The Cat wrote:MbL wrote:You keep quoting the link. Quote the part of the link you are talking about
What is it that you don't understand in your own sentence?
''
We fought World War II over American values?? (...) Yeah, let's restore the values of sticking American Japanese in camps.''
Thank you for quoting the specific part you are talking about.
The Cat wrote:
Yes we did fight WWII over the American values of liberalism, those of the Free World, against tyranny.
But these values certainly weren't part of the American Japanese in camps, as you so wrongly mixed...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That's why I made the sarcastic comment about American values and the Japanese camps. Do you get it now, finally??
The Cat wrote:
Your constant eluding is dishonest,
It's not my eluding, it's your mentally imbalanced, cross eyed misunderstanding.
I told you before, if you want an answer, quote the specific part of the link you are talking about.
The Cat wrote:You wrote: ''we fought World War 2 over necessity, not values
Correct
The Cat wrote:
....I was dismissing the entire idea of values being part of any of it.''
And then later you say it was about values.

You really are a lunatic aren't you. SNB was right about you.
The Cat wrote:
Where was the necessity to intern 120,000 American Japanese, including infants, elders and mentally ill persons?
Ask the people who decided it was necessary.
The Cat wrote:
MbL wrote:How about the simple necessity of not being ruled by someone else?? Britain made it's decision to appease Hitler, until he turned his sights on them. So much for fighting for values. Where was Britain after Poland fell?? Why didn't they immediately act to liberate Poland??
The invasion of Poland was on the 1st of september. France and Britain declared war on Germany on the 3rd. But they simply weren't able
to provide much aid, Russia attacking Poland the 17. Then Belgium, Holland and France were fast conquered, leaving England in isolation.
And that's when England finally decided to actually fight. A declaration of war is completely hollow without an attack.
The Cat wrote:
MBL wrote:Who said that?? Chamberlain?? The British people???
Churchill. But the war declaration was signed by Chamberlain (3/9/39). Winston replaced him soon after (10/5/40).
And Chamberlain nor Britain ever attacked until they had to. Their posture was completely self defensive out of necessity.
The Cat wrote:--You did use a spurious translation, without references, then quit away...
--Now, you're Arnold just to safe your face. You still skipped the proper references yet again.
Didn't you get the joke the first time when i said Arnold is a really smart person?? My God, what an absolute idiot you are. Still waiting for that apology for you accusing me of lying and making up my own translation, but we both know, you're not capable of that. Your bitter pride prevents you. That's why I'm hard on you. I can smell the bitter, arrogant pride in you, and quite frankly, I don't see the justification for your puffed up self opinion.
The Cat wrote:
--And yes, you have stolen my arguments about America having reasons to be stiff ever since Pearl Harbor and Fascism.
Again, why would I steal anything from a mental patient such as yourself??
The Cat wrote:
Mbl wrote:
--You accused me of making it up, and now, you're not going to admit that. So who's really the dishonest one??
Well....where's the answer??? Why did you re-quote this without answering it?
The Cat wrote:
Mbl wrote:
--I am Arnold you retard and that was all my own words on 2007
Why would you re-quote something that references a stupid, false accusation you made? Again, what is the matter with your head?
The Cat wrote:
Mbl wrote:
--Just quote what you are talking about. Don't link it, quote the specifics
Why did you re-quote this?? What kind of an idiot are you?
The Cat wrote:
--You. Using a spurious translation without proper references and leaving the thread away when challenged.
I haven't left anything, and you falsely accused me of being a liar and stealing another posters points who is actually me, and you refuse to apologize. You can't stand being wrong, can you. Momma never taught you how to admit when you are wrong. Oh well, that's your crutch, not mine.
The Cat wrote:
--Now you're Arnold, a very bold assertion no one can check.
Oh please, it's pretty obvious. My style of writing is very clear and distinctive. It's not my fault that you're such a moron. And to think that you went as far back as 2007 in your anger and desperation is simply mind boggling. That's pathetic.
The Cat wrote:
You didn't say so in due time.
You didn't get the sarcastic joke in my immediate response when I said how much i admire Arnold and then gave a big smile. I thought that surely you would have pieced it together, but you're even more oblivious than I previously imagined. Now you want to blame ME for YOUR idiocy?? This just keeps getting worse and worse.
The Cat wrote:
--See the specific links above and stop your tap dance.
I told you before, I'm not answering anything unless you get off your lazy arss and quote the specific part of the link you would like me to answer. If you want an answer then YOU do the work. I'm not doing it. Do you think I'm as stupid as you are?
The Cat wrote:
I just didn't bother to go back and look. I'm sick of it.
Thanks for admitting you're unable to deal with tangible subjects out of laziness.
If you want an answer, then YOU do the work. You're too lazy to quote the actual specific part of the link you are talking about. Have you noticed yet that I never just link an entire post but rather re-quote a specific part of it?? What part don't you understand?
The Cat wrote:
With such an attitude you're in fact admitting yourself unfit to any serious debate.
You're the one with the bad attitude that is too lazy to quote the specific part of the link you are talking about. If you want an answer, then do the work. Don't ask me to do it for you. You are the one that doesn't understand how to properly debate. When you just quote a link, I have to interrupt my response as I am typing it and launch another window and then search the entire post to see what you could possibly be talking about. That ain't gunna happen anymore. Momma didn't raise no fool;.
The Cat wrote:
It wasn't part of our argument. Show me where you specifically made it a part.
It wasn't part of our argument? You're an insult to the proper way of debating!
I respond to a specific post you made and you respond to my response. That's how it works. There's no hard coded rule that says I have to respond to the first post of a topic.
The Cat wrote:
See the intro, just a page back. Work out your brain, it'll do you much good.
viewtopic.php?p=117382#p117382" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
See above.
The Cat wrote:
A little later, you've contradicted yourself AGAIN (same link)
--I don't see any enlightenment in the Ajah Chah sentence you posted and I never said I did.
--Oh, so now you're only talking about the bad mystics, not mystics in general. I see.
I meant exactly what I said nutjob. What is honestly so hard for you to understand?
The Cat wrote:
To which I've answered: Never?
viewtopic.php?p=117323#p117323" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Cat: Now I ask, is this enlightenment? --MbL: YES.....
You didn't quote the specific part. I've already told you about that many times. Quote the specific part and I'll answer it.
The Cat wrote:
--What was I arguing for from the first? But the article was brought to pinpoint how a fundamentalist mystic approach is contradicted
by its own segregation towards the ego. You failed to understand and got confused all over and back again. How enlightening!
And I told you that I disagree and I told you why.
The Cat wrote:
MbL wrote: Quoting someone is not imitating them. Otherwise, you could be accused of imitating Churchill, right?? RIGHT??? And I only quoted him to explain why I do not idolize him as he even explicitly says one should not. You see, he had integrity like that, whereas you do not.
Integrity? That's a word very close to integral, integralism.
Yeah, so what??
The Cat wrote:
As such any fundamentalist have much integrity.
Well then that would be one of their positive traits, right? At least they're honest and consistent.
The Cat wrote:
The world is loaded with people, with much integrity, ready to trash you away if not adhering to their creed.
If they are consistent rather than self contradictory, then they have integrity, regardless of what negative things their integrity can cause. Honestly, what is so difficult for you to understand? I knew you were loony, but i didn't think you were stupid on top of that.
The Cat wrote:
Now you constantly quote him, much like Muslims reciting the Koran even when they don't even speak Arabic!
He spends his time quoting other mystics and even says he's not saying anything that mystics haven't been screaming for thousands of years. He just has a talent for putting abstract ideas into as tangible of a fashion as possible. So it's good to quote him, rather than confusing things with my lesser abilities of explanation.
The Cat wrote:
You never formulated anything on spirituality of your own, just repeating De Mello. This I call imitating...
If you actually read "awareness", you would see that this is not the case, but don't even bother because your mind is too polluted to grasp it. After discussing things with you, I couldn't be more certain that you would misunderstand it.
The Cat wrote:
To get out of this you relate that to... my Churchill quotes. How spiritual! What a pitiful fellow you truly are.
You accused me of quoting others and yet everybody quotes others. Quit grasping at stupid straws trying to find a problem any way that you can.
The Cat wrote:
Get a life, love someone. I don't know... walk a dog, feed a cat... they know better than De Mello.
Actually, I did home hospice care for my dad before he died, I volunteer at a homeless shelter, and I help elders through the "meals on wheels" program, but I don't arrogantly pat myself on the back and think I'm such a great person for doing so like you probably would. What do YOU do? What a lousy hypocrite you are.