificing animals these days.
So that part of the Bible is invalid?
"As for the sacrifice of animals, this was rendered unnecessary by the Crucifixion of Christ. We no longer have to sacrifice animals to God, as Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice for us"
So, just over 2,000 years ago...God was some sort of different being, a rash, egotistical tyrant who required the killing of animals to please his fickle temperment?
Weird...certainly not Christian...
So, just over 2,000 years ago...God was some sort of different being, a rash, egotistical tyrant who required the killing of animals to please his fickle temperment?
Weird...certainly not Christian...
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Well, either you haven't read all of the threads, or you just missed the ones I admitted I was wrong in. Jarhead used to have one such incident in his sig line, I can't remember what it was I admitted I was wrong about, mostly because I'm not wrong about very much and it was something trivial, but I did indeed admit when I was proven wrong.
I would ask you to post the times when you've admitted being wrong, but I don't think the board will register a blank post. In fact, most everything you post is backed up with your profound experience, expertise, and knowledge in that particular area, regardless of facts presented, so you can maintain you are right even when the evidence says you're wrong. And if all else fails, you can always resort to redefining words or making absurd arguments as to context, to seemingly support your inaccurate views.
I have never met anyone so hard-headed and stuck in his own perceptions and views, as you seem to always be. I've also never know someone so convoluted on what they believe and how it applies, depending on political party... The GC doesn't apply to John Kerry burning down Vietnamese villages, but it does apply to alQaeda terrorists being detained by Bush... You believe races are equal, but we have to maintain AA advantages based on race to make it all equal. You don't want to see the middle east collapse into chaos and taken over by radicals, but you think we should leave because we should never have been there to begin with. You supported Clinton's liberation and democratization plans for Iraq, but not the democratically elected Iraq Unity Government's. You are a walking, talking, contradiction. It's uncanny, the resemblance to John Fucking Kerry! ...Only, you aren't as 'intelligent' as he, and have no 'significance' in politics, and didn't run for president, and didn't make his rank, and didn't win any purple hearts....
You probably have that picture of Kerry in a wetsuit, hanging on your bedroom wall!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
So, just over 2,000 years ago...God was some sort of different being, a rash, egotistical tyrant who required the killing of animals to please his fickle temperment?
I don't know, I wasn't around back then, I just have read things.
I don't believe that God was any different, this is why he sent his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. Thus, we don't have to kill the little baby goats, or any life, for that matter. Jesus came with a message from God, that life was precious, and it was not ours to take, it was ours to Love. The New Testament does not "trump" the Old Testament, and whoever told you that, or made you think that, is not well-educated on the Bible. One might consider the New Testament, an 'Advanced Course' on modern Christianity, an update or addendum to the Old Testament. Many practices in the Old Testament, are replaced with new practices, through the message of Christ. It's not that God is any different, it's that the way in which God requires our devotion, through his Son, Jesus Christ.
...my God, I sound like Brent now!
Okay, I thought we were going to bring the thread back on topic? What happened?
I don't know, I wasn't around back then, I just have read things.
I don't believe that God was any different, this is why he sent his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. Thus, we don't have to kill the little baby goats, or any life, for that matter. Jesus came with a message from God, that life was precious, and it was not ours to take, it was ours to Love. The New Testament does not "trump" the Old Testament, and whoever told you that, or made you think that, is not well-educated on the Bible. One might consider the New Testament, an 'Advanced Course' on modern Christianity, an update or addendum to the Old Testament. Many practices in the Old Testament, are replaced with new practices, through the message of Christ. It's not that God is any different, it's that the way in which God requires our devotion, through his Son, Jesus Christ.
...my God, I sound like Brent now!
Okay, I thought we were going to bring the thread back on topic? What happened?
