Originally Posted by hayzel

I have asserted things that I've not only been taught but have evidence to stand behind. What you've asserted was contradictory. You define certain things by Biblical terms, other things by urban dictionaries and even other things by a random theology course's teachings. When you defined antichrist, you mentioned the urban dictionary. So I defined anit-messiah by the urban dictionary but this does not seem acceptable. Anti-Messiah according to both the Christian religion and the urban dictionary is another name for Anti-Christ which according to the Christian religion has certain specifics. According to the Islamic and Jewish religions, there is and incredibly similar figure who is known as the anti-messiah. The only difference is Christians think this anti-messiah is the antichrist, or opposite of Jesus, meanwhile the Islamic and Jewish religions have not necessarily laid down the 'messiah' the anti-messiah is supposed to oppose.

You accused me of not knowing what the antichrist was because I made a comparison between George Bush and the antichrist. Since then I have been saying don't take it too literally. It is a metaphor, it is not suppose to bear up to scrunity because if it did then it would flat on it's face because-
Theology and the church have no clear definiton of the anti-christ. This is not the opinion of my old teacher as you are implying these are the various opinions of distinguished schlors and academics of the field- a fleeting glance at wikipedia demonstrates this-

-Many Protestant reformers, including Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer, John Knox, and Cotton Mather, identified the Roman Papacy as the Antichrist.[The Centuriators of Magdeburg, a group of Lutheran scholars in Magdeburg headed by Matthias Flacius, wrote the 12-volume "Magdeburg Centuries" to discredit the papacy and identify the pope as the Antichrist. The fifth round of talks in the Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue notes,
-In Mormonism, the term anti-Christ refers to those who deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, deny the Gospel, and oppose his faith. Mormons generally identify three characters in the Book of Mormon as anti-Christs.
-Some modern biblical scholars, as well as western esotericists believe that the Anti-Christ is a metaphor for the ongoing battle between Good and Evil within ourselves, wherein the evil deceptive force of the Anti-Christ is our own "lower selves", which seems to deceive humankind into thinking that their lives, are happy as they are, and spread this "false peace".

Antichrist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My theology is not bias, if you follow the teachings of one person then you can be accused of bias not because you were taught by one person. I had to read wide selection of scholars like Dodd, Swinburne, Brown to name a few.
And there we have it. So is it possible for the anti-christ to have more that one definiton, there is you answer. The whole George Bush thing in the urban dictionary was me being facetious- tis the god's honest truth....lulz. If I drew a parallel between George Bush and a chimpanzee I wouldn't expect you to turn it into a long winded argument about how George Bush was not physically a chimpanzee.

In any case, saying 'antichrist' similarly to calling someone the 'devil' is in other words saying they are like the antichrist or devilish. Or meaning they hold the same characteristics as these other figures.

That's right. Like I said before in the English language we use metaphors to demonstrate what we mean i.e 'Mike had puppy eyes', 'She was the size of a house' ect.

So you're statement was incorrect.

You are using yourself as a reference to win your own argument...nice logic.

Now then, I won't be continuing the argument about the antichrist because it really has nothing to do with the debate. If you'd like to get back to the debate, i'd be happy but otherwise I don't feel like spamming.

If you call me out, then I will reply. You accused me of not knowing what the antichrist is and I responded to it. This is how the debate forum works. Unless there is anything else you'd like to add we're done :poke:

You are using yourself as a reference to win your own argument...nice logic.

You said I didn't say anything about you're contradictions before hand, I was quoting myself previously mentioning it to show you that the statement you made about me was false.

I already said I was done talking about the antichrist, and even though I don't agree with a lot of you said, I'm dropping it.

Originally Posted by hayzel

You said I didn't say anything about your contradictions before hand, I was quoting myself previously mentioning it to show you that the statement you made about me was false.

I already said I was done talking about the antichrist, and even though I don't agree with a lot of you said, I'm dropping it.

If there is nothing futher to dicuss then you should. :)

I have to wonder whether or not Republicans actually think Reagan was all that great when they can't even agree with him on nuclear disarmament.

Reagan vs Today's GOP II - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

I have to wonder whether or not Republicans actually think Reagan was all that great when they can't even agree with him on nuclear disarmament.

Reagan was a politician. Many 'republicans' have abandoned the party because some republican politicians were too left wing. So finding republicans true to the party may be difficult.

Also, all parties have disagreements within them. Democrats were fighting amongst themselves for healthcare. It's something that happens and is not particular to any party.

Or you could just conclude that several Republicans are just full of it and have no idea what they're talking about, when they're trying to tell people that what they believe is what Reagan believed when it is patently false.

Video: The Big Bang Treaty | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

Or maybe just Sarah Palin. It's a good thing she ruined her political career.

Or you could just conclude that several Republicans are just full of it and have no idea what they're talking about, when they're trying to tell people that what they believe is what Reagan believed when it is patently false.

Yes, but you have to realize that not all republicans are as extreme as most democrats would like to think.

Or maybe just Sarah Palin. It's a good thing she ruined her political career.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Sarah Palin isn't a bad woman, and the only reason she stepped down from Governor is because democrats kept suing her for everything she did. They never won, but it was costing the state money to defend her which is why she stepped down as Governor. She's also had a lot of personal attacks on her own family, like her son who is a Special Ed child. She was criticized for not aborting him when they found out he would have down syndrome(I think that's what it is anyway). And there were a lot of nasty comments made about her daughters as well. I feel bad for her because she's been under a lot of attack, and I don't particularly see what she's done to deserve it. I'm not by any means a republican, but I still feel bad for her. =/

Originally Posted by hayzel

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

I could care less about her personal life. I'm talking about how she spews lies (death panels) and has no idea what she's talking about (Couric interviews) and is a total hypocrite (demands Obama's birth records to quell rumors... but won't present Trig's birth records). Her stepping down as governor with the largest state deficit (70% of its GDP) in the nation because the media was "mean" ruined her career, and I can't say I'm unhappy because I sure as hell don't want a quitter running my country because someone is playing hardball.

And yes, I realize that not all Republicans are extreme, but when the GOP puts nonsensical people into its leadership, you kindof have to wonder.

Though, I've found that most sensible Republicans I've met are secretly Libertarian.

Oh, and about those ethics complaints--they didn't stop even after she left office--maybe because she was doing things that were unethical. Imagine that.

But surely she's been the epitome of ethics since she left office, right? Surely she wouldn't, say, get her daughter Willow off the hook for breaking into an empty home, vandalizing it, and getting drunk with a huge group of friends? No. Of course not.

Originally Posted by Keyori

Her stepping down as governor with the largest state deficit (70% of its GDP) in the nation because the media was "mean" ruined her career, and I can't say I'm unhappy because I sure as hell don't want a quitter running my country because someone is playing hardball.

She stepped down because the attacks were costing the state money... She wasn't a quitter because they were playing hardball, she stepped down because it was better for the state that they not have to pay for the ridiculous attacks.

Originally Posted by Keyori

I'm talking about how she spews lies (death panels) and has no idea what she's talking about (Couric interviews) and is a total hypocrite (demands Obama's birth records to quell rumors... but won't present Trig's birth records).

I will admit she is not an experienced politician, but I'm pretty sure she doesn't "spew lies." Also, there is a difference between the President's birth records which he needs in order to be president, and her mentally retarded son's birth records. I'm sure she'd be willing to produce her own, but Trig is her young son, so I don't blame her for not showing the attacking left side his birth records. Why can't the democrats just leave her family out of the politics? She's not attacking any of their families. If she's as incompetent as you say, what's the reasoning behind attacking her so hard? Incompetent people don't need help ruining themselves, yet she's been pretty much the worst attacked republican in a long time.

I'm almost tempted to call those people who accuse people of being racist because they're white and didn't vote for Obama, call them up and tell them their sexist because they're attacking Palin so hard. Not going to but just a thought. x.x

Originally Posted by Keyori

Oh, and about those ethics complaints--they didn't stop even after she left office--maybe because she was doing things that were unethical. Imagine that.

After reading the article I noticed that while they say Palin was requied and forced to pay over 8,100 dollars. I don't see anywhere that there was a trial or that Palin was guilty of taking money she wasn't supposed to, just that she had to pay it back.

I could also point out that there are quite a few ethics problems with Obama's administration and democratic governors that they are stepping down because of, not beforehand. This is something you see in both parties.

Palin's attorney, Thomas Van Flein, said the multiple filings by one person raise the prospect that the ethics process "is being abused and is simply being used to harass and annoy." Three of McLeod's cases have been dismissed and two others, including one filed last week, remain active.

Source <- Same place you article came from.

Also, the "ethics complaint" you listed could have easily come from a misinterpretation of regulations.

* State travel regulations specify per diem can’t be claimed when travel is less than 50 miles from a state employee’s workplace. Palin works out of her Anchorage office in the Atwood Building which is a scant 45-mile commute from her Wasilla home.

Source <- Incredibly left wing source

Meanwhile after looking it up, her Wasilla house is over 800 miles from the capital of the state according to Mapquest, which also could be considered her workplace as a state employee. Travel expenses for her to go from her home to the capital would be quite a bit in which per diem can be claimed if over 50 miles. See how that could be misunderstood? While she may work out of the Anchorage office, she still has to commute to the capital too.

Another ethics complaint has been filed against Gov. Sarah Palin that claims a conflict of interest because she wore Arctic Cat logo gear during the Tesoro Iron Dog snowmobile race.

...The governor called the latest complaint "another frivolous ethics charge" by a political blogger.

...Palin's husband, Todd, is sponsored by Arctic Cat in the Iron Dog, the world's longest snowmobile race.

...Biegel maintains that Palin improperly used her position and state resources for her personal financial interests by being "a walking billboard for Arctic Cat, a private for-profit company and family business sponsor."

Source <-Rightwing Source

Okay, so now this ethics charge is claiming that Palin used her status to be a 'walking billboard' for Arctic Cat, because they sponsored her husband in a snowmobile race by giving him a discount when buying a snowmobile for the race.

So now the ethics board is supposed to decide what a woman is or is not allowed to wear? If she wants to wear Arctic Cat then let her do so, however I hardly see them "paying for her to wear their clothes" by giving a discount to her husband on a snowmobile that was used for a fun outdoors event. Most of these 20 some ethics complaints are like this, and they've put Palin a half a million dollars in debt and forced her to step down from her job that would pay off that debt.

Originally Posted by Keyori

But surely she's been the epitome of ethics since she left office, right? Surely she wouldn't, say, get her daughter Willow off the hook for breaking into an empty home, vandalizing it, and getting drunk with a huge group of friends? No. Of course not.

Your source is a personal blog that claims he got that information from a "tip." This is something that's being spread through blogs and personal websites. After googling the incident I could not find any reputable source offering any information on the accusations.

Originally Posted by hayzel

Why can't the democrats just leave her family out of the politics?

...
I'm almost tempted to call those people who accuse people of being racist because they're white and didn't vote for Obama, call them up and tell them their sexist because they're attacking Palin so hard.

I think you should meet Hillary Clinton. Even Sarah Palin told her not to whine about being attacked so hard.

That's a very lovely double-standard you've got going there.

(P.S. just because that blog isn't "mass media" doesn't mean it's wrong, just as much as "the most trusted news source" isn't necessarily right just because it's big)

(P.S. just because that blog isn't "mass media" doesn't mean it's wrong, just as much as "the most trusted news source" isn't necessarily right just because it's big)

First of all I would like to address this.

1. I used 3 different sources. 1 From an INCREDIBLY LIBERAL site(you can tell by just looking at it), one from the site you used and one from Fox News. Your source plus a right wing source plus a liberal source. That's called being balanced. I also find it funny that in the article they linked, the are ashamed of the American population because they trust a media that is telling them what they wanted to hear, when Fox News is considered pretty much the most negative news show.

2. Source While Fox News does have die-hard conservatives such as Hannity, Beck, and O'Reiley, the news station claims that their actual reporting is unbiased. The source above shows the election coverage of Fox and MSNBC. I would also like to point out that the three names I mentioned before are considered to be commentors, not actual reporters.

3. I listed 3 different sources and after searching through pages and pages of Google, could not find a single big name, left or right, reporting this was something that Willow & Sarah Palin did. If this was true then the left wing media's would've hammered her. Instead it's blogs and personal websites carrying the "stories" from "tips." These aren't reliable sources, it's someone trying to make a rumor seem true. You're right. The fact that it's a blog doesn't make it wrong. It makes it unreliable for several reasons. 1. they don't mention the name of the tipster so the story can't be verified anywhere else. And the fact that no larger names in business picked this story up makes me think that it was false.

That's a very lovely double-standard you've got going there.

It was a joke.

I think you should meet Hillary Clinton. Even Sarah Palin told her not to whine about being attacked so hard.

I never said Sarah Palin was whining. I said politics should leave people's family out of it. Why is it people think they're so strong when they attack 2 teenage girls whose mother happens to be a enemy political figure. There's a difference between attacking her political stance and actions and attacking her for what her children(who are human too) do.

I personally think all parties went off the deep end, republicans and democrats. Repulicans are worse but the ones in government positions of both parties don't really do anything to help people out to make their lives happy and meaningful without ruining a life here and there for their new item they just had to blow alot of money on.