• Thurs news: Lilly’s weight-loss drug prevents diabetes. Merck pays $588M for bispecific. Amgen speaks out about bone density issues with obesity drug. PTC gets gene therapy approval. JNJ’s 340B legal fight. See more on our front page

Duck Dynasty

Vagitarian said:
To the 'self-described Christian' who gives Christianity a bad name, way to slither off. Very lame dude.
Click to expand...

You just keep making yourself look more and more ridiculous!

Your buddy, BN, had the integrity to answer to answer and to answer correctly.

Your dishonest or pathetically ignorant dodging only makes you look worse and worse.

Here you go. I'll provide a couple of names for you: REV. Martin Luther King Jr. and REV. Jesse Jackson. Now if it's 50-50 as you claim it should be no problem
for you to come up with a couple of senators or representatives who were widely acknowledged civil rights LEADERS, not just somebody who voted for the '64 act.

Now get to it!
 




  • ~T~   Dec 23, 2013 at 09:57: PM
Man For All Seasons said:
Excellent contribution. And Jackie was what? Oh, don't tell Anyone but he was a serious CHRISTIAN whose Christian values and faith were a big part of enabling him to live with the power, dignity and grace that he did and further the cause of civil rights.
Click to expand...

Someone should take a lesson from Jackie...especially in the grace department. :rolleyes:
 




~T~ said:
Someone should take a lesson from Jackie...especially in the grace department. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Why do I get the sneaky suspicion that you aren't qualified to make such a critique?

One of your buddies is I desperate need of some help finding the truth. Maybe you shoulda helped him before presuming to tell others what they need to learn.
 
Last edited by a moderator:




Man For All Seasons said:
You just keep making yourself look more and more ridiculous!

Your buddy, BN, had the integrity to answer to answer and to answer correctly.

Your dishonest or pathetically ignorant dodging only makes you look worse and worse.

Here you go. I'll provide a couple of names for you: REV. Martin Luther King Jr. and REV. Jesse Jackson. Now if it's 50-50 as you claim it should be no problem
for you to come up with a couple of senators or representatives who were widely acknowledged civil rights LEADERS, not just somebody who voted for the '64 act.

Now get to it!
Click to expand...

Here you go:
1) House of Representatives Majority Leader Mike Mansfield
2) Minnesota Senator Hubert Humphrey, the Democratic whip who managed the bill on the Senate floor,
3) Republican Minority Leader Everett M. Dirksen of Illinois. Dirksen
4) 1st proposed by former Senator and later President, John F Kennedy
5) Proposed after Kennedy's assassination, former Senate majority leader, then Vice President then President Lyndon B Johnson.
Here's some basics:

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/...htsAct1964.htm

Score 5 to 2, your turn.
 




Vagitarian said:
Here you go:
1) House of Representatives Majority Leader Mike Mansfield
2) Minnesota Senator Hubert Humphrey, the Democratic whip who managed the bill on the Senate floor,
3) Republican Minority Leader Everett M. Dirksen of Illinois. Dirksen
4) 1st proposed by former Senator and later President, John F Kennedy
5) Proposed after Kennedy's assassination, former Senate majority leader, then Vice President then President Lyndon B Johnson.
Here's some basics:

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/...htsAct1964.htm

Score 5 to 2, your turn.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the score is still 2-0.

Those who proposed and championed legislation were merely
RESPONDING to what the leaders of the movement had done.

Not looking for leaders in the government, you have to put up people in government who were leaders in the movement.

You've sent yourself on a fool's errand with your absurd contention that it was 50-50 between clergy and elected officials. The elected officials were essentially all followers in the movement, not leaders!

Quack! Quack!
 




Man For All Seasons said:
You just keep making yourself look more and more ridiculous!

Your buddy, BN, had the integrity to answer to answer and to answer correctly.

Your dishonest or pathetically ignorant dodging only makes you look worse and worse.

Here you go. I'll provide a couple of names for you: REV. Martin Luther King Jr. and REV. Jesse Jackson. Now if it's 50-50 as you claim it should be no problem
for you to come up with a couple of senators or representatives who were widely acknowledged civil rights LEADERS, not just somebody who voted for the '64 act.

Now get to it!
Click to expand...

Here you go:
1) House of Representatives Majority Leader Mike Mansfield
2) Minnesota Senator Hubert Humphrey, the Democratic whip who managed the bill on the Senate floor,
3) Republican Minority Leader Everett M. Dirksen of Illinois. Dirksen
4) 1st proposed by former Senator and later President, John F Kennedy
5) Proposed after Kennedy's assassination, former Senate majority leader, then Vice President then President Lyndon B Johnson.
Here's some basics:

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/...htsAct1964.htm
 




Vagitarian said:
Here you go:
1) House of Representatives Majority Leader Mike Mansfield
2) Minnesota Senator Hubert Humphrey, the Democratic whip who managed the bill on the Senate floor,
3) Republican Minority Leader Everett M. Dirksen of Illinois. Dirksen
4) 1st proposed by former Senator and later President, John F Kennedy
5) Proposed after Kennedy's assassination, former Senate majority leader, then Vice President then President Lyndon B Johnson.
Here's some basics:

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/...htsAct1964.htm
Click to expand...

Your post is no better the second time. But my reply remains excellent!

Sorry, but the score is still 2-0.

Those who proposed and championed legislation were merely
RESPONDING to what the leaders of the movement had done.

Not looking for leaders in the government, you have to put up people in government who were leaders in the movement.

You've sent yourself on a fool's errand with your absurd contention that it was 50-50 between clergy and elected officials. The elected officials were essentially all followers in the movement, not leaders!

Quack! Quack!
 




Man For All Seasons said:
What do I have to fear? I've proven my point, and caused you to thoroughly embarrass yourself!

If you can't follow what happened in the 1960s then you certainly can't grasp
what happened in the 1860s.

As usual, I get the last laugh or in this case quack! LOL!
Click to expand...


LOL!

You equally show your ignorance of the role of Christianity in the Civil War.
Quote: It’s abundantly clear, as recent scholarship has demonstrated that religion stood at the center of the Civil War for both sides. Both North and South looked to God for meaning, and each side believed—with equal fervor and certitude—that God was on its side. Many ministers, generals, leaders, and editors went so far as to proclaim that God had ordained the war and would determine its length, its damages, and its outcome. The victor would show, in other words, whose side God really supported.
 Source: http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/...fo/cwsouth.htm

What you have demonstrated (besides your ignorance) is this simple fact - people make their own interpretations of the bible and use those interpretations (as you do) to bolster their personal beliefs. Obviously a 'god' who hade the power to make a complicated and intricate world would not be impotent when it came to stopping such misguided madness and the killing of innocent women and children.
 




Vagitarian said:
LOL!

You equally show your ignorance of the role of Christianity in the Civil War.
Quote: It’s abundantly clear, as recent scholarship has demonstrated that religion stood at the center of the Civil War for both sides. Both North and South looked to God for meaning, and each side believed—with equal fervor and certitude—that God was on its side. Many ministers, generals, leaders, and editors went so far as to proclaim that God had ordained the war and would determine its length, its damages, and its outcome. The victor would show, in other words, whose side God really supported.
 Source: http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/...fo/cwsouth.htm

What you have demonstrated (besides your ignorance) is this simple fact - people make their own interpretations of the bible and use those interpretations (as you do) to bolster their personal beliefs. Obviously a 'god' who hade the power to make a complicated and intricate world would not be impotent when it came to stopping such misguided madness and the killing of innocent women and children.
Click to expand...


LOL! Just more ignorant babble and dime store theology from you!

Not discussing the civil war with you in any detail now because as I said, you can't get the 1960s correct much less the 1860s.

The fact remains that Christianity was the driving force behind both the civil rights movement and the abolition of slavery. None but the ignorant or the dishonest would dare dispute that, so you've got a choice of categories, just not a good choice!

Quack! Quack!
 




Man For All Seasons said:
LOL! Just more ignorant babble and dime store theology from you!

Not discussing the civil war with you in any detail now because as I said, you can't get the 1960s correct much less the 1860s.

The fact remains that Christianity was the driving force behind both the civil rights movement and the abolition of slavery. None but the ignorant or the dishonest would dare dispute that, so you've got a choice of categories, just not a good choice!

Quack! Quack!
Click to expand...

Translation: Not discussing the civil war with you in any detail now because I don't know the facts and it's time to pull a LaPierre and slither out the back door.

You make outrageous statements and then can't back them up. Recently you referred to 'god took the form of a son which he gave us who then 'died for our sins'. so 1) Did he really die? I thought god couldn't die? I thought you said he was eternal. 2) If he didn't die, was it just a fake death? One to trick us into believing your babble?

If heaven is so great and eternal, what's this 'died for our sins crap?' Oh, I get it, time for you to slither out the back door. :rolleyes:
 




Vagitarian said:
Translation: Not discussing the civil war with you in any detail now because I don't know the facts and it's time to pull a LaPierre and slither out the back door.

You make outrageous statements and then can't back them up. Recently you referred to 'god took the form of a son which he gave us who then 'died for our sins'. so 1) Did he really die? I thought god couldn't die? I thought you said he was eternal. 2) If he didn't die, was it just a fake death? One to trick us into believing your babble?

If heaven is so great and eternal, what's this 'died for our sins crap?' Oh, I get it, time for you to slither out the back door. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You just keep embarrassing yourself by portraying yourself as either hopelessly ignorant or hopelessly dishonest. Either way, it's inexcusable and gives me the win in our argument.
 








Breakingnews said:
The Bird has sounded like that ever since his first post here on CP. Perhaps he needs to hit the hooch harder.
Click to expand...

I could hit it just shy of blacking out and still best the two of you on your best days!

Beyond this I hate to see you blow a very rare thread where you are actually on the right side for a change by vainly trying to come to your buddy's aid! It's far too late for that. He did himself in long ago by not following your lead, among other things.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
































You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back