Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017.

Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, and Tumblr, and support my Patreon. Also, if you don't mind the stench, you can find my unofficial "fan club" over HERE. ;)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, April 8, 2015

Join the Party!

122 comments:

  1. WOW!!!! Are you for real? I cannot believe you would post something like that. That is so liberal inspired (and atheist) that it is too incredible to even take slightly seriously! What are you thinking? Do you really think that right wingers think that way? No wonder we can't have a decent conversation unless it's about comedy. Is this ANOTHER of your: "The general rule of infographics and similar fare is that the more deliciously it skewers people you don't respect very much, the more likely it is to be a fake."? Come on, try to be, at least, reasonable.

    Is this what you do to keep true liberals attending your site? If so, your having a hard time doing it. I don't see ANY liberals posting on your site other than me (non-liberal), you and barbie (ultra-liberals). So, if you're aiming this at me then you have committed a giant failure on your purpose. Because no one would fall for that video other than the hard core liberal (of course they would totally agree with). Which means that barbie will violently defend that video instead of agreeing with me. Same with you. (bring it barbie).

    WOW, incredible. Good luck with that kind of propaganda (teaching ... lol). Nobody with real intelligence will fall for it Perhaps you're aiming it at the liberal. Ah ha ha ha

    Explain yourself

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, quite a bit of that seems consistent with your comments, William. It's not clear what people are supposed to "fall" for, because you forgot to explain how any of it didn't apply to actual conservative hypocrites. You didn't really make any sort of argument at all, of course.

      Delete
    2. So? What do you care what I do? I'm not here to argue (all the time). I posted my opinion. Maybe one day you'll figure out how that works. But, I doubt it. You know why? Right ... cause you're a liberal.

      BTW, I don't think any of it is consistent with my comments. And, you didn't bring anything to support your arguments. So, in light of your lack of reasonable support of your own stance, barbie, what are you going to change the subject to THIS TIME?
      The one thing this does prove is that you lack the intelligence that I mentioned about being the one to "fall for it".

      Delete
    3. "I posted my opinion."

      If you expect an explanation, then you need to justify your opinion that the video is inaccurate or otherwise offensive. If you don't, why would anyone need to explain anything to you?

      "BTW, I don't think any of it is consistent with my comments. And, you didn't bring anything to support your arguments."

      I posted my opinion. Your views on homosexuality and abortion aren't in line with what the video said? How's that?

      "So, in light of your lack of reasonable support of your own stance, barbie, what are you going to change the subject to THIS TIME?"

      You're always the one changing the subject.

      "The one thing this does prove is that you lack the intelligence that I mentioned about being the one to "fall for it"."

      Fall for "what", specifically? As if conservatives don't hold those positions?

      All you're showing is an emotional reaction, which is humorous considering your history of making generalizations about liberals.

      Delete
    4. "Fall for "what", specifically? As if conservatives don't hold those positions?"

      So, you believe the video? That's what I said in my first post. ROTFLMAO@U

      "If you expect an explanation, then you need to justify your opinion that the video is inaccurate or otherwise offensive. If you don't, why would anyone need to explain anything to you?"

      Are you the one who posted the video? Yes? Then I expect you to explain it. No? Then I'm not talking to you.

      "I posted my opinion."

      If you expect an explanation, then you need to justify your opinion that the video is inaccurate or otherwise offensive. If you don't, why would anyone need to explain anything to you? ROTFLMAO@U

      "You're always the one changing the subject."

      We'll see about that one, barbie.

      Delete
    5. "So, you believe the video?"

      That those are common, hypocritical positions in the Republican Party? I haven't seen you actually dispute that.

      "Are you the one who posted the video? Yes? Then I expect you to explain it."

      I didn't say that I would be required to explain it. You have to justify your opinion no matter who you're talking to. It's a matter of principle.

      "If you expect an explanation, then you need to justify your opinion that the video is inaccurate or otherwise offensive."

      I don't believe that the video is particularly inaccurate or offensive. And are you saying that my opinion really needs to be justified? Because you tend to hide behind "opinion" as if that's supposed to end the conversation. I used your own words for the exact purpose of pointing out your hypocrisy.

      Delete
    6. " I haven't seen you actually dispute that."

      I didn't ask that. But, as I said, it shows your intelligence level if you believe them. More questions you won't answer. Hmm, I remember you once said you answer all my questions. I guess you were lying. Nothing unexpected there.

      " You have to justify your opinion no matter who you're talking to. It's a matter of principle."

      I don't have to justify my opinion. I just get to have one. Remember, opinions are like ass-holes ... everyone has one. Are you going to justify yours?

      " And are you saying that my opinion really needs to be justified?"

      Well, if you're going to tell me I have to justify mine, then it would be hypocritical of you to not justify yours. Which is why I don't expect you to do that ... because you're a hypocrite.

      Delete
    7. "I didn't ask that. But, as I said, it shows your intelligence level if you believe them. More questions you won't answer."

      I asked you for clarification, which you ignored. When you explain what you're talking about, then I'll be able to answer.

      "I don't have to justify my opinion."

      Then nobody has to justify their opinion to you, either.

      "Well, if you're going to tell me I have to justify mine, then it would be hypocritical of you to not justify yours."

      Which I have, and which you also ignored. It's also wildly hypocritical for you to demand any such thing when you say that people don't need to justify their opinions.

      Delete
    8. "I asked you for clarification, which you ignored."

      I think you're asking me to clarify if you believe my opinion of the video. I asked if you believe the video. Do you?

      "Then nobody has to justify their opinion to you, either."

      I didn't say they needed to. I'm pretty sure it was you who did that. I've never put that demand on anyone.

      Delete
    9. "I think you're asking me to clarify if you believe my opinion of the video. I asked if you believe the video."

      No. Me: "That those are common, hypocritical positions in the Republican Party?"

      "I've never put that demand on anyone."

      You: "And, you didn't bring anything to support your arguments."
      And: "Explain yourself"

      Delete
    10. "No. Me: "That those are common, hypocritical positions in the Republican Party?""

      Right. You're asking me my opinion on whether those are COMMON, HYPOCRITICAL positions. So, the answer is YES you are asking me my opinion on the video and not answering my question ... again.

      Delete
    11. "You're asking me my opinion on whether those are COMMON, HYPOCRITICAL positions."

      Wrong. I'm asking if that's what you're asking that I believe. I'm not asking for your opinion at all.

      Delete
    12. Ok, enough of the circle game. Just answer if you believe the video.

      Delete
    13. "Just answer if you believe the video."

      Again: "That those are common, hypocritical positions in the Republican Party?"

      Delete
    14. Oh, I get it. You're telling me what your opinion of the republican party is and then refusing to answer the question. Ok.

      Delete
    15. "You're telling me what your opinion of the republican party is and then refusing to answer the question."

      No, I'm asking you to clarify what you think I "believe". You keep using the phrase "believe the video" without explaining what you mean.

      Delete
    16. "You keep using the phrase "believe the video" without explaining what you mean."

      You are a simpleton, huh? How could I possibly be asking what I think you believe? I'm asking what you believe. That's ok, though, I never expect you to answer questions. Even though you claim to answer them all.

      Delete
    17. "How could I possibly be asking what I think you believe? I'm asking what you believe."

      Pretty obviously, I believe that there are hypocritical attitudes which are common in the Republican Party. Just as obviously, you must be asking for something more than that, since that much should be clear to you already.

      Delete
    18. "Pretty obviously, I believe that there are hypocritical attitudes which are common in the Republican Party."

      That's what I thought. I guess I was right in my original statement about people who agree with the propaganda of that video: "Nobody with real intelligence will fall for it Perhaps you're aiming it at the liberal.".

      Delete
    19. "That's what I thought. I guess I was right in my original statement about people who agree with the propaganda of that video: "Nobody with real intelligence will fall for it Perhaps you're aiming it at the liberal."."

      Except that you forgot to explain why anything in the video or my statement was unfair or untrue. You're making an ad hominem argument.

      Delete
    20. "Except that you forgot to explain why anything in the video or my statement was unfair or untrue. "

      If I watched a video and some ultra-nut was saying that the world is flat and that is how it is, would I REALLY need to bring proof of it being untrue in order for me to post my opinion that the video is garbage?
      Eddie's video is so obviously tweaked by ultra-nuts that having to prove anything is simply not needed. And, if another ultra-nut believes the video and demands that I prove it wrong, well two nuts don't make it right.

      Delete
    21. "If I watched a video and some ultra-nut was saying that the world is flat and that is how it is, would I REALLY need to bring proof of it being untrue in order for me to post my opinion that the video is garbage?"

      False equivalence. You assertion that these aren't common positions in the Republican party isn't anything like knowing the shape of the Earth.

      "Eddie's video is so obviously tweaked by ultra-nuts that having to prove anything is simply not needed."

      You could make that assertion for anything, and that doesn't make it credible. All you have here is an emotional reaction, nothing more.

      Delete
    22. "You could make that assertion for anything, and that doesn't make it credible. All you have here is an emotional reaction, nothing more."

      I haven't seen you bring anything other than the same thing. You started out claiming my views on homosexuality and abortion are "in line" with the video, but didn't bring anything to support that (emotional reaction). Then you started crying about the republican party being hypocritical and failed to bring anything to support that. So, in fact, all you have here is emotional reaction, nothing more. That and proving that you are an ultra-nut for believing the video in the first place.

      Delete
    23. "You started out claiming my views on homosexuality and abortion are "in line" with the video, but didn't bring anything to support that (emotional reaction)."

      You have several years' worth of comments about those topics. How do you differ from what was in the video, again?

      "Then you started crying about the republican party being hypocritical and failed to bring anything to support that."

      That would be the subject of the video.

      "That and proving that you are an ultra-nut for believing the video in the first place."

      You're still making an empty assertion. You saying that those views aren't common within the Republican Party doesn't magically make it true.

      Delete
    24. "You have several years' worth of comments about those topics."

      And you didn't bring any to show my views are "in line" with the video.

      So, apparently, you have nothing to bring but ultra-nut emotions. Which is what I said at the beginning and you disputed, but every time you post you support my position as being an accurate description of those who would fall for that video ... those with low intelligence. Sheeple if you may. In essence you're admitting to being a sheeple for the democratic party.

      Delete
    25. "And you didn't bring any to show my views are "in line" with the video."

      So you support gay rights and abortion, now? Good to know.

      "In essence you're admitting to being a sheeple for the democratic party."

      Because the Republican Party can't be criticized, according to you? That would seem to make you the sheep, not me.

      Delete
    26. "So you support gay rights and abortion, now? "

      I've always supported someone's "right" to be gay. I've just always thought (and think) it is immoral and a sin according to my religion. Just like I support your right to be an ultra-nut, but I think you're immoral and commit sins according to my religion.
      And, I've always supported abortion if the women's life is in danger.
      So, now it is up to you to prove my views are "in line" with those of the republican party as you claim.

      "Because the Republican Party can't be criticized, according to you?"

      When did I ever say that? Have you started making shit up so quickly? I guess you're in 'loser mode' and need a quick fix to get the subject changed. Good luck with that.

      Delete
    27. "I've always supported someone's "right" to be gay."

      That isn't "gay rights", of course.

      "And, I've always supported abortion if the women's life is in danger."

      How enlightened of you. That doesn't separate you from the views mentioned in the video, though.

      "When did I ever say that?"

      You're pitching a fit simply because the Republican Party is being criticized. Until you explain why some criticism is acceptable as opposed to the video, then you're trying to shut down all criticism of your party.

      Delete
    28. "That isn't "gay rights", of course."

      Oh, so you're saying they get different rights for choosing to be gay? Hmm, interesting.

      "That doesn't separate you from the views mentioned in the video, though."

      Without any explanation by you, I don't see any hypocrisy.

      "Until you explain why some criticism is acceptable as opposed to the video, then you're trying to shut down all criticism of your party."

      My opinion is that you've got to be very unintelligent to fall for what the video says is true. If you've got a different opinion then you're always welcome to share it. But it doesn't change my opinion on the intelligence level of those who believe it (you).

      Delete
    29. "Oh, so you're saying they get different rights for choosing to be gay?"

      No, I definitely didn't say that.

      "Without any explanation by you, I don't see any hypocrisy."

      What explanation are you asking for? Saying that you don't oppose abortion when the mother's life is at risk doesn't separate you from the views in the video. Why would you think that it would?

      "My opinion is that you've got to be very unintelligent to fall for what the video says is true."

      Your opinion has no foundation, as far as you've demonstrated.

      Delete
    30. "No, I definitely didn't say that."

      Sure sounded that way. You corrected me by saying they have "gay rights" as opposed to the right to be gay. Does that mean I have "straight rights"? Or just the right to be straight?

      Delete
    31. "You corrected me by saying they have "gay rights" as opposed to the right to be gay."

      Because "the right to be gay" doesn't qualify as "gay rights". That would only be the lack of thought crimes, technically, which is a laughably low standard.

      "Does that mean I have "straight rights"?"

      You sound much like people who think that "white power" should be as acceptable of a phrase as "black power". See, it's a matter of equal rights. People have always been able to support women's rights without having to define "men's rights", because there's been a disparity that bears correcting. Much like white people having had the power makes "white power" a racist phrase, straight people having rights makes "straight rights" inane.

      So, I didn't say anything about "different rights" at all, since that's simply the product of your addled mind. The same goes for the phrase "choosing to be gay", obviously. Is all of that clear to you, or do you need further help?

      Delete
    32. Me: I guess you're in 'loser mode' and need a quick fix to get the subject changed. Good luck with that.
      You: That isn't "gay rights", of course.
      You: People have always been able to support women's rights without having to define "men's rights", because there's been a disparity that bears correcting.
      You: You sound much like people who think that "white power" should be as acceptable of a phrase as "black power".
      And the changes begin.

      Delete
    33. William, yes, you have the right to be straight. (Duh! How is that even a question?) Just as, you say, they have the "right to be gay."

      But no one is discriminating against you for being straight, nor has the right to discriminate against you for being a Christian. No one can deny you service either public or commercial and your RIGHTS protect you from being treated any differently than any other human being.

      the LGBT community? Doesn't have that. See... YOU LOT want that SPECIAL RIGHT that allows you to discriminate against them. Me? I can't accept that. Because "gay rights" means NOTHING MORE than LGBT's being able to live their lives with the exact same access, privilege and protection that EVERYONE ELSE HAS. IOW: EQUAL RIGHTS. IOW: The right to be treated like a HUMAN BEING, equal in all ways to all others, with exactly the same rights to life liberty the pursuit of happiness, as well as access to public services and commerce, THE SAME AS ANY OTHER HUMAN BEING HAS.

      And yes, IMHO, this also includes the Right to enter into the LEGAL CONTRACT of marriage with the PERSON of their choosing. (Just as you and I and millions of others have done.) And within the year, I will bet you a Coke that the SCOTUS will agree with me.

      Show me again, where they want special treatment?
      Show me again how the Christian Right DOESN'T?

      YOU want the right to treat them differently. THEY was to be treated the same.

      So WHO'S asking for the accommodation here?

      Delete
    34. "And the changes begin."

      There are no "changes" in my argument. Your confusion is your problem, not mine.

      Delete
    35. You ineptness is your problem, not mine.

      Delete
    36. "Ineptness" on my part is not gauged by your behavior. For just one example, anyone can reference the thread about George Zimmerman, where you went off on a bender even while I made and maintained a perfectly clear and reasonable point. You can lie to yourself all day long, but nobody else will believe that I'm the problem in this picture. Sorry. You reap what you sow.

      Delete
  2. William, if you don't see how apt that video is, it is because you completely lack self awareness. Your posts consistently embody the sentiment expressed, as does the Republican platform. I've called you "lost" before. You continue to prove it. One thing is certain though: one of us definitely does not live in the "reality based community." I posted the video. I'll stand by it. And I would love to see you attempt any kind of logical takedown if it, as opposed to just expressing righteous indignation at your world view being parodied so accurately.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, you're wrong Eddie. That video is simply negative propaganda by the extreme left-wing with the purpose of providing a scare tactic for those who aren't very intelligent (liberals mainly). If you truly believe that video is spot on, then I'm sorry for you.

      Delete
    2. What's funny is that Eddie really only has to say that all of the conservatives he's met are consistent with the video, and he could actually claim that it fits all conservatives. That's the sort of way that you generalize about liberals, so that would be completely fair as far as you were concerned.

      Delete
    3. Here you go, Eddie. Not all those crazed statements, in the video, are commented about. Some of them just don't give the accurate choice of how I believe, so the 'one or the other' doesn't fit. Your propaganda video is still just that hate-ful propaganda brought by the extreme left-wing aimed at stupid people who will believe them (liberals). And, we have 2 examples of that posting on this article. Since there are only 3 of us posting, you guess which ones are the stupid ones who are falling for that hate-ful propaganda.

      1; I believe being gay is choice, but not because the Church I go to says so. (different than video)
      2; I believe the entire Bible is the Word of God. (different than video)
      3; I believe life and health is sacred. (different than video)
      4; I do not believe it is intrusive to regulate a utility. (different than video)
      5; I am for states rights, I am a cancer survivor. (different than video)
      6; I don't care what size the budget is as long as our nation is safe from attacks by 'America haters'. (different from video)
      7; I know enough American history to know when someone is feeding a load of crap, ie: separation of church and state being towards individuals. (different from video)
      8; Abstinence only being a STRICTLY republican thing? More hateful propaganda from extreme left-wing nutcases.
      9; Adam and Eve isn't my best example of marriage. (different from video)
      10; The God I worship doesn't say give everything to the poor. More hateful propaganda from the extreme left-wing scumbag nutcases.
      11; I don't like religious extremists and I am not one. (different from video)
      12; I believe homosexuality is another sin (not the worst), and God mentions it throughout the Bible. (different than video and video is incorrect)
      13; I love America, but don't hate other races as the video insinuates. More hatefulness from that video.

      That video is nothing but hatefulness and lies brought by the extreme left-wing haters. If you believe that video (as I said in my first post) you are not intelligent enough to know the difference between truth and what you are told by extremist haters.


      This is towards barbie and his comment on abortion: "That doesn't separate you from the views mentioned in the video, though.".

      What "views" on abortion were mentioned in the video that differentiate mothers safety in relation to the right to get an abortion? I don't think you have even watched it yet. You're a lying sac-o-shit.

      Delete
    4. 1; I believe being gay is choice, but not because the Church I go to says so.

      First part? SAME. Second part? WHY then? There isn't a single non-religious source you could cite to back this up. So... BULLSHIT.

      2; I believe the entire Bible is the Word of God. (different than video)

      No, you don't. We proved that when I went though all those examples of outdated laws in Leviticus, et al. God back and tell you believe each and every one of them to be the infallible Word of Gad. And before you say, "New Testament," I'll remind you that Jesus made no condemnation of Homosexuality in the New Testament. So you're cherry picking.

      3; I believe life and health is sacred. (different than video)

      Glad to know you support universal, publicly funded and guaranteed health care as a fundamental right then. (1) I don't believe that for a minute. (2) If you do, you are at odds with the Republican Party. (More on that PARTY later.)

      4; I do not believe it is intrusive to regulate a utility. (different than video)

      Then, again, you differ from the Party. (And I'm glad to know that you're all about capping Greenhouse gasses, and protecting the environment then. Otherwise? BULLSHIT.)

      5; I am for states rights, I am a cancer survivor. (different than video)

      Happy to hear that, but it's irrelevant - even if cannabis was used as part of your treatment. Republicans are the one that have opposed the liberalization of Marijuana laws from the start. Even their notable exception to this, Rand Paul, has backed off, in order to appease the party hard-line base.

      6; I don't care what size the budget is as long as our nation is safe from attacks by 'America haters'. (different from video)

      Again, this is different from the party. Glad to know you don't feel the need to cut Social Security, Education, Welfare, Departmental Budgets (IRS, EPA, etc...) and that we don’t ever hear you fear-monger about the deficit. (Again, otherwise? BULLSHIT.)

      Delete
    5. 7; I know enough American history to know when someone is feeding a load of crap, ie: separation of church and state being towards individuals. (different from video)

      There are PLENTY of posts here that prove otherwise, Will. Most recently the idea that the pre-civil war south were leftist Liberals, while the Abolitionist North were RW Conservatives. (ALL of whom, did what? MOVED after the war?)

      8; Abstinence only being a STRICTLY republican thing? More hateful propaganda from extreme left-wing nutcases.

      No, that's pretty much true. Even if you could bring 1 or 2 examples, this idiocy is overwhelmingly Republican and Conservative in nature. Get a clue.

      9; Adam and Eve isn't my best example of marriage. (different from video)

      You do realize that this video wasn't made for YOU, PERSONALLY, right? Are you saying that you've NEVER heard the expression "It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" in an argument against Gay Marriage? Because if you haven't you might want to spend more time on CONSERVATIVE bogs. You might begin to find out why we all thing y'all are so dumb.

      10; The God I worship doesn't say give everything to the poor. More hateful propaganda from the extreme left-wing scumbag nutcases.

      I could eat a box car of Exlax and still not have two shits to give about the "God YOU worship." JESUS, in the BIBLE (remember him?) DOES actually say this.

      11; I don't like religious extremists and I am not one. (different from video)

      Based on so many posts you've made here, I wonder if you could even recognize one that wasn't Muslim. No one ever sees extremism in themselves.

      12; I believe homosexuality is another sin (not the worst), and God mentions it throughout the Bible. (different than video and video is incorrect)

      We've been through this. It's mention along with over 600 laws in the OLD testament, most of which have been thrown by the wayside on account of the NEW COVENANT in the NEW Testament, where Jesus fails to say even a single thing about it.

      13; I love America, but don't hate other races as the video insinuates. More hatefulness from that video.

      Your comments in response to all of my posts on police brutality suggest otherwise. As do the rhetoric and policies of the Republican Party.

      A few more points:

      1) That something is "hateful" is a matter of opinion. Nothing in this video dehumanizes the Right, or says anything bad about them directly. THAT'S what "hate" looks like. It's not "hate" when a political party is made to look stupid by ACCURATE statements about the hypocritical and contradictory policies in its platform.

      2) Every point you made was about YOU. The video isn't about YOU. It's about the REPUBLICANS. If you're so different from them, then tell me: WHY DO KEEP VOTING FOR THEM? I'm not so different from the Democrats. I vote for them because I generally support their platform and where I differ it is usually in a concession they've made to the RIGHT. And where I myself differ with them from the Right? Well, let's just say that even though I'm all for the 2nd Amendment and do support the Death Penalty (at least in principle) and am not anti-war (again, at least in principle) I also don't call myself "Pro-Life." So: No contradiction.

      But in not one single point you've made do you show how the REPUBLICAN PARTY is not ACCURATELY depicted (skewered, actually) by this video. It was almost a good try but, like most Conservatives, you failed to remember that’s it's not all about YOU.

      Delete
    6. I've done past take down of stuff like this when it's been said about Liberals or Democrats. Debunking those memes, e-mail lists and videos? Generally about as difficult as putting on a hat. And they have about a 90% failure rate. (Meaning that I'll concede, admit to or otherwise can't debate, about 10% of the crap they put out.) At the moment you haven't even ARGUED a single one other than how it applies to YOU.

      Delete
    7. "What "views" on abortion were mentioned in the video that differentiate mothers safety in relation to the right to get an abortion?"

      It didn't mention the safety of the mother at all, which is exactly why your comment didn't separate you from what it said in the video. If the video had talked about opposing abortion even in those cases, then you would have a point. But it didn't, of course.

      Delete
    8. "Then, again, you differ from the Party."

      Damn it, Eddie. I have NEVER claimed to be a republican. I am an independent conservative. BIG difference that you refuse to accept. I've never voted "party lines" based solely on republican/democrat expectations. So ALL of your complaints against me for "toeing" the republican line are misplaced.

      More later, when I have time. Still busy at work.

      Delete
    9. "2) Every point you made was about YOU. The video isn't about YOU. It's about the REPUBLICANS. "

      One thing before I leave work: Yes that video IS about ME. Every instance they say "if YOU ... then join the party". Are they talking to YOU and expect ME to address their concerns? Hell no! They are asking ME that if "I" do those things then I should be a republican. So, that video was made for ME to answer those questions. That's how off base you are with this video. You're whining about the hard-core republican and classifying everyone who isn't hard core liberal a republican. Maybe if you learn a little reading comprehension you would understand that was my original point.
      .

      Delete
    10. barbie: "It didn't mention the safety of the mother at all, which is exactly why your comment didn't separate you from what it said in the video."

      Yeah but the video is berating the republican party and I don't believe the same as them. Which is my point. You haven't the intelligence to understand that, but that is consistent with being a hard core liberal sheeple.

      Delete
    11. "Damn it, Eddie. I have NEVER claimed to be a republican."

      Then DON'T "join" the party. And shut the fuck up. Because this video is NOT about you.

      But it IS about the Right. It IS about Conservatives, as they exist this country now. And it IS about the Republican Party. I've said it before William: You are lost. But it's not MY JOB to come find you.

      You say *I* categorize? Then why do you oppose me then? Why do you argue with me? Because of a label? Because of a Party? I'm no Democrat either. But I see one party that is weak, and one that is stupid. (As defined by Cipolli - look it up.) One that wants to do the right thing, but often fails, and one that wants to do the wrong thing and usually succeeds. One that is terrible at implementing great ideas, and one that is great at implementing terrible ones. So for me? The CHOICE is clear.

      I wonder what you think you are fighting for? I wonder what you think the Republicans will give you. Abortion? Oh, puh-lease. The Republican's will NEVER make any real headway on abortion because if they did, they'd lose their most effective wedge issue to make working class trash like you vote against your own economic interests. That's how they see you, you know. That's how Mitt Romney and John McCane and Scott Walker and Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush and Michelle Bachman and company see you: As nothing more than a blue collar prol who will continue to let them steal from you and everyone else, and let the 1%, no, fuck that, the 0.1% rule us like kings: because you think they share your "values." *spit*

      You think they give a fuck about you? You're a fool. "Conservative values" and "family values" are nothing more that Pavlovian dog whistles to make blue collar white people vote against the only party that will do a damn thing for them, ever, at all. You work for a living? And still vote Republican?

      Then I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and SHIT out a better world view than yours.

      I "classify" no one. And I'll continue to stand by everything that I post here excepting the rare instance in which I'll concede otherwise. The Right is destroying this country. The Republican party is the party of scum. You're not a Republican? Great. Then you'll help us beat them? No? Then FUCK YOU: You are scum, just as they are.

      And the difference between you and me? I dehumanize you, here and now, only because you do the same to others. And you help other to do so. Thus? You are evil. (No, not really... In reality you are merely stupid.) But you can stop being so any time. Sadly, I don't see that happening. But I do see certain desperation in your posts. A certain weakness, if you will. Fear, almost.

      So you have a choice: You can continue to be blind to that that and embrace everything that's wrong with the world... Hate, bigotry, science denial... Or you can let go of that and embrace our fellow man and fight for HIS RIGHTS for a change. I don't really care what you do. You are no more than one misled soul. Progress is bigger than you. And I'm only happy that, come what may, I've fought on the correct side.

      If you're here, trying to "reach me?" Don't waste your time. With every post you leave I only despise you and everyone you stand with and everything you stand for that much more - at least in every instance in which your "values" differ from mine. But I welcome you here because there remains some slim possibility that one of US might reach YOU. Might make YOU forget about labels, and realize that everything you fight for is in vain. That's it’s actually WRONG. But that's your call. And I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

      Delete
    12. "You say *I* categorize? Then why do you oppose me then? Why do you argue with me? Because of a label? Because of a Party? I'm no Democrat either. "

      Eddie, I "argue" with you because you ask me to "Progessive Blogger and regular MediaMatters poster. Come on in, let's argue!". The other reason is because you lie to support your hatred of the republican party in virtually all your articles, and then tell me that if I'm not liberal then I'm an evil right-winger. You tell me this is a video about the republican party and then you group everyone who isn't left wing into that ONE group ... somehow thinking we all toe the republican party line. If I tell you I'm not a republican and that I'm an independent, you call me a liar and say it's all the same. So, don't flatter yourself, Eddie, you're nothing more than a screach monkey for the ultra left wing hate-mongers. And like all other misinformers, you've got to be exposed as for what you are.

      Delete
    13. "I could eat a box car of Exlax and still not have two shits to give about the "God YOU worship." JESUS, in the BIBLE (remember him?) DOES actually say this."

      Luke 18:20-22. Jesus was talking to a rich man who asked about inheriting eternal life. This man's stumbling block was wealth and riches. He expressed that he followed the commandments that have to do with man's relationship with man, but Jesus knew he had a problem with his relationship with God (in the previous verse, Jesus acknowledges that He is God). So, Jesus tells the man to give up his riches and follow Him. Knowing that the rich man couldn't give away his own riches he walks away sad because he now knows he will not achieve eternal life.
      The verse is showing that every man has their own stumbling block in life that may prevent their relation with God. Riches was the example given. But, it is in no way saying that ALL Christians are to give away their money in order to enter Heaven.

      Delete
    14. "Yeah but the video is berating the republican party and I don't believe the same as them."

      If you say so, but obviously abortion is not evidence of that.

      Delete
    15. Well, Jesus must be a republican then, since He is against abortion too (thou shall not murder).

      Delete
    16. "Well, Jesus must be a republican then, since He is against abortion too (thou shall not murder)."

      Non sequitur. And, factually, the Bible does not value the unborn on the same level as people, so labeling it "murder" is only your viewpoint.

      Delete
    17. "And, factually, the Bible does not value the unborn on the same level as people, so labeling it "murder" is only your viewpoint."

      Apparently, you don't know facts about the Bible. So your viewpoint doesn't work.

      Delete
    18. "Apparently, you don't know facts about the Bible."

      Exodus 21:22; "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."

      http://biblehub.com/exodus/21-22.htm

      "Verse 22-25. - Assault producing miscarriage. Retaliation. Women in all countries are apt to interfere in the quarrels of men, and run the risk of suffering injuries which proceed from accident rather than design, one such injury being of a peculiar character, to which there is nothing correspondent among the injuries which may be done to man. This is abortion, or miscarriage. The Mosaic legislation sought to protect pregnant women from suffering this injury by providing, first, that if death resulted the offender should suffer death (ver. 23); and, secondly, that if there were no further ill-result than the miscarriage itself, still a fine should be paid, to be assessed by the husband of the injured woman with the consent of the judges (ver. 22)."

      Delete
    19. Jeremiah 1:5 ""Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
      Psalm 139:16 "Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be."

      God knows who you are before you are born. So, it would be murder. And, miscarriage isn't the same as abortion.

      Delete
    20. "God knows who you are before you are born. So, it would be murder."

      It still demonstrates that causing a miscarriage isn't viewed equal to murder. That's God's word, plain as day. Your verses don't change that one iota, whether "God knows who you are" or not. It's actually worse than abortion, since that would typically be with the woman's consent; this is assault that terminates a pregnancy, for which the woman wouldn't share any of the responsibility. And it's an offense which carries a fine, not the death penalty.

      Try again?

      Delete
    21. "It still demonstrates that causing a miscarriage isn't viewed equal to murder. "

      My verses show God does value all human life equally. Yours show that your viewpoint isn't valid. Because you've completely ignored that God says there is a penalty of life for life, eye for eye ..., if someone is harmed while two men fight. God says there is no penalty (other than fine) IF there is no miscarriage. This would be a good time for you to brush up on your Jesus quotes. Because completely misinterpreting the very verses you bring as evidence of your viewpoint to the point that they actually support my stance isn't a very smart tactic. Hmm, a liberal not being smart ... go figure.

      Delete
    22. "My verses show God does value all human life equally."

      Actually, they don't. They also don't change the meaning of the law that the Bible established, either.

      "Because you've completely ignored that God says there is a penalty of life for life, eye for eye ..., if someone is harmed while two men fight."

      If the woman is harmed, yes. But not for the pregnancy. Hence the proof that the Bible does not value both equally.

      "God says there is no penalty (other than fine) IF there is no miscarriage."

      No, that's not what the verse says. The fine applies to a miscarriage through assault, as demonstrated above.

      "Because completely misinterpreting the very verses you bring as evidence of your viewpoint to the point that they actually support my stance isn't a very smart tactic."

      I didn't misinterpret anything. Take it up with biblehub.com if you think that you know more than they do. In the meantime, my point stands.

      Delete
    23. "If the woman is harmed, yes. But not for the pregnancy."
      and
      "No, that's not what the verse says. The fine applies to a miscarriage through assault, as demonstrated above."
      and
      "I didn't misinterpret anything. "


      Whatever, man. You interpret a book, you don't believe in, any way you want. But for intelligent people we interpret it correctly.
      This is from the 'New Living Version' (that's the Bible-for-dummies version essentially): "22 Now suppose two men are fighting, and in the process they accidentally strike a pregnant woman so she gives birth prematurely. If no further injury results, the man who struck the woman must pay the amount of compensation the woman’s husband demands and the judges approve. 23 But if there is further injury, the punishment must match the injury: a life for a life, 24 an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, 25 a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise.". As I said, you can interpret it any way you want, but the link that you brought says if the unborn baby or mother is harmed in any way after being struck the person responsible pays equal punishment to the harm caused. Seems pretty logical and fair to me. No wonder liberals don't like that verse, they can't stand the equality of it. Even unborn life is considered life. So, factually, your link (and verse) prove that even the unborn life is equal to born human life. Hence that is why Christians are against abortion. I sure hope Eddie was watching this too.

      Thanks for playing. I take it you will stop after such an embarrassment to yourself.

      Delete
    24. "You interpret a book, you don't believe in, any way you want. But for intelligent people we interpret it correctly."

      I don't need to believe in it in order to discuss it. If anything, that helps me, because I can be more objective about it than you can.

      "As I said, you can interpret it any way you want, but the link that you brought says if the unborn baby or mother is harmed in any way after being struck the person responsible pays equal punishment to the harm caused."

      No, it does not. Again: "Assault producing miscarriage." That's what my link specifies, and elaborates thus; "...and, secondly, that if there were no further ill-result than the miscarriage itself, still a fine should be paid, to be assessed by the husband of the injured woman with the consent of the judges (ver. 22)."
      That plainly states that the miscarriage is grounds for a fine, nothing more.

      Even further, here's the same site listing the New Living Translation: http://biblehub.com/nlt/exodus/21.htm
      There happens to be a footnote after the "gives birth prematurely" phrase which reads: "Or so she has a miscarriage". Which would make sense to intelligent people, because if the baby was fine, what need would there be for compensation?

      Thanks for playing.

      Delete
    25. "No, it does not. Again: "Assault producing miscarriage." That's what my link specifies, and elaborates thus; "...and, secondly, that if there were no further ill-result than the miscarriage itself, still a fine should be paid, to be assessed by the husband of the injured woman with the consent of the judges (ver. 22).""

      Tell you what, YOU go to your link and bring the wording where any of the Bible versions use "miscarriage". You keep putting that in quotations, but none of the Bible versions FROM YOUR LINK use that word. They keep using "prematurely".

      "There happens to be a footnote after the "gives birth prematurely" phrase which reads: "Or so she has a miscarriage"."

      The footnote also says "miscarriage" is not the correct interpretation from the original language. So, as I said, you can interpret a book you don't believe in any way you want, but NONE of the Bibles you link to say "miscarriage".
      So, thanks for bringing a link that proves God values unborn human life as much as born human life. I'm glad when a liberal brings proof that disproves their own stance. Good thing (very convenient) that you are an atheist, you don't have to accept responsibility for your murderous stance on abortion. Most liberals hold the same views ... because they refuse to accept responsibility for their own actions too.

      Yes, thanks for playing. Also, don't forget to bring those quotes where that Bible you're interpreting uses "assault producing miscarriage" as often as you claim it does. Because if you look a little harder there are no more footnotes for you to claim.
      Besides, "miscarriage" isn't even used in the Bible version that Rev. Joseph S. Exell is making his sermon on. So, you've lost on every aspect of this one.

      Apology accepted in advance.

      Delete
    26. "Tell you what, YOU go to your link and bring the wording where any of the Bible versions use "miscarriage"."

      The analysis says "miscarriage".

      "The footnote also says "miscarriage" is not the correct interpretation from the original language."

      No, it doesn't say that at all. You made that up.

      "Also, don't forget to bring those quotes where that Bible you're interpreting uses "assault producing miscarriage" as often as you claim it does."

      I didn't claim that the Bible used that phrase.

      Another source from Biblehub: "so that her fruit depart from her; or, "her children go forth" (z), out of her womb, as she may have more than one; through the fright of the quarrel, and fear of her husband being hurt, and the blow she received by interposing, might miscarry, or, falling into labour, come before her time, and bring forth her offspring sooner than expected:"
      Emphasis mine. The verse is clearly talking about miscarriage from assault, which means that terminating a pregnancy is only worthy of a fine and not "eye for an eye".

      Stomp your feet all you like, you've lost.

      Delete
    27. "No, it doesn't say that at all. You made that up."

      I'm afraid I did not make it up: "c 21:22 Or so she has a miscarriage; Hebrew reads so her children come out.". This is a case of you ignoring that you're talking about what the BIBLE says, then you use an incorrect translation by some individual to support your case. Where there is no "miscarriage" used in the Bible, just in commentary. And, since you started out talking about the BIBLE, then using commentary just won't fly in this instance.

      "I didn't claim that the Bible used that phrase."

      You're the one making this claim: "And, factually, the Bible does not value the unborn on the same level as people, so labeling it "murder" is only your viewpoint.". Too bad for you, your link proves that the Bible DOES value unborn life the same as people. You may find commentators who disagree with the Bible, but the facts remain the Bible says harming unborn life can result in punishment equal to life outside the womb.

      Delete
    28. "This is a case of you ignoring that you're talking about what the BIBLE says, then you use an incorrect translation by some individual to support your case."

      It says the literal translation in Hebrew, that doesn't mean that miscarriage is a faulty interpretation. You claimed that the page said that was not the correct interpretation, which was a lie.

      "Where there is no "miscarriage" used in the Bible, just in commentary."

      That would be analysis of the Bible, as if that doesn't count for anything.

      "You're the one making this claim: "And, factually, the Bible does not value the unborn on the same level as people, so labeling it "murder" is only your viewpoint."."

      Because people were fined for causing miscarriages, as opposed to "eye for an eye".

      "You may find commentators who disagree with the Bible, but the facts remain the Bible says harming unborn life can result in punishment equal to life outside the womb."

      The analysis on Biblehub.com is not from people who "disagree with the Bible". They disagree with you. And no, a fine is not equal to execution, by any stretch of the imagination.

      Delete
    29. "That would be analysis of the Bible, as if that doesn't count for anything."

      No, one incorrect analysis does not overshadow all the other correct analysis. That would be as stupid as a republican saying there is ONE scientist who disagrees with global warming while all the others agree with it. But, you are a liberal, so I expect that kind of stupidity.

      "The analysis on Biblehub.com is not from people who "disagree with the Bible". "

      You are wrong, then. Because the Bible NEVER said "miscarriage". Besides, you used the word "people", you should have put "person" ... ONE.

      Delete
    30. "No, one incorrect analysis does not overshadow all the other correct analysis."

      What analysis did you cite, and where did you prove that it was "correct"?

      "Because the Bible NEVER said "miscarriage"."

      I didn't claim that it did. And it doesn't have to, since you accept "analysis" in the very same post.

      "Besides, you used the word "people", you should have put "person" ... ONE."

      Wrong. The original link contained two commentaries which disputed your interpretation, and I've quoted from both.

      Delete
    31. "I didn't claim that it did."

      Then you are making an illogical argument. Since it is your claim that the Bible doesn't value all life equally, where your link obviously proves that the Bible does. You may have ONE interpretation that disagrees, but the Bible is consistent.

      "It says the literal translation in Hebrew, that doesn't mean that miscarriage is a faulty interpretation. "

      Yes it does mean that miscarriage is a faulty interpretation. The Bible doesn't say "dead" children, does it? So, it is an incorrect interpretation.

      Delete
    32. "Then you are making an illogical argument."

      You accept "analysis", by your own comment. So, interpretation is allowed, which means that the term "miscarriage" doesn't have to be in the Bible.

      "Since it is your claim that the Bible doesn't value all life equally, where your link obviously proves that the Bible does."

      Your assertion doesn't justify "obviously" all by itself.

      "You may have ONE interpretation that disagrees, but the Bible is consistent."

      Again, there's more than one. And, you haven't shown anything to show that a fetus is considered equal, so nothing is "consistent" in your argument. On the other hand, there is an actual abortion ritual for pregnancies due to infidelity and several connections between "breath" and life which show consistency that the unborn are less valued in the Bible.

      "The Bible doesn't say "dead" children, does it?"

      That wouldn't require "interpretation", then, would it? The idea of analysis actually involves things which require evaluation, so words such as "dead" aren't necessary in order for it to be referring to miscarriage.

      Delete
    33. "Your assertion doesn't justify "obviously" all by itself."

      I know, that's why your link helps so much.

      "You accept "analysis", by your own comment."

      That means you accept the incorrect analysis of global warming by idiot scientists, since by your own comments, the minority of interpretations are considered valid. Thanks for showing you're as dumb as many republicans when it comes to global warming. Since by your own comments you accept the analysis's that are wrong.

      Delete
    34. "I know, that's why your link helps so much."

      Your "obviously" applied to the link.

      "That means you accept the incorrect analysis of global warming by idiot scientists, since by your own comments, the minority of interpretations are considered valid."

      You haven't established any "minority of interpretations" in this situation.

      Delete
    35. "You haven't established any "minority of interpretations" in this situation."

      Sure I have. The ones that the dumb republicans believe from the video.

      "Your "obviously" applied to the link."

      And it is obvious the Bible considers all life equal, even unborn life. According to your link.

      Delete
    36. "Sure I have. The ones that the dumb republicans believe from the video."

      We were talking about the Bible, not the video.

      "And it is obvious the Bible considers all life equal, even unborn life."

      My link didn't establish that at all. Just the opposite.

      Do you have anything of substance, or are you going to keep making assertions as if they have any value on their own?

      Delete
    37. "We were talking about the Bible, not the video."

      You're lost, aren't you? We're talking about global warming, too.

      "My link didn't establish that at all. Just the opposite."

      Your link proved the Bible considers all life equal, even unborn life. Your inaccurate interpretation may show something else, but the Bible doesn't.

      Delete
    38. "We're talking about global warming, too."

      I wasn't.

      "Your link proved the Bible considers all life equal, even unborn life."

      No, it didn't.

      Anything else?

      Delete
    39. "I wasn't."

      Well, that means you're answering questions without knowing what is being discussed.

      So, I guess there isn't anything else, since you aren't able to follow along with the conversation.

      Delete
    40. "Well, that means you're answering questions without knowing what is being discussed."

      No, it means that you talked about it, not "we".

      Delete
    41. "No, it means that you talked about it, not "we"."

      I'm afraid "we" did talk about it:
      me: "That means you accept the incorrect analysis of global warming by idiot scientists, since by your own comments, the minority of interpretations are considered valid."
      you: "You haven't established any "minority of interpretations" in this situation."
      me: "Sure I have. The ones that the dumb republicans believe from the video."

      Since global warming is part of the video, that means WE were talking about it. You, apparently, don't have the intelligence to follow along with simple conversations.
      Please, in future conversations, try to follow along.

      Anything else?


      Delete
    42. "Since global warming is part of the video, that means WE were talking about it."

      No, I was never talking about it. You made an idiotic leap of logic, and I merely pointed it out. The "situation" I was referring to was the Bible discussion, not the video.

      Delete
    43. That's the best you can come up with for an excuse? So be it ... I take it you are done getting your ars beat in this discussion. Since you brought a link that proves the Bible values life ... even the unborn life, then discuss global warming and deny discussing it.
      ROTFLMAO@U

      Delete
    44. "That's the best you can come up with for an excuse?"

      It's what happened, sadly for you.

      "Since you brought a link that proves the Bible values life ... even the unborn life, then discuss global warming and deny discussing it."

      Neither of those things happened.

      Delete
    45. "Neither of those things happened."

      Sure they did and I pointed out how. Too bad for you.

      Delete
    46. "Sure they did and I pointed out how."

      No, you asserted that they happened, which doesn't magically make it true.

      Anything else?

      Delete
    47. "No, you asserted that they happened, which doesn't magically make it true."

      Yeah, I ASSERTED using your link and Eddie's video as proof of what I say. You couldn't prove me wrong in either instance. All you could do is whine that ONE opinion overshadows all other proof to the contrary. Which is what republicans do concerning global warming (as I pointed out) and you call them the bane of the earth. What does that make you?

      Delete
    48. "Yeah, I ASSERTED using your link and Eddie's video as proof of what I say."

      You asserted without any proof, obviously. My link didn't help you, but you assert that it does. And Eddie's video doesn't prove that I was ever discussing global warming. Think about what you're posting.

      "You couldn't prove me wrong in either instance."

      What you would ever admit proves you wrong is one of the great mysteries of the universe.

      "All you could do is whine that ONE opinion overshadows all other proof to the contrary."

      You provided zero proof to the contrary.

      "Which is what republicans do concerning global warming (as I pointed out) and you call them the bane of the earth."

      Again, you haven't shown any similarity between those two situations, because you never showed how some massive number of scholars somehow believe that a fine was levied if someone merely accelerated the birth of a healthy baby. Your comparison fails.

      Delete
    49. "You asserted without any proof, obviously. My link didn't help you, but you assert that it does."

      You referred to the notation that says the original language of that verse said: "Hebrew reads so her children come out". You have brought NO evidence to support your insistence that miscarriage is the proper interpretation of the original Hebrew writings. Until you do that, you have NO basis for that interpretation.
      That means YOU have not proven your initial claim that "the Bible does not value the unborn on the same level as people".
      Huge failure on your part.

      "And Eddie's video doesn't prove that I was ever discussing global warming."

      I brought the exchange, if you aren't smart enough to read, you can't blame me.

      Delete
    50. "You have brought NO evidence to support your insistence that miscarriage is the proper interpretation of the original Hebrew writings."

      The notation itself was evidence, along with the other analysis that I provided.

      "I brought the exchange, if you aren't smart enough to read, you can't blame me."

      I read it. It shows you bringing up an unrelated topic as an unsubstantiated comparison. Also, that exchange isn't in Eddie's video, so obviously that video didn't prove what you claimed that it did.

      Delete
    51. "The notation itself was evidence, along with the other analysis that I provided."

      So, when someone asks "can your children come out" that means someone (anyone) is asking are your children dead? How, in the world, can "her children come out" be interpreted as "miscarriage"? You're going to have to explain that one. Because believe ONE interpreter isn't sufficient. When I've got 8 (from the same link) that interpret it as "born prematurely".

      "I read it. It shows you bringing up an unrelated topic as an unsubstantiated comparison."

      It's a related topic because global warming is in Eddie's video. Obviously, you haven't watched it or you would know that. Huge failure on your part.

      Delete
    52. "So, when someone asks "can your children come out" that means someone (anyone) is asking are your children dead?"

      That would be a different situation, so the meaning would also be different.

      "How, in the world, can "her children come out" be interpreted as "miscarriage"?"

      If a pregnant woman is assaulted, that phrase obviously lends itself to miscarriage. What are you confused about?

      "When I've got 8 (from the same link) that interpret it as "born prematurely"."

      No, you don't.

      "It's a related topic because global warming is in Eddie's video."

      It means that it's on-topic as far as the thread is concerned, but it's not related to the specific discussion at hand.

      Delete
    53. "If a pregnant woman is assaulted, that phrase obviously lends itself to miscarriage. What are you confused about?"

      Because it could obviously mean prematurely born, also. You haven't brought anything that shows it can be only one and not the other.

      "No, you don't."

      So, you haven't even read your own link. You haven't watched the video and you haven't read your own link. You're not very good at this are you?

      "It means that it's on-topic as far as the thread is concerned, but it's not related to the specific discussion at hand."

      People with slight intelligence would understand the connection. That's why you don't get it, huh?

      Delete
    54. "Because it could obviously mean prematurely born, also. You haven't brought anything that shows it can be only one and not the other."

      I don't need to, because it would still mean that an assault resulting in miscarriage would only warrant a fine.

      "So, you haven't even read your own link."

      There were eight analyses which said that it should be interpreted differently? No, I don't believe that there were.

      "People with slight intelligence would understand the connection."

      Surprisingly, continuing to make assertions don't make them any more effective for you.

      Delete
    55. "I don't need to, because it would still mean that an assault resulting in miscarriage would only warrant a fine."

      You haven't established that other than with opinion. Bring some facts ... not hearsay.

      " No, I don't believe that there were."

      Then you didn't read your own link.

      Delete
    56. "You haven't established that other than with opinion. Bring some facts ... not hearsay."

      I brought analysis. You did not. It's not clear how "hearsay" would possibly apply, but I'll chalk that up to your poor vocabulary.

      "Then you didn't read your own link."

      Another assertion without evidence, still not effective.

      Delete
    57. "I brought analysis"

      You seem to have a real problem with bringing facts to back up your claims of fact. That fault of yours is quite a deterrent in a conversation between adults. If you continue acting like a child, I'll continue treating you like one.

      "Another assertion without evidence, still not effective."

      The evidence is that you didn't see the 8 analysis's that are in your link that support my stance. Either that or you ignored them because they counter your one piece of opinion.

      Delete
    58. "If you continue acting like a child, I'll continue treating you like one."

      None of that addressed the fact that I brought evidence, while you did not.

      "The evidence is that you didn't see the 8 analysis's that are in your link that support my stance."

      You saying that there was anything for me to miss is an assertion without evidence.

      Delete
    59. "You saying that there was anything for me to miss is an assertion without evidence."

      From your link:
      1; "If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows"
      2;"Now suppose two men are fighting, and in the process they accidentally strike a pregnant woman so she gives birth prematurely. If no further injury results, the man who struck the woman must pay the amount of compensation the woman's husband demands and the judges approve."
      3; "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide."
      4; When men get in a fight and hit a pregnant woman so that her children are born prematurely but there is no injury, the one who hit her must be fined as the woman's husband demands from him, and he must pay according to judicial assessment"
      5;"If two men are fighting and they strike a pregnant woman and her children are born prematurely, but there is no harm, he is certainly to be fined as the husband of the woman demands of him, and he will pay as the court decides"
      6;"If men fight and hit a pregnant woman and her child is born prematurely, but there is no serious injury, he will surely be punished in accordance with what the woman's husband demands of him, and he will pay what the court decides."
      7;"This is what you must do whenever men fight and injure a pregnant woman so that she gives birth prematurely. If there are no other injuries, the offender must pay whatever fine the court allows the woman's husband to demand."
      8;"If men fight and hurt a pregnant woman so that she gives birth prematurely, and yet no harm follows, he shall be surely fined as much as the woman's husband demands and the judges allow."
      9;Personal Injury Laws
      …21"If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property. 22"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23"But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,…"

      Gave you an extra one as a freebie.

      Delete
    60. Those aren't analyses. You weren't referring to the actual verses, because you used the word "miscarriage", and you made it a point that no verse actually uses that term.

      Delete
    61. Yes, they are analysis. Individual people analyzed what was in the original text and changed it according to their conclusions. Just like the ONE you brought.

      Delete
    62. "Yes, they are analysis. Individual people analyzed what was in the original text and changed it according to their conclusions. Just like the ONE you brought."

      No, those are versions of the verse, not analysis of the verse. Sorry.

      Delete
    63. analysis: : a careful study of something to learn about its parts, what they do, and how they are related to each other: an explanation of the nature and meaning of something
      Merrium-Webster

      Delete
    64. Yes, the analysis would explain the meaning of the verse, which is what I provided. Anything else?

      Delete
    65. I provided it also. Now you can choose which analysis you want to believe. You can believe those who think like very few people or you can choose to believe those who think like the majority of people. Just like those who analyze global warming (as I said earlier) you can choose to believe the fringe scientists who don't believe global warming (republicans believe them) as opposed to the smart ones (everyone else believes them)..

      Delete
    66. "I provided it also."

      No, you brought the verse. The analysis that I brought applies to everything that you posted.

      What's amusing, though, is that this new standard of yours would apply to your claim that the Bible used the term "Easter", when every version except the KJV said "Passover". You'll have to retract that one, since you had only one "analysis" on your side.

      Delete
    67. " You'll have to retract that one, since you had only one "analysis" on your side."

      That's a possibility that I would consider if you can show that one is used more than another or that either are used incorrectly. Do a word study on Easter and Passover and let me know what you come up with. Do you need the name of a good concordance?

      "No, you brought the verse."

      If you honestly want to find out what the meaning of those verses are you should do a word study it. I am taught that if you're going to learn meanings within the Bible you should compare verses with verses. That's why I brought the 2 verses I brought (long ago in this discussion). They tell me that God "knew" someone before they were born and while still in the womb, so there is no reason that I could possibly come to a conclusion that God would know one person before birth and care more about him than another person before birth. My conclusion is that the meaning of the verse you brought is that the if the woman delivers her babies prematurely. If you want to do your own investigation and come to a different conclusion you are free to do that. Otherwise you really have nothing more to offer.

      Delete
    68. "That's a possibility that I would consider if you can show that one is used more than another or that either are used incorrectly."

      That was already done, of course.

      "They tell me that God "knew" someone before they were born and while still in the womb, so there is no reason that I could possibly come to a conclusion that God would know one person before birth and care more about him than another person before birth."

      What that doesn't demonstrate is that God values the unborn as much as people.

      "My conclusion is that the meaning of the verse you brought is that the if the woman delivers her babies prematurely."

      That doesn't logically follow your previous comment.

      "If you want to do your own investigation and come to a different conclusion you are free to do that."

      I already provided analysis which comes to a different conclusion, and you haven't given any reason to believe that it's faulty in any way.

      Delete
    69. "That doesn't logically follow your previous comment."

      Sure it does.

      "I already provided analysis which comes to a different conclusion, and you haven't given any reason to believe that it's faulty in any way."

      And I've done the same and that comes to a different conclusion from yours. You'll have to make your own choice. Just like I'm making my own choice based on the comparisons I've made.

      "That was already done, of course."

      Hardly.

      If you have nothing more, I take it you are through.

      Delete
    70. "Sure it does."

      Another empty assertion on your part.

      "And I've done the same and that comes to a different conclusion from yours."

      No, you haven't. You've only provided the verse, not analysis of it.

      "Hardly."

      That's interesting, because I know for a fact that I pointed out that only the KJV used that term and also that the context included a reference to Passover. You'll have to explain how that doesn't meet your criteria.

      Delete
    71. If you have nothing more of substance, I take it you are through.

      Delete
    72. Exactly ... nothing more of substance.

      Delete
    73. Your previous reply lacked substance, and didn't address anything that I had said. This is your problem, not mine.

      Delete
    74. No, the person who doesn't respond is the one who ends up running away. That would be you. My point stands.

      Delete
    75. And the one who cries because they just got snookered is called a crybaby.

      Delete
    76. Oh, are you saying that your argument wasn't genuine, now?

      Delete
    77. No, I'm saying I'm the one who made you cry when I said: "Well, run away then."

      Delete
    78. Then "snookered" doesn't apply, since that involves deception. And, as always, there's nothing in my comments which implies crying any more than yours do. This is just you displaying your immaturity, yet again.

      Delete
    79. "it is in no way saying that ALL Christians are to give away their money in order to enter Heaven."

      "Rich man through the eye of a eye a needle" ring a bell?

      Why do you make it so easy?

      Delete
    80. "love of money" ... does that ring a bell?

      Why do YOU make it so easy?

      Delete
    81. Yes, and it sounds like every RW'er is standing on my front door step. What's your point?

      Delete
    82. Come on, Ed. You know God doesn't forbid anyone from entering Heaven just because they are rich. The same way He doesn't automatically admit anyone because they are poor. Which would mean Christians are not required to give all their money away. If they are able to use their money to help others ... good for them. Hopefully they are believers. If they give all their money to the poor that doesn't automatically get them into Heaven. You know what it takes, I don't think it is proper to play these kind of games. You seem more intelligent than that.

      Delete