Is Russia Our Enemy?

WizardofOz

New member
I see you are fond of calling people cowards. Is that part of your morality?

Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app
I didn't say you called me a liar. I said you support calling people cowards. Got that down now?

Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app

But I did call you a liar. And that's not what you said. See above. I know it was a whole 30 minutes ago so I can understand how you already forgot.

I see you deleted the post you made 'debunking' rex's lies.

Can we expect that debunking to progress soon? :popcorn:
Or are you going to continue to make empty threats on an internet forum?
 

ClimateSanity

New member
But I did call you a liar. And that's not what you said. See above. I know it was a whole 30 minutes ago so I can understand how you already forgot.

I see you deleted the post you made 'debunking' rex's lies.

Can we expect that debunking to progress soon? :popcorn:
Or are you going to continue to make empty threats on an internet forum?
I didn't delete the post...I moved it to the front..see it? It's post 176.

Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app
 

ClimateSanity

New member
But I did call you a liar. And that's not what you said. See above. I know it was a whole 30 minutes ago so I can understand how you already forgot.

I see you deleted the post you made 'debunking' rex's lies.

Can we expect that debunking to progress soon? :popcorn:
Or are you going to continue to make empty threats on an internet forum?
You can see that I swapped liar and coward in my haste. Let me repost that so you don't get carried away falsely accusing me.

Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app
 

ClimateSanity

New member
But I did call you a liar. And that's not what you said. See above. I know it was a whole 30 minutes ago so I can understand how you already forgot.

I see you deleted the post you made 'debunking' rex's lies.

Can we expect that debunking to progress soon? :popcorn:
Or are you going to continue to make empty threats on an internet forum?
Again, they arent rex's lies as if he knew what the truth was and instead told us a lie. Rex simply believed the lies he was told and honestly repeated them. It's his sources who are lying.

Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app
 

WizardofOz

New member
Again, they arent rex's lies as if he knew what the truth was and instead told us a lie. Rex simply believed the lies he was told and honestly repeated them. It's his sources who are lying.

Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app
Yes, me. Unless explicitly quoted, the thoughts that I write here are my own, informed by wide reading and reasoning. Don't lay down an accusation like that, and then try to pretend it isn't what you said, you coward!

That's untrue, you don't know me, and you are clearly unfamiliar with my methods for consuming media. You assume that I am brainwashed because I do not agree with you.

1-6055-3361-0.jpg
 

WizardofOz

New member
That's a false equivalence, and in fact the rationale for the Dems to change the filibuster rule in the past is the same rationale for opposing it for Gorsich. The Republicans had adopted an unprecedented tactic of denying Democrats any court appointments. They were holding up every single person Obama nominated, not for reasons of objections to the candidates, but because they don't want Democrats to appoint judges. The denial of Merrick Garland a hearing in the Senate was a continuation of that strategy, unprecedented in US history, and changing the filibuster rule is for Gorsich is the final completion of the strategy. But it's also a very short-sighted tactic that will come back to haunt them when they sit in the minority.

Eliminating the requirement for broad support is a formula for politicizing the court even further. If all that's needed is a majority, there's no good reason to nominate moderate, consensus judges.

Actually, rex is spot on here. :thumb:
This is exactly the rationale behind the filibuster and the rule change thereafter.

The (MSM) source that ClimateSanity parroted (despite decrying the MSM) without linking can be found here.

It is from 11/21/13
 

WizardofOz

New member
Then you're just as brainwashed as he is.

Where is your proof that's exactly the rationale for the filibuster and the rule change thereafter?

Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app

I agree with rex. I now anxiously await your rebuttal and sources (hopefully from at least 2014 and after). You said his post was 1000 lies and that you would research and discredit it. Have you had enough time?

Why did you quote that politico article from 2013 in the first place? :confused:
 

ClimateSanity

New member
The (MSM) source that ClimateSanity parroted (despite decrying the MSM) without linking can be found here.

It is from 11/21/13

I said it was from politico. Quoting for reference is not parroting. Hearing a claim, believing it, then spouting it as gospel is parroting. The story is from the time when Reid decided to change the rules. I am waiting for the same rationale as the filibuster.

Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app
 

northwye

New member
Hal Lindsey In 2015 On Russia Attacking the Nation of Israel. The Christian Zionists are not likely to completely give up their doctrine that Russia is Gog of Ezekiel 38-39 and will attack Israel. They will try to find some way of going back to their doctrine that Russia is Gog and will attack Israel.

http://www.hallindsey.com/hlr-4-24-2015/

"It was only a few years ago that the critics were saying I'd missed the mark in predicting the role Russia would play in the end-times scenario. If you remember, they confused the disintegration of the Soviet Union with the demise of Russia.

Well, if you read the newspaper or listen to the news channels, you know that Russia is alive and well -- and gaining strength as I write these words.

But not only is Gog actually on the scene and in the news, it is actively -- and publicly -- establishing itself as the partner and protector of Iran. Is that significant? Well, if you recall, 2,650 years ago, the prophet Ezekiel said that one day Gog and Persia -- modern day Russia and Iran -- would form an alliance that would eventually attack Israel in the first battle of Armageddon.

Pretty exciting stuff, huh?"

Ezekiel 38: 2-6 says "Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him,
3. And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold I am against thee, O Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal:
4. And I will turn thee back, and put hooks into thy jaws, and I will bring thee forth, and all thine army, horses and horsemen, all of them clothed with all sorts of armour, even a great company with bucklers and shields, all of them handling swords:
5. Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya with them; all of them with shield and helmet:
6. Gomer, and all his bands; the house of Togarmah of the north quarters, and all his bands: and many people with thee."
 

ClimateSanity

New member
I agree with rex. I now anxiously await your rebuttal and sources (hopefully from at least 2014 and after). You said his post was 1000 lies and that you would research and discredit it. Have you had enough time?

Why did you quote that politico article from 2013 in the first place? :confused:
When did the rule change take place?????

2013. :duh:

Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app
 

ClimateSanity

New member
I agree with rex. I now anxiously await your rebuttal and sources (hopefully from at least 2014 and after). You said his post was 1000 lies and that you would research and discredit it. Have you had enough time?

Why did you quote that politico article from 2013 in the first place? :confused:
I had the time to rebut his first erroneous claim. Since then , I've been dealing with nonsense mostly from you.

Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app
 

ClimateSanity

New member
I agree with rex. I now anxiously await your rebuttal and sources (hopefully from at least 2014 and after). You said his post was 1000 lies and that you would research and discredit it. Have you had enough time?

Why did you quote that politico article from 2013 in the first place? :confused:
I gave you my rebuttal and resource. What did you give me?????

That you agree with Rex...

Woohoo!

Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app
 
Top