Billy Graham Loves Jesus And Nazis But Hates Gays.

[raoul]

I've been at this for YEARS with people who have advanced degrees in Philosophy, Biology,and other disciplines. Not bragging here, just giving some background okay?

 

So have I. And it's nothing to brag about. I've met some of the most intelligent, highly educated idiots in the world.

That's right - way to go. Just discount everything someone says. Well for your info, that statement I wrote included BOTH theists and atheists so I guess everyone with a degree is a moron right?

[Legion]

Do you think gays are good?

Of course they are,

 

You about flubbed it here. But then you said this...

 

at least the ones I hang out with.

 

I too have hung out with some very interesting people who happen to also be gay.

 

But you know what?

 

Gays are not good.

 

What?

 

To say that would be a generalization of the highest order. Some are great, and some are scumbags. And even the good ones have flaws, and even the scumbags commit the occassional redeeming act.

 

And that's my hope for you Raoul. Even though I think you are, by and large, a scumbag, I'm hoping that the frequency of your redemptive acts increases.

[3DollarBill]

Seriously though - I believe our education system is found wanting at least in 'reading comprehension' skills...

Our education system is found wanting in that it does not instill the ability to discern reliable sources of information from the rest of the garbage.

 

This. This here. Would you care to address this directly Raoul?

No I don't because it's not germaine to the video I posted. I mean I do agree fully about not looking at things so narrowly but what I said in the video was the absolute truth as far as I could tell based on the Wikipedia and historian, Hartmann's, sources. Everything else I tossed out at him regarding those extraneous sources were merely to influence his behavior. In other words, a trap which he fell into. He began this by total denial of what I said in the video but ended by saying 'so what if he did do it? No big thing' - that's the simplified explanation he gave which I'm giving you out of courtesy okay? But when someone shifts their counter arguments in order to satiate their own feelings, sorry but I gotta pounce. Understood? I hope so.

Don't pretend like you did anything clever here. You gave your best shot for backing up your bullshit claim, and your sources were found wanting. I cited nonpartisan sources and fucking court documents. You brought up propaganda machines. If you cannot see the difference I can't help you. BTW, the very fact that your post includes the words "absolute truth" makes it suspect. We're all recovering christaholics here, we know full well what happens when you trust some guy peddling The Truth.

 

And I never shifted my argument. You are just too dense to understand there's a separation between business and personal interests.

 

And, you never addressed the real point... Even if you were to convince me that the entire Bush family are card-carrying Neo-Nazis, what the fuck does that have to do with Billy Graham?

[Vigile]

Nah, I can't recant. You haven't met your burden of proof and now you are shifting it to him requiring him to refute the connections. It doesn't work that way.

 

You do have a brilliant way with words. To that I bow.

au contraire - it DOES work that way. I gave my source in the video (Wikipedia) and then told him about the other sources (Hartmann and Malloy) which he ridiculed. There was NO shift but if anyone shifted it was he when he went from total denial of the premise to subtle acceptance but pooh poohing it. God this is so freaking frustrating trying to teach people how to read arguments and subtle changes within them. And no bowing necessary - I've been at this for YEARS with people who have advanced degrees in Philosophy, Biology,and other disciplines. Not bragging here, just giving some background okay?

 

You'll forgive me if I find that a wiki link and a video do not meet the burden of proof. For a claim like this, I would be looking for peer reviewed historical research data. That you think a wikipedia link is proof of anything is quite laughable.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that you haven't made a compelling case that you are right and 3 is under no obligation to disprove your weak evidence or to prove a negative.

[raoul]

Do you think gays are good?

Of course they are,

 

You about flubbed it here. But then you said this...

 

at least the ones I hang out with.

 

I too have hung out with some very interesting people who happen to also be gay.

 

But you know what?

 

Gays are not good.

 

What?

 

To say that would be a generalization of the highest order. Some are great, and some are scumbags. And even the good ones have flaws, and even the scumbags commit the occassional redeeming act.

 

And that's my hope for you Raoul. Even though I think you are, by and large, a scumbag, I'm hoping that the frequency of your redemptive acts increases.

Didn't flub anything because I knew what you were trying to trick me into saying, ie: Yes as in blanketly giving a nod to all gays. Had I done that, which I didn't, it would've been a philosophical fallacy, ie: claiming universal knowledge without having it.

Your little trick is just a bit sophomoric okay?

[raoul]

Nah, I can't recant. You haven't met your burden of proof and now you are shifting it to him requiring him to refute the connections. It doesn't work that way.

 

You do have a brilliant way with words. To that I bow.

au contraire - it DOES work that way. I gave my source in the video (Wikipedia) and then told him about the other sources (Hartmann and Malloy) which he ridiculed. There was NO shift but if anyone shifted it was he when he went from total denial of the premise to subtle acceptance but pooh poohing it. God this is so freaking frustrating trying to teach people how to read arguments and subtle changes within them. And no bowing necessary - I've been at this for YEARS with people who have advanced degrees in Philosophy, Biology,and other disciplines. Not bragging here, just giving some background okay?

 

You'll forgive me if I find that a wiki link and a video do not meet the burden of proof. For a claim like this, I would be looking for peer reviewed historical research data. That you think a wikipedia link is proof of anything is quite laughable.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that you haven't made a compelling case that you are right and 3 is under no obligation to disprove your weak evidence or to prove a negative.

Oh pulleeesse already - you find Wiki and a video not meeting your burdon of proof? I guess I gotta live with that. LOL And I know better, believe me, when it comes to 'compelling' evidence. I mean, OJ was acquited right when everything pointed to him being guilty. For some, no amount of evidence will be sufficient.

[Legion]

 

Raoul, this has got to be some kind of test, right? I'm hoping that you're just having a bit of fun with us.

[raoul]

Seriously though - I believe our education system is found wanting at least in 'reading comprehension' skills...

Our education system is found wanting in that it does not instill the ability to discern reliable sources of information from the rest of the garbage.

 

This. This here. Would you care to address this directly Raoul?

No I don't because it's not germaine to the video I posted. I mean I do agree fully about not looking at things so narrowly but what I said in the video was the absolute truth as far as I could tell based on the Wikipedia and historian, Hartmann's, sources. Everything else I tossed out at him regarding those extraneous sources were merely to influence his behavior. In other words, a trap which he fell into. He began this by total denial of what I said in the video but ended by saying 'so what if he did do it? No big thing' - that's the simplified explanation he gave which I'm giving you out of courtesy okay? But when someone shifts their counter arguments in order to satiate their own feelings, sorry but I gotta pounce. Understood? I hope so.

Don't pretend like you did anything clever here. You gave your best shot for backing up your bullshit claim, and your sources were found wanting. I cited nonpartisan sources and fucking court documents. You brought up propaganda machines. If you cannot see the difference I can't help you. BTW, the very fact that your post includes the words "absolute truth" makes it suspect. We're all recovering christaholics here, we know full well what happens when you trust some guy peddling The Truth.

 

And I never shifted my argument. You are just too dense to understand there's a separation between business and personal interests.

 

And, you never addressed the real point... Even if you were to convince me that the entire Bush family are card-carrying Neo-Nazis, what the fuck does that have to do with Billy Graham?

I'll start with the last thing - since Graham is considered a godlike person by many in his camp, by gushing over the Bush family and how great they are - this should show how hypocritical the religious right really is. I know you probably still don't get the nexus and I don't really care.

 

And I beg, once more, to differ on what you say about there being a separation between business and personal. Sorry but homey don't play that tune, to coin a phase. As you are in business is how you probably are (note I'm being generous by saying 'probably') are personally. At least that's been MY experience with almost 30 years in private sector and 10 in public. But more egregiously what you're saying is that it's probably okay if someone is a real m-fer out there in the business world as long as he/she treats the family okay. And taking it to the worse extreme - even though Hitler caused the deaths of millions, he treated his girlfriend, friends, and even dog nice. That is until the end when he poisoned the dog. LOL

 

And while I agree about my being a recovering Christaholic as you so aptly put it, I NEVER trusted any of them because I always knew what the true nature of man really was and is. People are human so they're fallible.

 

I'll end with this - YOU began this mess by tossing an ad hominem at me. You said I put out bs and I knew it which meant I was INTENTIONALLY decieving people. Sorry pal but I don't even know you. So when a stranger makes that kind of attack on me then the gloves come off from the beginning and it's fucking war! And I stick to what I believe I proved - you DID in fact change your tune. In fact you even did it here by separating business from personal behavior. That's just another backdoor admission by you that there may have been truth in what I said but so what? And I stand by that video. People are free to check out more facts for themselves. I don't really give a crap one way or another.

[raoul]

 

Raoul, this has got to be some kind of test, right? I'm hoping that you're just having a bit of fun with us.

Naw, I was merely doing the Pavlov's dog experiment with him and only him but this has become a fucking quagmire. LOL

 

Seriously, as stated before - he pretty much called me a liar. What would you do in my place? And I'm not thin skinned by any stretch but when someone throws down the gauntlet, well....

[Legion]

 

Raoul, this has got to be some kind of test, right? I'm hoping that you're just having a bit of fun with us.

Naw, I was merely doing the Pavlov's dog experiment with him and only him but this has become a fucking quagmire. LOL

 

Seriously, as stated before - he pretty much called me a liar. What would you do in my place? And I'm not thin skinned by any stretch but when someone throws down the gauntlet, well....

 

Can't we all just get along?

 

I just think it's amazing that we can all come here and meet and talk. And we're scattered all over the world! It's crazy.

 

But I also think online interactions can be somewhat dehumanizing too.

 

(P.S. I retract my assessment of you Raoul. I don't believe you're such a bad guy. A little peculiar maybe, but then so am I.)

[Vigile]

Nah, I can't recant. You haven't met your burden of proof and now you are shifting it to him requiring him to refute the connections. It doesn't work that way.

 

You do have a brilliant way with words. To that I bow.

au contraire - it DOES work that way. I gave my source in the video (Wikipedia) and then told him about the other sources (Hartmann and Malloy) which he ridiculed. There was NO shift but if anyone shifted it was he when he went from total denial of the premise to subtle acceptance but pooh poohing it. God this is so freaking frustrating trying to teach people how to read arguments and subtle changes within them. And no bowing necessary - I've been at this for YEARS with people who have advanced degrees in Philosophy, Biology,and other disciplines. Not bragging here, just giving some background okay?

 

You'll forgive me if I find that a wiki link and a video do not meet the burden of proof. For a claim like this, I would be looking for peer reviewed historical research data. That you think a wikipedia link is proof of anything is quite laughable.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that you haven't made a compelling case that you are right and 3 is under no obligation to disprove your weak evidence or to prove a negative.

Oh pulleeesse already - you find Wiki and a video not meeting your burdon of proof? I guess I gotta live with that. LOL And I know better, believe me, when it comes to 'compelling' evidence. I mean, OJ was acquited right when everything pointed to him being guilty. For some, no amount of evidence will be sufficient.

 

Your attempts to intimidate duly noted, but your debating style seriously lacks intellectual merit. Anyway, I still find your posts enjoyable, even if lacking intellectual integrity.

 

 

you find Wiki and a video not meeting your burdon of proof?

 

Yes, and no doubt the PhDs, et al you've honed your blade on didn't/won't either. I would like to see the comments your prof gives you on your paper when you try and cite these as sources for your thesis though. Should make for some interesting reading.

[3DollarBill]

]I'll start with the last thing - since Graham is considered a godlike person by many in his camp, by gushing over the Bush family and how great they are - this should show how hypocritical the religious right really is. I know you probably still don't get the nexus and I don't really care.

So in order to prove the hypocrisy of the religious right, on which you won't find much disagreement here, you spread blatant falsehoods about Billy Graham? I don't like Graham one bit, but I don't think he's a bad person either. He's a victim as much as any of us were, and he has used his influence to do some genuine good in addition to his evangelizing. And I honestly cannot fault him for the evangelizing...if you believe that garbage, I mean really believe it, and you really think that there's billions of people out there who are going to wind up in hell, then you're a bad person if you don't try to save them.

 

As for the wall of separation between business and personal life, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I can tell you I don't know much anything about my own clients, and I want to know even less. Some of them might be communists, cultists, nazis, criminals, or who knows what else...I don't care. I conduct my dealings with them honestly, ethically, and I cover my own ass. That's as far as it goes, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

[Legion]

3D, do you play poker online?

 

I used to have an account at PokerStars, but then the gubmint shut that down.

[raoul]

 

Raoul, this has got to be some kind of test, right? I'm hoping that you're just having a bit of fun with us.

Naw, I was merely doing the Pavlov's dog experiment with him and only him but this has become a fucking quagmire. LOL

 

Seriously, as stated before - he pretty much called me a liar. What would you do in my place? And I'm not thin skinned by any stretch but when someone throws down the gauntlet, well....

 

Can't we all just get along?

 

I just think it's amazing that we can all come here and meet and talk. And we're scattered all over the world! It's crazy.

 

But I also think online interactions can be somewhat dehumanizing too.

 

(P.S. I retract my assessment of you Raoul. I don't believe you're such a bad guy. A little peculiar maybe, but then so am I.)

A little pecular? ROFL You might wanna run that by my wife - she thinks I'm totally bonkers most times. ROFL But thanks. And regarding the dehumanization via internet (or internets as Bush called it LOL) - I think that's why I wanna put out videos here even when I respond to stuff people have written to me. It might make for a better venue or whatever.

[raoul]

]I'll start with the last thing - since Graham is considered a godlike person by many in his camp, by gushing over the Bush family and how great they are - this should show how hypocritical the religious right really is. I know you probably still don't get the nexus and I don't really care.

So in order to prove the hypocrisy of the religious right, on which you won't find much disagreement here, you spread blatant falsehoods about Billy Graham? I don't like Graham one bit, but I don't think he's a bad person either. He's a victim as much as any of us were, and he has used his influence to do some genuine good in addition to his evangelizing. And I honestly cannot fault him for the evangelizing...if you believe that garbage, I mean really believe it, and you really think that there's billions of people out there who are going to wind up in hell, then you're a bad person if you don't try to save them.

 

As for the wall of separation between business and personal life, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I can tell you I don't know much anything about my own clients, and I want to know even less. Some of them might be communists, cultists, nazis, criminals, or who knows what else...I don't care. I conduct my dealings with them honestly, ethically, and I cover my own ass. That's as far as it goes, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

Know something? I just figured it out why you started the way you did. You took the TITLE of my video literally didn't you? If so, I apologize because it was hyperbolic humor and that's all! In fact, when I made this video a while ago it was put on YouTube. If you know anything about YouTube you know a person has to put out a catchy title to get people's attention. So when I penned the title about him loving Jesus (which he says he does), love Nazis (which of course he never said) but hating gays (which I will stand by until the day I die), it was done in jest! Okay? But the video contents stand on their own and I stand by them. Does that clear the air?

[Legion]

I wanted to attract viewers

so I employed hyperbole

little did I know that

the joke would be on me

[raoul]

I wanted to attract viewers

so I employed hyperbole

little did I know that

the joke would be on me

Er - I was talking about how YouTube works and not over here. Regarding attracting viewers - once more over at YouTube where the bible thumpers roam and not here per se.

[Legion]

I wanted to attract viewers

so I employed hyperbole

little did I know that

the joke would be on me

Er - I was talking about how YouTube works and not over here. Regarding attracting viewers - once more over at YouTube where the bible thumpers roam and not here per se.

 

Oh yeah, I understood you.

 

That little poem just popped in my head when I read your post and I felt compelled to post it.

 

 

Might not be my best work.

[midniterider]

.

[midniterider]

As usual everyone made up so my post is worthless. damn.

[midniterider]

Nah, I can't recant. You haven't met your burden of proof and now you are shifting it to him requiring him to refute the connections. It doesn't work that way.

 

You do have a brilliant way with words. To that I bow.

au contraire - it DOES work that way. I gave my source in the video (Wikipedia) and then told him about the other sources (Hartmann and Malloy) which he ridiculed. There was NO shift but if anyone shifted it was he when he went from total denial of the premise to subtle acceptance but pooh poohing it. God this is so freaking frustrating trying to teach people how to read arguments and subtle changes within them. And no bowing necessary - I've been at this for YEARS with people who have advanced degrees in Philosophy, Biology,and other disciplines. Not bragging here, just giving some background okay?

 

You'll forgive me if I find that a wiki link and a video do not meet the burden of proof. For a claim like this, I would be looking for peer reviewed historical research data. That you think a wikipedia link is proof of anything is quite laughable.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that you haven't made a compelling case that you are right and 3 is under no obligation to disprove your weak evidence or to prove a negative.

Oh pulleeesse already - you find Wiki and a video not meeting your burdon of proof? I guess I gotta live with that. LOL And I know better, believe me, when it comes to 'compelling' evidence. I mean, OJ was acquited right when everything pointed to him being guilty. For some, no amount of evidence will be sufficient.

 

Your attempts to intimidate duly noted, but your debating style seriously lacks intellectual merit. Anyway, I still find your posts enjoyable, even if lacking intellectual integrity.

 

 

you find Wiki and a video not meeting your burdon of proof?

 

Yes, and no doubt the PhDs, et al you've honed your blade on didn't/won't either. I would like to see the comments your prof gives you on your paper when you try and cite these as sources for your thesis though. Should make for some interesting reading.

 

When I was in college a few years ago some instructors forbade wikipedia and the like as a source because any fool can post to it.

[midniterider]

/

[3DollarBill]

3D, do you play poker online?

I used to have an account at PokerStars, but then the gubmint shut that down.

I do. Semi-professionally although I'm taking a small break. Started on full tilt, still got $$$ tied up over there, moved over to sportsbook,com which is pretty good although slow to pay out.

 

And btw, fuck the man, and fuck eric holder. Online poker is not a crime!

 

Know something? I just figured it out why you started the way you did. You took the TITLE of my video literally didn't you? If so, I apologize because it was hyperbolic humor and that's all!

You have a strange sense of humor my man, but I should have known that from Dougie's thread where I thought what you did was quite clever. Sorry if this got a little personal, I had fun with it though.

 

And yes, Graham is a homophobe, he will be till the day he dies. As for loving the jesus...he thinks he does, but he can't. Nobody can, cause he ain't real. You can love your own personal concept of jesus, but that's about it. That's why, for all his faults, I really feel sorry for him. He's spent his life loving a delusion and devoted his career to it. He probably couldn't turn away from it now even if he wanted to, it would simply be too much to bear.

[Ouroboros]

LOL?

 

LOL!

[BrotherJosh]

LOL?

 

LOL!

 

LMFAO ROFL