| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Luminoso
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 7:27 pm Post subject: Re: Religious Surge in Once-Atheist China Surprises Leaders |
 |
|
On 6 Mar 2007 18:25:57 -0800, "Kent Paul Dolan" <xanthian@well.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
luminoso@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote:
xanthian wrote:
Baha'i: a religion founded in Iran in 1863 by
Husayn Ali (called Bahaullah) teaching the
essential worth of all religions, the unity of
all races, and the equality of the sexes.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Baha%27i
Sounds a little lean ... a tropical version of
unitarianism, a religion for people who really
aren't very interested in religion.
Well, yes, but the more "intense" religions seem to
be the ones that insist "our way or die".
|
Yep.
But does Baha'i SATISFY - scratch that itch for religion
that seems to be an inborn feature of our species ? This
"itch" may play a significant role in why so many people
prefer the "intense" religions. Seems the more pain, hate,
deprivation, life-denial and self-loathing a religion
demands the more people flock to it. It's not "REAL
religion" unless it HURTS - hurts you and the infidels too.
REAL gods never want to bring you more pleasure and peace ;
they want you to SUFFER, to really feel the slings and
arrows scar the flesh of your pitiful, dirty, mortality.
Once there was Bacchus ... but he lost to Yaweh/Allah.
People had a choice and they chose PAIN.
What's that say about us ? About our likely future too ?
| Quote: |
xanthian.
Anyway, the lies of religion seem to seduce the
multitudes, wars being only one of the many
deleterious results.
There seems to be something in the nature of man
that makes him prefer to be deceived, to live in a
make-believe world and not in the world of hard
facts and bold truths.
_God Did It_ Ch. V. Dolan, MOPAH, 1984, Ch I.3
|
Reality sucks. Dreams create whatever worlds you desire.
Little wonder so many puff on the opiate of the masses,
or the more common kind for that matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 7:27 pm Post subject: Re: Raising the minimum wage destroys jobs |
|
|
Mitchell Holman <NoemailPlease@comcast.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
linder.one@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote in news:45ed611a.333612421
@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu:
Mitchell Holman <NoemailPlease@comcast.com> wrote:
linder.one@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote in
news:45ec4dd4.263138921
@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu:
Mitchell Holman <NoemailPlease@comcast.com> wrote:
linder.one@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote in
news:45ec170f.249142546@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu:
Mitchell Holman <NoemailPlease@comcast.com> wrote:
Foxtrot <foxtrot@null.com> wrote in
news:rcmmu2hfmf16dp3jc0f42vov0t2ne2b5b2 @4ax.com:
Mitchell Holman <NoemailPlease@comcast.com> wrote:
Foxtrot <foxtrot@null.com> wrote
It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax
revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the
revenues
in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now
is
not
to
incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous,
expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.
John F Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962
Note the limitation about budget deficits. The
kind that went up as soon as Bush started cutting
taxes.
Bush spends far too much. Duh. Nobody denies this. It's the main
reason why the right dislikes him. The budget would be doing
fine if he had controlled spending along with the tax cuts.
The fact remains that cutting taxes stimulates economic growth.
JFK understood it. Why can't you?
You libs truly believe that capitalism cannot succeed unless it
is heavily regulated by Big Brother, don't you?
Like all the regulations that disappeared when the
GOP controlled the entire government for six years?
The only good thing about Bush's economic policies is that he
spends less than Al Grrrr or ketchup boy would have spent.
Obviously sucking less than the alternatives is nothing to brag
about.
Oh, puh-leeze.
Clinton balanced the budget
What year was that?
Clinton
Federal deficit in 1993 = 300 Billion
Federal deficit in 1994 = 259 Billion
Federal deficit in 1995 = 226 Billion
Federal deficit in 1996 = 174 Billion
Federal deficit in 1997 = 103 Billion
Federal deficit in 1998 = 30 Billion
Federal deficit in 1999 = 0 (1.9 billion SURPLUS)
Federal deficit in 2000 = 0 (86.3 billion SURPLUS)
Rather disingenuous don't you think?
Can you post one Clinton budget that was balanced?
"The federal budget landscape has changed dramatically during
the last six years. After a steady decline in the deficit from
1993 to 1996, a budget "surprise" unexpectedly brought the budget
close to balance in 1997 and moved it into surplus in 1998 for
the first time in 29 years. The deficit decline and the move into
surplus resulted from a combination of factors, including a surge
in individual income tax receipts, slower growth of medical costs,
lower interest rates, economic growth and the 1990 and 1993 deficit-
reduction laws. If current policies are maintained, surpluses are
expected to continue for 20 years, completely retiring the outstanding
federal debt."
http://www.dallasfed.org/eyi/usecon/9908surplus.html
"In 1998, the Federal budget reported its first surplus ($69 billion)
since 1969. In 1999, the surplus nearly doubled to $124 billion. As
a result of these surpluses, Federal debt held by the public has been
reduced from $3.8 trillion at the end of 1997 to $3.6 trillion at the
end of 1999. With continued prudent fiscal policies, the budget can
remain in surplus for many years. Under the President's budget proposals,
the Federal debt held by the public would be fully paid back by 2013."
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy01/guide04.html
Can you post one budget of President Clinton that was balanced?
JSL
You are expecting someone to post a 990-page document
to a newsgroup? Seriously?
Amazing.........
|
No, post a link.
A news story is not the budget.
JSL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Luminoso
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 7:28 pm Post subject: Re: Religious Surge in Once-Atheist China Surprises Leaders |
|
|
On 6 Mar 2007 20:25:01 -0800, "(David P.)" <imbibe@mindspring.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
umin...@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote:
"(David P.)" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
As long as religions are separated from government,
there's no danger. Government is force.
Population is force also - witness the Iranian revolution.
Even a relatively strong fairly secular government backed
by an even stronger government couldn't hold its own
against Khomenis' masses of righteous.
If the Shah had followed the Golden Rule,
there would have been no revolution!
|
You don't get to be Shah by following the Golden Rule. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Luminoso
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 7:34 pm Post subject: Re: It's Time to Create a Little Shock and Awe in the Street |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 03:06:05 GMT, FRice@SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric L.
Rice) wrote:
| Quote: |
luminoso@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote:
On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 12:26:23 GMT, Thaddeus Stevens
thaddeusstephens@gmail.com.> wrote:
It's Time to Create a Little Shock and Awe in the Streets
by Beth Quinn
http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070305/NEWS/703050320/-1/NEWS0206
I get occasional e-mail from readers complaining that they're sick of my
writing about Bush's war.
Well, by golly, me too. I'm entirely sick of writing about it.
I'm sickened by it, too. I want to throw up I'm so sickened by it.
Geez then Beth, take some Pepto and shut the hell up.
You must be a Christian with morality like yours.
|
I despise those self-loathing pain-loving religions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Luminoso
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 7:36 pm Post subject: Re: DEGENERATE GAYS |
|
|
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 17:48:01 -0600, "ViperSpit" <Viper@massiveinfo.net>
wrote:
| Quote: |
THE PEOPLE WHO DEMAND "RIGHTS" FOR THEIR DEGENERATE IMMORAL
SEX ACTS.
|
Goverement doesn't exist to enforce your religious
notions about "morality". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
The Vicar
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 7:56 pm Post subject: Re: Sorry Harry.......... |
|
|
"Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote in message
news:RTrHh.396$mh.12@trnddc05...
| Quote: |
If Bubba Clinton had been tried by a real jury, he'd still be busting
rocks.
|
for perjury? that seems harsh.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Amanda Williams
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:04 pm Post subject: Re: FRANCE SAYS, "YOU REPORT MUSLIM VIOLENCE", YOU GO TO JAI |
|
|
"Hertz_Donut" <noone@nowhere.com> allegedly said in
news:3PmdncOfH4QMinPYnZ2dnUVZ_qWvnZ2d@hawaiiantel.net:
| Quote: |
"Amanda Williams" <pms@fu.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98EBC6D20AFEDfubar@63.218.45.254...
"ViperSpit" <Viper@massiveinfo.net> allegedly said in
news:eskvea$kv6$1 @news.datemas.de:
Only the "INTELLIGENT" and "WELL INFORMED" will understand this.
SPIT
http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/03/06/franceban/index.php
Well that would exclude YOU and the rest of your dumb reichtard butt-
buddies goober...
rotfl...
Anyone who uses the word "reichtard" is immediately known to be an
imbecile. Anyone who uses the words "reichtard" and "goober" in the
same sentence is not only a bigot, but a very stupid one at that.
We are all sorry that your parents disowned you out of shame, but you
really must get over your irrational hatred of anything but the sound
of your won rambling lunatic voice.
|
You are misinformed.
<snicker>
--
AW
<small but dangerous> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
3186 Dead
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:15 pm Post subject: Re: Raising the minimum wage destroys jobs |
|
|
On 6 Mar 2007 20:24:16 -0800, "Beal" <bealrabbitslayer@hotmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mar 5, 5:11 pm, Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:
MikeSoja wrote:
On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 05:38:29 -0800, 3172 Dead
zepp22113...@finestplanet.com> posted:
On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 23:53:02 -0500, MikeSoja <mso...@newsguy.com
wrote:
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 16:29:03 -0600, Mitchell Holman
NoemailPle...@comcast.com> posted:
Foxtrot <foxt...@null.com> wrote:
Giving across the board tax cuts doesn't make the wealthy and
corporations put the extra funds under the mattress. They invest
it in the economy, which causes economic growth and an increase
in the number of jobs.
So when said corporation uses it's extra funds
to build a new factory in China and then fire all
their American workers how does that lead to an
"increase in the number of jobs"?
Using anecdote to counter generality is a form of low ignorance,
Mitch, but that's what you consistantly do.
Explain then, where all the manufacturing jobs went, sistah soja. Did
the tooth fairy exchange them for quarters for all the little boys and
girls?
Unemployment is 4.6%, Pighead.
And the official poverty rate is about 12.6%.
Which is lower than it was in 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, and 1993.
|
But unlike those years, when the nation was recovering from 12 years
of Reagan and Bush, this time the rate is going UP.
--
"Keeping us up here eats away at families. The Democrats could care less about families -- that's what this says."
-- Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA), quoted by the Washington Post, in response to incoming-Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's (D-MD) plan to increase the House's work schedule from three days a week to five.
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Mitchell Holman
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:22 pm Post subject: Re: Raising the minimum wage destroys jobs |
|
|
MikeSoja <msoja9@newsguy.com> wrote in
news:mvasu2t8o8mpcg5h4o2irivr77neqrgikf@4ax.com:
| Quote: |
On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 20:45:53 -0600, Mitchell Holman
NoemailPlease@comcast.com> posted:
MikeSoja <msoja9@newsguy.com> wrote in
news:uf1su25ib3fv1s3a0hf0e4c63svekkl1lc@4ax.com:
On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 19:37:09 -0600, Mitchell Holman
NoemailPlease@comcast.com> posted:
MikeSoja <msoja9@newsguy.com> wrote in
news:28bou299i0g7uacvh12s7hslhqpqurj1r1@4ax.com:
On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 05:38:29 -0800, 3172 Dead
zepp22113172@finestplanet.com> posted:
On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 23:53:02 -0500, MikeSoja <msoja9@newsguy.com
wrote:
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 16:29:03 -0600, Mitchell Holman
NoemailPlease@comcast.com> posted:
Foxtrot <foxtrot@null.com> wrote in
news:8erju2lr1so360bhujhkklkvt4pi4iq5rb@4ax.com:
Giving across the board tax cuts doesn't make the wealthy and
corporations put the extra funds under the mattress. They invest
it in the economy, which causes economic growth and an increase
in the number of jobs.
So when said corporation uses it's extra funds
to build a new factory in China and then fire all
their American workers how does that lead to an
"increase in the number of jobs"?
Using anecdote to counter generality is a form of low ignorance,
Mitch, but that's what you consistantly do.
Explain then, where all the manufacturing jobs went, sistah soja.
Did
the tooth fairy exchange them for quarters for all the little boys
and
girls?
Unemployment is 4.6%, Pighead.
As compared to the 3.9% when Clinton left.
Leave it for rightwingers to call that progress.....
You guys do wander around from subject to subject, don't you?
What's anyone supposed to say, now, Mitch? That Bush should go shoot
himself over the fact that it's a competetive world in constant flux
and unemployed moved 0.7% against him???
Oh, I see.
You can quote unemployment figures to bolster
your argument, but when anyone else does the very same
thing it is "wandering from subject to subject".
Sorry, Mitch, but I consider anything in the unemployment range of 3%
to 8% statistically insignificant.
|
....unless YOU post it, as above.
Your hypocrisy knows no limits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:23 pm Post subject: Re: POKING THE BEAR: Rush Declares Jihad on Libs! |
|
|
On Mar 7, 7:53 am, <no_surren...@never.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
"rms" <rsquiresREM...@REMOVEflash.net> wrote in message
news:QBrHh.13183$bb1.2492@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
Rush Limbaugh today, emulating bin Laden's deputy Ayman Al Zawahiri,
darkly
hinted that Republican sleeper cells, dormant since the suspiciously
democratic November Night Of Long Knives, have been triggered into action
by
recent legal events casting light on the Administration of the Boy King
and
his Ministers, and would arise to smite the uppity clintonian baby-eaters.
All righteous believers must listen and behold the prophecy of The One And
Only True Conservative:
Apparently Rush's humor is too hip and nuanced for you.
|
Rush's humour is sick and degrading.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Mitchell Holman
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:32 pm Post subject: Re: Raising the minimum wage destroys jobs |
|
|
linder.one@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote in
news:45eebc45.422506359@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu:
| Quote: |
Mitchell Holman <NoemailPlease@comcast.com> wrote:
linder.one@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote in
news:45ed611a.333612421 @nntp.service.ohio-state.edu:
Mitchell Holman <NoemailPlease@comcast.com> wrote:
linder.one@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote in
news:45ec4dd4.263138921
@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu:
Mitchell Holman <NoemailPlease@comcast.com> wrote:
linder.one@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote in
news:45ec170f.249142546@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu:
Mitchell Holman <NoemailPlease@comcast.com> wrote:
Foxtrot <foxtrot@null.com> wrote in
news:rcmmu2hfmf16dp3jc0f42vov0t2ne2b5b2 @4ax.com:
Mitchell Holman <NoemailPlease@comcast.com> wrote:
Foxtrot <foxtrot@null.com> wrote
It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and
tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the
revenues
in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes
now
is
not
to
incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous,
expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.
John F Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962
Note the limitation about budget deficits. The
kind that went up as soon as Bush started cutting
taxes.
Bush spends far too much. Duh. Nobody denies this. It's the main
reason why the right dislikes him. The budget would be doing
fine if he had controlled spending along with the tax cuts.
The fact remains that cutting taxes stimulates economic growth.
JFK understood it. Why can't you?
You libs truly believe that capitalism cannot succeed unless
it is heavily regulated by Big Brother, don't you?
Like all the regulations that disappeared when the
GOP controlled the entire government for six years?
The only good thing about Bush's economic policies is that he
spends less than Al Grrrr or ketchup boy would have spent.
Obviously sucking less than the alternatives is nothing to brag
about.
Oh, puh-leeze.
Clinton balanced the budget
What year was that?
Clinton
Federal deficit in 1993 = 300 Billion
Federal deficit in 1994 = 259 Billion
Federal deficit in 1995 = 226 Billion
Federal deficit in 1996 = 174 Billion
Federal deficit in 1997 = 103 Billion
Federal deficit in 1998 = 30 Billion
Federal deficit in 1999 = 0 (1.9 billion SURPLUS)
Federal deficit in 2000 = 0 (86.3 billion SURPLUS)
Rather disingenuous don't you think?
Can you post one Clinton budget that was balanced?
"The federal budget landscape has changed dramatically during
the last six years. After a steady decline in the deficit from
1993 to 1996, a budget "surprise" unexpectedly brought the budget
close to balance in 1997 and moved it into surplus in 1998 for
the first time in 29 years. The deficit decline and the move into
surplus resulted from a combination of factors, including a surge
in individual income tax receipts, slower growth of medical costs,
lower interest rates, economic growth and the 1990 and 1993 deficit-
reduction laws. If current policies are maintained, surpluses are
expected to continue for 20 years, completely retiring the outstanding
federal debt."
http://www.dallasfed.org/eyi/usecon/9908surplus.html
"In 1998, the Federal budget reported its first surplus ($69 billion)
since 1969. In 1999, the surplus nearly doubled to $124 billion. As
a result of these surpluses, Federal debt held by the public has been
reduced from $3.8 trillion at the end of 1997 to $3.6 trillion at the
end of 1999. With continued prudent fiscal policies, the budget can
remain in surplus for many years. Under the President's budget
proposals, the Federal debt held by the public would be fully paid
back by 2013."
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy01/guide04.html
Can you post one budget of President Clinton that was balanced?
JSL
You are expecting someone to post a 990-page document
to a newsgroup? Seriously?
Amazing.........
No, post a link.
|
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy99/index.html
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy00/index.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
3186 Dead
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:35 pm Post subject: Re: STOP Mrs. Bill Clinton Now! |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 22:20:13 -0800, Foxtrot <foxtrot@null.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
3172 Dead <zepp22113172@finestplanet.com> wrote:
Foxtrot <foxtrot@null.com> wrote:
She's a soulless political chameleon just like hubby. I remember
hearing a TV reporter who was following BJ's campaign in 1992
make the exact same observation--the further south he went, the
heavier his southern accent became.
Billy could somewhat get away with it. But I heard some of The
Battleax's Selma speech and trying to speak with a southern
accent makes her sound even more shrill than usual.
So how's your hayseed Texan from Connecticut doing these days?
Have you actually heard HagHillary's Selma speech pandering to
the blacks? She's unbelievably shrill, sounds like fingernails
dragging across a chalkboard. I actually pity BJ for being married
to that repulsive bitch for all these years.
|
My, but you are just quivering with hate and fear, aren't you?
| Quote: |
Her handlers (whom I feel very sorry for) are going to have to
teach her to retract the fangs and possibly learn a little charm
or Heartland America will reject her.
|
What on earth would a nasty, amoral little sleaze like you know about
charm?
--
"Keeping us up here eats away at families. The Democrats could care less about families -- that's what this says."
-- Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA), quoted by the Washington Post, in response to incoming-Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's (D-MD) plan to increase the House's work schedule from three days a week to five.
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
CB
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:38 pm Post subject: Re: BILL CLINTON FEB 4, 1998 "One way or another, we aredete |
|
|
"Paul Duca" <p.duca@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C2141A7C.9803%p.duca@comcast.net...
| Quote: |
in article 45ee53db$0$8989$4c368faf@roadrunner.com, CB at CB@PrayForMe.com
wrote on 3/7/07 12:56 AM:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45EE326B.2007B32F@hotmMOVEail.com...
CB wrote:
"Loki Laufeyjarson" <BadNews@NoLooters.com> wrote in message
news:vc6mu21o2ae07npdmk6btno1b35r9t3p5q@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:21:29 -0700, Rich Travsky
traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
CB wrote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020926-7.html
...
The danger to our country is grave. The danger to our country is
growing.
The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi
regime is building the facilities necessary to make more biological
and
chemical weapons. And according to the British government, the Iraqi
regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as
45
minutes after the order were given.
Thanks for posting this. BEFORE the LONG overdue resumption of the
original gulf war on Saddam's murderous regime, what you describe
above is an accurate summary of what was actually believed to be true
(at that time) by every single responsible security organization on
Earth! The fact that it MIGHT have been LESS true than was widely
believed, does not in any way alter the moral validity of invading
Iraq because that invasion WAS motivated by a sincere belief, AND,
even WITHOUT WMD's in the hands of Saddam, the world IS better off now
than it would have been had Saddam remained in power. The sanity,
security and prosperity of the entire world will be FAR better off if
Iraq has a stable, free, even quasi-democratic government. An Iraq
that can finally break free of a, murderous, medieval religion and
join the 21st Century cannot be anything but good for the entire
world.
It puts a real thorn in Ahmadinejad's plan for a united Persia and take
over
of OPEC
No, Iraq was the check against Iran. Idiot Chimpoleon removed that
check.
America will stay in Iraq until Iraq can defend her self, period
And then God will pat people like CB on their head after they
die...
|
Iraq is a magnet for all the Islamo-fascist Madrassa graduates |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Harold Burton
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:50 pm Post subject: Re: Harold Burton Admits Bush Elected Just to Trash the Coun |
|
|
In article <45ee3f64$0$7459$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>,
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Harold Burton" <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-867D83.23322106032007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <45ee3d12$0$7433$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>,
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote:
"Harold Burton" <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-AC8474.23150306032007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <9t2dnYK5l_EEtHPYnZ2dnUVZ_uednZ2d@comcast.com>,
"robw" <noddy093@comcast.net> wrote:
And you elect ones like Busch.
Only to give leftards something to whine about.
Really
|
| Quote: |
Let's see what you're saying "really" to by restoring what you clipped,
Turdton.
|
| Quote: |
Gandalf wrote:
"Really, Turdton? So I guess the presidency is so unimportant to rightards
like you that you don't give a shit who the most powerful man in the country
is as long as he pisses off the democrats."
|
There ya go, whining again. That makes it all worth while. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Patriot Games
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:59 pm Post subject: Re: ABC News Exposed on Right Wing Smear Attempt on Gore |
|
|
" Kurt Lochner" <kurt_lochner@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45EDB882.28608009@hotmail.com...
| Quote: |
Parrot Gametes writhed in denials when:
* US *> wrote:
If you weren't really stupid you'd already know.
You're a lot more wasteful than others who don't
participate in your death kult.
Then its OKAY to be an Energy PIG ...
You support burning up your grandchildren's
oil with the illegal invasion of Iraq.
You can't explain.
No 'explanation' is needed, you're a coward..
|
You've been shown to be a fool.
You're dismissed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
150 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
