How can I trust YOUR holy book isn't lying to me?

Do you use a Baptist holey book? An Episcopalian wholly book?

Christians use the bible, which is the Old Testament and the New Testament in one volume. Mormons have added another book to that, which is the reason why it is a cult and not Christianity. You can test the claims of Christianity by placing your faith in Jesus Christ, and asking Him to come into your life as Lord and Savior.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
shit @shinyblurry
This is a big ball of yarn. Make sure to pace yourself.
You could bump the comment count up to 200 if you work your talking points right.
Just remember, keep your retorts short. ;]
Show mercy. If you condemn all of our souls to hell too quickly, there won't be anyone to argue with and judge as a sinner later in the thread.
Okay, here's one for you to practice on:
Hey Shiny, since Mormon's aren't TRUE christians and the holy book of mormon is lying about the one TRUE god, Yahweh..
How can I trust YOUR holy book isn't lying to me?
Do you use a Baptist holey book? An Episcopalian wholly book?
Remember - KIQ: keep it quick.
- Save the Big Damnation Guns for later responses
- Stay on topic but also vaguely out in left field. It helps draw out the weak points of our ignorant, sinful opinions

shit @shinyblurry

This is a big ball of yarn. Make sure to pace yourself.
You could bump the comment count up to 200 if you work your talking points right.

Just remember, keep your retorts short. ;]

Show mercy. If you condemn all of our souls to hell too quickly, there won't be anyone to argue with and judge as a sinner later in the thread.


Okay, here's one for you to practice on:

Hey Shiny, since Mormon's aren't TRUE christians and the holy book of mormon is lying about the one TRUE god, Yahweh..

How can I trust YOUR holy book isn't lying to me?

Do you use a Baptist holey book? An Episcopalian wholly book?

Remember - KIQ: keep it quick.
- Save the Big Damnation Guns for later responses
- Stay on topic but also vaguely out in left field. It helps draw out the weak points of our ignorant, sinful opinions

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Duckman33:
I've dug plenty deep. I already know that people were trying to warn of the attacks coming, that's old news. So then why lie about it in a press conference? You know, that part where we were lied to by Condie Rice, etc. When they knew fair and well they had conceived that very scenario?
President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other White House officials have consistently denied knowing about the 9/11 plot or receiving information that (or even imagining that) commercial aircraft could be used as weapons. For example, Bush said repeatedly there were no warnings of any kind ... “Never in anybody’s thought process ... about how to protect America did we ever think the evil doers would fly not one but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets ... never.”
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that “the President did not – not – receive information about the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers ... Until this attack took place, I think it’s fair to say that no one envisioned that as a possibility.”
Then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said: “I don’t think that anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile ... even in retrospect there was nothing to suggest that.”
I don't care about the buildings anymore, that's all been "debunked" for the most part.
Like I've said to you before, you can quote all you want from information you find on the interwebs, that doesn't make it any more or less true than anything I can Google and quote. There's a lot more to 9/11 than just the buildings coming down, there's a lot of lies, repeated lies in fact. A lot of denial and finger pointing. And a lot of convenient "failures of the system". Whether you like it or not, or want to admit it or not there is something fishy going on here. But hey, I'm just a crackpot, loonie conspiracy theorist. What do I know, right? I should be a good robot and always implicitly trust people that lie to me on a continual basis, that way I don't have to face an ugly truth, or facts, or think for myself.

Oh for heavens sakes, your acting like discovering that politicians spin things and choose their wording carefully and to their own benefit is a discovery you've made through some stroke of genius.
Politicians will use the truth to deceive and trick the public as long as it's in their own interest, and if it's better to lie they'll do that to. That's not news, it's not a conspiracy, it's common knowledge.
So you seem to accept that an Afghan leader was warning of a 'major attack'(no mention of airplanes, just a major attack) leading up to 9/11. You don't act like his assassination on the 10th of September was a surprise either. What is surprising is your quotes you throw out thinking that officials were unaware or lying about this. EVERY quote you gave specifically states there was no idea that civilian aircraft would be used as missiles in an attack. Remembering that politicians are deceitful monsters, you'll notice they do NOT deny having warnings of an impending Al Qaeda attack. In fact, multiple official reports, investigations, and even Bin Laden's own public statements all make it very clear there were warnings of pending attack from Bin Laden's organization. The only denial in your quotes is specifically to the method.
Sorry, your whole act depends on people being either ignorant of the facts or shocked that politicians might hedge and be dodgy in their answers on a massively political topic...


No I'm not, I'm questioning why they felt had to lie about this. That is all. Don't put words in my mouth, or even try to think you know what motivates me please.

So, if you think that collaborating to bend the truth to deceive and trick the public to achieve a common goal is not a conspiracy I suggest you read up on the definition of what a conspiracy is. Just because I use the word "conspiracy" does not mean I'm referring to some wild, far fetched and unbelievable scenario. That's not always what a conspiracy is, that's what the general public has come to think of what a conspiracy is due to people like you that apply the most extreme definition to the word. Just like a UFO is not necessarily an alien space craft. It's that due to society, and per-conceived notions, most people automatically think of alien space ships when someone refers to seeing a UFO.

Sorry, you're smug little, "I know all the facts, and you are delusional" act is a joke. Yeah, you are far more superior to us "conspiracy nuts".

Oh, where did I say anything about Bush being in bed with Bin Laden or planting explosives in the towers? Why is it that once someone talks about a conspiracy they are automatically "crazy"? Not all of us believe what the fringe is trying to sell, my friend. But we also don't believe what is being force fed down our throats either.

>> ^Duckman33:

I've dug plenty deep. I already know that people were trying to warn of the attacks coming, that's old news. So then why lie about it in a press conference? You know, that part where we were lied to by Condie Rice, etc. When they knew fair and well they had conceived that very scenario?
President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other White House officials have consistently denied knowing about the 9/11 plot or receiving information that (or even imagining that) commercial aircraft could be used as weapons. For example, Bush said repeatedly there were no warnings of any kind ... “Never in anybody’s thought process ... about how to protect America did we ever think the evil doers would fly not one but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets ... never.”
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that “the President did not – not – receive information about the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers ... Until this attack took place, I think it’s fair to say that no one envisioned that as a possibility.”
Then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said: “I don’t think that anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile ... even in retrospect there was nothing to suggest that.”
I don't care about the buildings anymore, that's all been "debunked" for the most part.
Like I've said to you before, you can quote all you want from information you find on the interwebs, that doesn't make it any more or less true than anything I can Google and quote. There's a lot more to 9/11 than just the buildings coming down, there's a lot of lies, repeated lies in fact. A lot of denial and finger pointing. And a lot of convenient "failures of the system". Whether you like it or not, or want to admit it or not there is something fishy going on here. But hey, I'm just a crackpot, loonie conspiracy theorist. What do I know, right? I should be a good robot and always implicitly trust people that lie to me on a continual basis, that way I don't have to face an ugly truth, or facts, or think for myself.


Oh for heavens sakes, your acting like discovering that politicians spin things and choose their wording carefully and to their own benefit is a discovery you've made through some stroke of genius.

Politicians will use the truth to deceive and trick the public as long as it's in their own interest, and if it's better to lie they'll do that to. That's not news, it's not a conspiracy, it's common knowledge.

So you seem to accept that an Afghan leader was warning of a 'major attack'(no mention of airplanes, just a major attack) leading up to 9/11. You don't act like his assassination on the 10th of September was a surprise either. What is surprising is your quotes you throw out thinking that officials were unaware or lying about this. EVERY quote you gave specifically states there was no idea that civilian aircraft would be used as missiles in an attack. Remembering that politicians are deceitful monsters, you'll notice they do NOT deny having warnings of an impending Al Qaeda attack. In fact, multiple official reports, investigations, and even Bin Laden's own public statements all make it very clear there were warnings of pending attack from Bin Laden's organization. The only denial in your quotes is specifically to the method.

Sorry, your whole act depends on people being either ignorant of the facts or shocked that politicians might hedge and be dodgy in their answers on a massively political topic...

I've dug plenty deep. I already know that people were trying to warn of the attacks coming, that's old news. So then why lie about it in a press conference? You know, that part where we were lied to by Condie Rice, etc. When they knew fair and well they had conceived that very scenario?

President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other White House officials have consistently denied knowing about the 9/11 plot or receiving information that (or even imagining that) commercial aircraft could be used as weapons. For example, Bush said repeatedly there were no warnings of any kind ... “Never in anybody’s thought process ... about how to protect America did we ever think the evil doers would fly not one but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets ... never.”

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that “the President did not – not – receive information about the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers ... Until this attack took place, I think it’s fair to say that no one envisioned that as a possibility.”

Then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said: “I don’t think that anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile ... even in retrospect there was nothing to suggest that.”

I don't care about the buildings anymore, that's all been "debunked" for the most part.

Like I've said to you before, you can quote all you want from information you find on the interwebs, that doesn't make it any more or less true than anything I can Google and quote. There's a lot more to 9/11 than just the buildings coming down, there's a lot of lies, repeated lies in fact. A lot of denial and finger pointing. And a lot of convenient "failures of the system". Whether you like it or not, or want to admit it or not there is something fishy going on here. But hey, I'm just a crackpot, loonie conspiracy theorist. What do I know, right? I should be a good robot and always implicitly trust people that lie to me on a continual basis, that way I don't have to face an ugly truth, or facts, or think for myself.

THAT'S what Spider-Man sounds like? The movies have lied to me.

>> ^hpqp:

@marbles
You really are an "either/or" kind of person aren't you. Either we adhere to your paranoid conspiracy theories or we are the brainwashed mouthpieces of the guv'mint propaganda and fully support the violence and death caused by America's wars.
Sure there are Al Qaeda elements amongst the Lybian rebels, geopolitics is a messy thing. But to go from there to saying that the Arab Spring uprisings is some mass conspiracy takes the kind of singleminded ignorance that conspiracy theorists and religious fanatics have in common.
"You're either with us or against us" may be good enough for Jesus, W. Bush and conspiracy nuts, but the rest of us like to have a nuanced view of things.
As for Tapley: "The notion of anthropogenic global warming is a fraud." ( The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off 2009). Sounds very much like denialism to me.


No, I just try to see the world for what it is. Cut through the bullshit, and find the truth. Regurgitating talking points from sources that over and over lie to me just seems like a fool's errand, but you find solace in being a dis-info/government apologist.

I guess that makes you an "I know, but" kind of person: I know Obama said he was going to end the wars, but we've got finish what Bush started. I know we've killed millions of people, but we're trying to spread democracy. I know we armed and supported Al-qaeda rebels in Libya (remnants of the same ones attacking US troops in Iraq), but "geopolitics is a messy thing". The list is endless.

And "you're either with us or against us" is the same motto used by "progressive" war-mongers like Obama, Hillary, and Reid, not just neocons. I think the real problem is you're just hostile toward the truth whenever it exposes your false reality, whenever it bursts your blissful ignorance of illusion.

And for Tarpley, of course it sounds like "denialism" to you. Narrow-minded government sycophants would equate the two as the same.

What did I do to give you that impression? I think the concepts of royalty and tradition are both bullshit.

And we already are friends, dumbass -- Facebook wouldn't lie to me.

>> ^rottenseed:

No, I just thought you liked royal tradtions...jesus. What's a fag like me gotta do to make friends around here?!

Though I'm not a fan of dark comedy, here are the shows from my RSS Downloader and the reasons I like them:

The Good Wife (best traditional lawyer show currently on tv)
Burn Notice (best how-to spy show)
Eureka (fun sci-fi with great characters)
Warehouse 13 (like Eureka, fun sci-fi with great characters)
Royal Pains (great twist on the traditional doctor show)
Doctor Who (obviously)
Lie To Me (great first two seasons, though the main character is beginning to get annoying)
Leverage (excellent first season, though the quality started dropping off after that)
White Collar (quality mis-matched buddy cop style show)
Covert Affairs (quality spy drama, though it is still trying to find its footing)
Psyche (laugh riot, frequently with good plots)
The IT Crowd (best geek comedy)
Castle (still strong, with Fillion's charm and humor, and Stana's amazing hotness)
The Mentalist (starting to get old, but the first season is especially good)
Chuck (too many reasons to count)
Bones (has some problems, but is mostly good quality)
House (of course)
Fairly Legal (promising new alternative to the standard lawyer show)
Archer (animated spy parody, amazingly awesome)

Not necessarily in order of excellence.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

Lie to me; I want you to.


In that case, yes, it's a parody. Just don't check me on that.

This is a parody, right? Tell me it's a parody.

Lie to me; I want you to.

But he's such an adorably folksy grandpa. Grandpa wouldn't lie to me.... would he?

>> ^jwray:

Yeah, fuck the TSA.
But how are they going to find a nonmetallic glock in somebody's jacket without either a scanner or a pat-down? Oh, right, because they don't exist. There is no such thing as a gun without metal in it.

But what about John Malkovich's gun from In the Line of Fire? Are you telling me that the movies lied to me??

Translation
Guy:Can you hear me?
Girl:Yes yes yes. Eh baby Today You're office is so empty
Guy: Yeah everyone is out eating, but I've got a report to write
Girl: Ohh you're working so hard
Guy: Yeah..
Girl: Do you miss me?
Guy: Ofcourse... Oh Oh!! Cockroach
Girl: Eh? Why are you lying to me!! You're playing mahjong at home.

See the way he curls his upper lip and tucks his chin while he's talking?

Lie to me, David