Ex-Hawaii official denounces 'ludicrous' birther claims.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Free Thinker, Apr 11, 2011.

  1. jem

    jem


    and this is my response... note that stu even bothered to take it out of context.

    richter is right he is a griefer.
     
    #111     Apr 17, 2011
  2. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    Oh I figured as much. How did I know you ask? His fingers were typing on his keyboard.
     
    #112     Apr 17, 2011
  3. stu

    stu

    It makes no difference what label you want to apply to holding no faith, whether it's agnostic or atheist or whatever , holding no faith does not require holding faith for another thing.
    People who do not have faith in God do not have to have faith in what you call no God. Your assertion that they do is just absurd.
    A recognition of the ridiculous is not about requiring faith, of any kind.

    You have no argument so you start to personalize. First sign you've lost your way.

    The concept is unreasonable, un-rationalized, un-explained, un-explainable according to you, so there is really nothing worth calling a concept at all.

    Clearly though, you have understood the concept of Gilbert.
     
    #113     Apr 18, 2011
  4. stu

    stu

    The question was how did this thread morph.... not who brought God and faith into the thread.

    Free Thinker gave a reasonable comparison of how you will blindly accept no proof for one thing then demand absolute proof for another.
    Your post was a good example of how zany you get as a birther who emmediately in response, compares jesus to Obama. Utterly ironic from more than one aspect.
     
    #114     Apr 18, 2011
  5. stu

    stu

    Now it's starting to get ...what's the word...ah yes...klannish. You three defenders of a faith should get a room.
     
    #115     Apr 18, 2011
  6. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    So now we're racists because we don't agree with you on a topic that has absolutely nothing to do with race?
    :D AND you're calling Optional777 klannish? As many times as he made the accusation that's actually funny.
     
    #116     Apr 18, 2011
  7. stu

    stu

    ah wrong labeling then , like what OptTrolzz does a lot of.... right so how about ... groupies.
     
    #117     Apr 18, 2011
  8. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    Hmmmm, I was thinking more along the lines of something "anti unproven theory" or some such. "Non believers" maybe? Oh wait that's what they're calling you.
    Uh "Anti evolutionists" maybe? It doesn't entirely apply to me of course but hey, when we're name calling is 100% accuracy really required?
     
    #118     Apr 18, 2011
  9. stu

    stu

    Well if 100% accuracy in name calling isn't required what was so wrong with klannish, or maybe spelt clannish, as a general metaphorical description for you.

    That's the thing. You have no real point to make but rather just blindly fall in with someone on a god slant, regardless of bothering with the unfounded accusations they make.

    Preferring to make silly drive by remarks, or get your panties in a clench over a name, by default apparently you can only steer your thoughts one way, unthinkingly it seems, in the opposite direction to anyone who doesn't swallow but questions the nonsense written by a birther's and a trollzzz's religious nonsense.

    Perhaps 'clenchers' as a collective noun would suit you guys.
     
    #119     Apr 18, 2011
  10. jem

    jem

    so according to stu the guy who creates the first ad hom and changes the subject to God and faith doesn't morph the thread --- why? Oh I know its because he and stu are atheists.

    stu always deceitful, sometimes entertaining.
     
    #120     Apr 18, 2011