Some lucky soldiers allowed to celebrate the holidays with their families!

[DEMON CUNT]

!

[Nickdfresh]

Clever!! Again you say nothing, posting an image as some sort of sick punchline. You are getting really good at the ghoulishly callous use of the dead to advance you agenda, whatever it is supposed to be.

Maybe you should be a reporter. I once interned for one. One day we were assigned to cover a story on a drunk driver who killed a teenage kid. My great reporter walked right up to the mother and began intentionally asking painful questions in an effort to make her cry (which she promptly did) and he got "great sound" for his radio story as a result! That's the day I decided I did not want to be a reporter. But you seem to really enjoy callously exploiting the tragic deaths of people to get attention, you could to that as a reporter and even get paid for it!

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
My great reporter walked right up to the mother and began intentionally asking painful questions in an effort to make her cry (which she promptly did) and he got "great sound" for his radio story as a result! That's the day I decided I did not want to be a reporter.

I had a similar experience and I just couldn't stand it. And then in class the professors will comment on how the public has this negative attitude towards journalists and the press. Well, I wonder why...

[Jesus Christ]

Is it not equally bad for the son of Bush and his minions within thy media to pretend that there is no death at all, by banning the publishing of such photographs?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Jesus Christ
Is it not equally bad for the son of Bush and his minions within thy media to pretend that there is no death at all, by banning the publishing of such photographs?

Yes it is.

But nevertheless, they should not be used as punchlines.

[Jesus Christ]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Yes it is.

But nevertheless, they should not be used as punchlines.

Verily, My son. Sometimes I wonder where some of My children get their sense of humor :(

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Clever!! Again you say nothing, posting an image as some sort of sick punchline. You are getting really good at the ghoulishly callous use of the dead to advance you agenda, whatever it is supposed to be.


My agenda is to provoke thought. It's easy to say that we should go and kick some ass, but hard to acknowledge the hard fact that as of today, 1276 Americans are DEAD because of this war.

Tom Ridge owns stock in 7 companies that have contracts with the Homeland Security Dept.

Halliburton stock has doubled due to this war.

Talk about "callous use of the dead"?

http://www.bartcop.com/hal-stock1204.gif

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Jesus Christ
Verily, My son. Sometimes I wonder where some of My children get their sense of humor :(

Or a sense of IRONY (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irony&r=67)?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
My agenda is to provoke thought. It's easy to say that we should go and kick some ass, but hard to acknowledge the hard fact that as of today, 1276 Americans are DEAD because of this war.

Tom Ridge owns stock in 7 companies that have contracts with the Homeland Security Dept.

Halliburton stock has doubled due to this war.

Talk about "callous use of the dead"?

http://www.bartcop.com/hal-stock1204.gif

I see. Maybe you should have provided that information first off or include it.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Or a sense of IRONY (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irony&r=67)?

I understood the "verbal irony," but it's not always clear to everybody else.

[Warham]

Not funny.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
Not funny.

Not really supposed to be "funny".

[Warham]

You were trying to be funny.

Of course you failed miserably, like you do whenever you post.

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
It's easy to say that we should go and kick some ass, but hard to acknowledge the hard fact that as of today, 1276 Americans are DEAD because of this war.



1002 are dead from combat. The rest of the count is due to accidents that could happen here at home -- like unpacking.

I'm pretty sure you don't believe in a diety ( I think, unless I'm mixing you up with someone) but everyone has their time and if it wasn't theirs, then they wouldn't have died -- accident or combat.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
1002 are dead from combat. The rest of the count is due to accidents that could happen here at home -- like unpacking.

I'm pretty sure you don't believe in a diety ( I think, unless I'm mixing you up with someone) but everyone has their time and if it wasn't theirs, then they wouldn't have died -- accident or combat.

Or suicide? Or sickness due to exposure to chemicals? Or injuries?

Spoken like a true Bush apologist!

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
You were trying to be funny.

Of course you failed miserably, like you do whenever you post.

Again, IRONY (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irony&r=67) was my goal. Don't confuse irony with humor.

[Warham]

Yep, and it was a poor use of IRONY as well.

[Ally_Kat]

It's not being an apologist for anybody, it's being realistic -- to a degree religiously. Everyone has their time. Whether you want to believe in a higher power, a universal fate, karma, whatever. If the war didn't happen, those that did die there could have died in other ways -- car accidents, murder, falling down the stairs, etc, etc. I could die going to school this afternoon or I could not. Things all happen for a reason.

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Again, IRONY (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irony&r=67) was my goal. Don't confuse irony with humor.

from your link --




A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
It's not being an apologist for anybody, it's being realistic -- to a degree religiously. Everyone has their time. Whether you want to believe in a higher power, a universal fate, karma, whatever. If the war didn't happen, those that did die there could have died in other ways -- car accidents, murder, falling down the stairs, etc, etc. I could die going to school this afternoon or I could not. Things all happen for a reason.

You might confuse Demon with all this deep thought, Ally.

You definately have alot of charity, don't ya? :D

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
from your link --

Again. Irony does not equal humor. Irony may result in humor. But I do not belive they are synonyms.

I could use a hammer to put a nail into the wall, or I could use a hammer to bash in your skull. Would that mean that it is your time to go? Fate?

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT

I could use a hammer to put a nail into the wall, or I could use a hammer to bash in your skull. Would that mean that it is your time to go? Fate?

Yes.

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Warham
You might confuse Demon with all this deep thought, Ally.

You definately have alot of charity, don't ya? :D

I try. I have such a bleeding heart for a conservative :D

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
Yes.

If my posts are so benign or pointless, why do you keep coming back?

I don't want people dying in Iraq for corporate concerns. We all need the military to protect us from threats.

If we sent this many troops (soon to number 150,000, right?) after Osama, we would have him by now.

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
If my posts are so benign or pointless, why do you keep coming back?

Honestly? I have time to waste and nothing better to do. You're mindless entertainment.


Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
I don't want people dying in Iraq for corporate concerns. We all need the military to protect us from threats.

Saddam helped fund and support the WTC bombers and OBL in '93. He gave refuge to the one bomber involved. He was happy when the job they had set out to do was completed. That says threat enough to me and should have had action taken against it looong time ago. But yet, there was noooooo OBL connection. Yeah, okay. If I was president, I would have gone after Iraq, too, but my reasons would be stated differently.


Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
If we sent this many troops (soon to number 150,000, right?) after Osama, we would have him by now.

and if we had done it sooner instead of 2 months afterwards. But then you'd have people bitching about that too.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
If the war didn't happen, those that did die there could have died in other ways -- car accidents, murder, falling down the stairs, etc, etc. I could die going to school this afternoon or I could not. Things all happen for a reason.

Uh, I think you may have watched Final Destination one too many times. But, you are correct that quite a few deaths over there happened from rather pedestrian causes. That's what happens when you get 100,000 people riding around in humvees and helicopters.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
Saddam helped fund and support the WTC bombers and OBL in '93.

Wrong! The US funded/armed Saddam. The US armed/funded/trained OBL.

They were the enemies of our enemies, therefore considered allies.

http://cnparm.home.texas.net/911/Backg/Rumsfeld-Saddam.jpg

Got weapons?

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Wrong! The US funded/armed Saddam. The US armed/funded/trained OBL.

They were the enemies of our enemies, therefore considered allies.

http://cnparm.home.texas.net/911/Backg/Rumsfeld-Saddam.jpg

Got weapons?

Wtf does trying to fuck over the Soviet Union have to do with a post-Persian Gulf attack? If you wanted to say that Saddam used weapons we gave him to attack his own people and invade Kuwait and we were at fault for the first Iraq situation, I could see. But this? You are trying to connect apples to pears. He helped out in '93 because we had stepped in and fucked him over helping Kuwait.

and WRONG! Iraq did help out at least OBL and the WTC attackers in '93. When they came here to the States, they used an Iraq passport. The apartment they went to get set up at was owned by an Iraqi. They then proceeded to make over 40 phone calls that day to Iraq. When it came time to flee, where did the one go and stay until the fall of Baghdad for refuge? If you said Iraq, you are correct. And I'm pretty sure I'm leaving something else out.

[Warham]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Wrong! The US funded/armed Saddam. The US armed/funded/trained OBL.

They were the enemies of our enemies, therefore considered allies.

http://cnparm.home.texas.net/911/Backg/Rumsfeld-Saddam.jpg

Got weapons?

Ah, but you liberal cunts all say that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, therefore that help we gave to Hussein in the 80s is null and void as far as OBL is concerned.

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
Uh, I think you may have watched Final Destination one too many times.

In all seriousness, what is Final Destination? a war movie?

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
In all seriousness, what is Final Destination? a war movie?

A recent horror movie (with sequel) where this kid foresees his plane crashing right before he gets on it. He makes a fuss and he and about 10 of his peers don't make the flight, which blows up.

Fate then intervenes killing all the kids. Fate is like wind and water dripping near electrical outlets and shit like that. And buses. The point is that fate wanted to kill the teeny boppers on the plane so it catches up to them and kills them randomly.

It's not the worst horror movie of the last few years. Worth a rent sometime.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
And I'm pretty sure I'm leaving something else out.

Yeah, like some truth.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
Ah, but you liberal cunts all say that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, therefore that help we gave to Hussein in the 80s is null and void as far as OBL is concerned.

Please try to make a point!

The 9/11 commission liberal cunts?

[Warham]

Boy, you ARE slow, aren't you.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
Boy, you ARE slow, aren't you.

Please pray to Baby Jesus and ask for the wisdom to actually participate in these discussions beyond the single syllable.

Don't you have an abortion clinic to bomb?

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Yeah, like some truth.

Oh really?

Which part was false? Any news article of the time will tell you exactly what I've told you. And hell, there were recent interviews with the bomber who was in Iraq. I believe Dan Rather interviewed him, although it could have been 20/20. The news program escapes me.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
Ah, but you liberal cunts all say that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11

No, fucking REALITY says that. Of course I believe that Busheep recently referred to "reality based" Liberals as a bad thing, so there ya go!

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT


Don't you have an abortion clinic to bomb?

again, stereotyping people. It's not going to help your cause. Not everyone against abortion participates and/or approves of the Christian Extremists bombing abortion clinics.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
again, stereotyping people. It's not going to help your cause. Not everyone against abortion participates and/or approves of the Christian Extremists bombing abortion clinics.

I thought that was kind of funny.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
Oh really?

Which part was false? Any news article of the time will tell you exactly what I've told you. And hell, there were recent interviews with the bomber who was in Iraq. I believe Dan Rather interviewed him, although it could have been 20/20. The news program escapes me.

Are you asking me to do your research for you? Get back to me when you can actaully back up your statements.

Aren't you the one who discredited Rather just a few posts ago?

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I thought that was kind of funny.

Yeah! Cons have a real hard time laughing at anything other than America's Funniest Animal Videos.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Yeah! Cons have a real hard time laughing at anything other than America's Funniest Animal Videos.

some of them think Rush Limbaugh is intentionally funny :rolleyes:

[b1c2]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
again, stereotyping people. It's not going to help your cause. Not everyone against abortion participates and/or approves of the Christian Extremists bombing abortion clinics.

And not all of us that support the war are anti-choice. I may be fiscally conservative and feel like we're doing the right thing in Iraq but I'm socially middle of the road.

[Warham]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
some of them think Rush Limbaugh is intentionally funny :rolleyes:

He's funnier than that twit Al Franken.

[ODShowtime]

False. Franken was a writer on SNL for many years before he became a performer and actually IS funny. I've never heard his radio show, maybe he's more serious on there.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
He's funnier than that twit Al Franken.

Now I know that you are a total retard! Thank you for the verification.

[Warham]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Now I know that you are a total retard! Thank you for the verification.

When was the last time Franken was funny? '88?

Right around the year you were born.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
When was the last time Franken was funny? '88?

Right around the year you were born.

Nope, guess again.

This book is laugh out loud funny.

http://www.pierrecarion.com/blog/archives/2004/01/08/lies4s.jpg

[Warham]

I'm surprised you can read.

You certainly can't read scripture correctly.

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Are you asking me to do your research for you? Get back to me when you can actaully back up your statements.

Aren't you the one who discredited Rather just a few posts ago?

You're the one making the accusation. If you are so out there to change people's views, go and work for it. And if you aren't, then stop with your accusations that my info is false. Those that accused Danny Boy went out and studied the documents to prove they wre false. Why are you any different.e

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I thought that was kind of funny.

how so hun?

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
You're the one making the accusation. If you are so out there to change people's views, go and work for it. And if you aren't, then stop with your accusations that my info is false. Those that accused Danny Boy went out and studied the documents to prove they wre false. Why are you any different.e

You said:

"Saddam helped fund and support the WTC bombers and OBL in '93."

Prove it!

I can back up all of my statements. Just ask.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
I'm surprised you can read.

You certainly can't read scripture correctly.

Simple posts from a simple man.

I already out-scriptured you a few weeks ago. You lost. You said "I am done with you." Remember? But you just keep coming back for more.

My question contrasting "Thou shalt not kill" with your support of the Iraq invasion still stands. Have an explanation yet?

This one? "What you do unto the least of them, you do unto me." How do you justify your support of the murder of Iraqis with these words of your Lord?

And no, I don't like abortion. Wouldn't want my woman to have one. So leave that subject out of this.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by b1c2
And not all of us that support the war are anti-choice. I may be fiscally conservative and feel like we're doing the right thing in Iraq but I'm socially middle of the road.

This is the right thing? Piles of dead children?

Fiscally conservative people want to spend billions on war? Huh? You make no sense.

[Warham]

I think I'll post some abortion pics.

How about it, Demon? I'm sure there are PLENTY out there.

[b1c2]

[
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
This is the right thing? Piles of dead children?

Fiscally conservative people want to spend billions on war? Huh? You make no sense.

Better their dead children than our's. Maybe not politically correct but the truth.

And you're too narrow minded for me to argue economics with. You disagree w/the war and its obvious you're not going to listen to anything anyone else has to say so I won't waste my time with someone that just wants to post so-called shocking pictures to inflame people. Get over yourself.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by b1c2
Better their dead children than our's. Maybe not politically correct but the truth.

And you're too narrow minded for me to argue economics with. You disagree w/the war and its obvious you're not going to listen to anything anyone else has to say so I won't waste my time with someone that just wants to post so-called shocking pictures to inflame people. Get over yourself.

I don't want anyone to die. I care about human life, you only care about American life. That's very nationalistic of you. And I will say it again: Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

You close the econimic arguement without making a single point. You explain your position by insulting me. Which tells me that you don't really have your own opinion. Just like Warham, you regurgitate what you have heard over and over.

Why are you scared of pictures of the damage that we are doing in Iraq?

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
I think I'll post some abortion pics.

How about it, Demon? I'm sure there are PLENTY out there.

Again I say unto you- I feel the same way you do about abortion. I don't like it.

But unlike you, I value ALL life, even the lives of Iraqi people.

[Warham]

Yeah, I value all life as well, cunt.

Do you think the Iraqi people were in heavenly bliss with Saddam in charge, and should we just let him stay there and torture to death whoever he wanted at his convenience?

[b1c2]

Sweetheart- Nothing much scares me. I've lived all over the world and seen too much to let anything scare me, least of all these pics. Remember, I work for Joint Forces and have been associated with the military for most of my life. I get the reports across my desk everyday-the good, the bad and the far uglier than these pics. I closed the discussion on economics because it is obvious you don't want a discussion. You want everyone to agree w/you or else "they make no sense". Actually I think you DON'T want ANYONE to agree w/you because you wouldn't have anything/anybody to bitch about/at and wouldn't be the center of attention. IMO, this isn't about anyone dying. This is about BlueTurk getting attention. If it wasn't the war, it would be something else. You don't reply to posts where people point out correctly and calmly your flawed thinking. And tell me, just how are you thinking for yourself? Are you posting from Iraq where you're over there snapping these pics yourself? No, you're getting it from some liberal news agency that feeds you what you then try to pass off as your own opinions. I sit in meetings with Generals and hear about it first hand. I'm not a big W fan but I do think we're doing what is right & just in Iraq & Afghanistan, not only what is best for Americans but what is best for Iraqis, Afghans and the world at large. Your concern for the Iraqis & Afghans equals leaving them there to suffer miserably under a tyrannical leadership (or lack thereof)? Damn, with friends like you, who needs enemies?

[b1c2]

Originally posted by Warham
Yeah, I value all life as well, cunt.

Do you think the Iraqi people were in heavenly bliss with Saddam in charge, and should we just let him stay there and torture to death whoever he wanted at his convenience?

Great minds think alike! I just said basically the same thing...along w/some other stuff too.

[Warham]

Originally posted by b1c2
Great minds think alike! I just said basically the same thing...along w/some other stuff too.

Demon thinks we are close-minded, but I would suggest he look in the mirror.

[jacksmar]

Well demoncunt, you obviously don’t understand war. It’s either that or you want people to die.

Oh, and since you don’t like the US (and you should get the fuck out as quickly as possible, maybe Columbia), here’s a story. I’m with Warham because I don’t think you can read or comprehend but here you are:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3118262.stm

Good luck with your studies.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
Yeah, I value all life as well, cunt.

Do you think the Iraqi people were in heavenly bliss with Saddam in charge, and should we just let him stay there and torture to death whoever he wanted at his convenience?

Do you think the Iraqi people were in heavenly bliss after we destroy their homes, infrastructure, schools, families? We are just making even more terrorists that hate you and I because of the decisions that our leadership has made.

Once again I tell you that I think Saddam is a piece of shit. But he is not even close to being the nastiest modern dictator. Saudi Arabia has a brutal regime, on and on...

Who's torturing who in the picture below?

[Warham]

I think perhaps I should post pics of Saddam's torture chambers, eh?

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
You said:

"Saddam helped fund and support the WTC bombers and OBL in '93."

Prove it!

I can back up all of my statements. Just ask.

http://www.archive-news.net/Articles/SH040923.html is a start. There's a shipload if linkies there, and, if you do not feel like reading all of them, there are summaries on the side.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
I think perhaps I should post pics of Saddam's torture chambers, eh?

That is a picture from one of Saddam's torture chambers.

Read the whole post. We AGREE that Saddam was an evil man, you dummy!

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
http://www.archive-news.net/Articles/SH040923.html is a start. There's a shipload if linkies there, and, if you do not feel like reading all of them, there are summaries on the side.

Thank you! I will take a look!

[b1c2]

Who's torturing who in the picture below? [/B][/QUOTE]

Oh yea, thats REAL torturous! I know people that pay extra for that!

[b1c2]

Originally posted by Warham
Demon thinks we are close-minded, but I would suggest he look in the mirror.

No doubt. I called him narrow-minded and he took that as an insult. I thought that is what he was trying to be. (You are a "he", right, Demon Cunt?)

[jacksmar]

For all the doubting scholars: http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.844,filter.all/event_detail.asp#

Use caution. Extremely graphic.

[Warham]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
That is a picture from one of Saddam's torture chambers.

Read the whole post. We AGREE that Saddam was an evil man, you dummy!

So you think he should still be in power?

[Nickdfresh]

Why am I linking to torture victims in Iraq? Why don't we have links to North Korean torture victims, Iranian torture victims, Sudanese victims of genocide? When do we invade these countries and rid them of their pestilent dictators? Oh, I forgot they don't have any oil, well Sudan sort of does anyways.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
So you think he should still be in power?

I don't think that it was up to our military to remove him. There are violent repressive regimes all over the world.

I think that if the Iraqi citizens were truly unhappy with Saddam's rule, then change would have come from within. Revolutions happen.

Our invasion has caused chaos beyond belief. Remember when Bush and Rumsfeld were expecting the throwing of flowers? Here we are two years later and some Iraqi people are still killing us. Clearly, we are not wanted there.

[jacksmar]

And for the record: http://www.thenausea.com/elements/Iraq/Newclau6.jpg

This picture is from a Chemical attack on the town of Halabjah.

This is why we went to Iraq dumbasses. This is the shit the real terrorists want to bring to the US front mother fucking door.

Two motives lead men to War: instinctive hostility and hostile intention.

Get over yourselves and get with us, or get the fuck out.
:fu:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by jacksmar
And for the record: [url]
Get over yourselves and get with us, or get the fuck out.
:fu:

Why don't you go to Iraq and be the true "us" tough guy? What's your excuse macho man?

[jacksmar]

I’m already on a short list Nick. You seem like a reasonable poster with your references to the Sudan and the like. Are you beginning to understand what the African continent has produced for the rest of the world?

You want pictures and more video from Iraq?
http://www.thenausea.com/iraq.html

How about affirmation?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/889383/posts

Also Iranian, Korean here: http://www.ogrish.com/

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
I don't think that it was up to our military to remove him. There are violent repressive regimes all over the world.

I think that if the Iraqi citizens were truly unhappy with Saddam's rule, then change would have come from within. Revolutions happen.

Our invasion has caused chaos beyond belief. Remember when Bush and Rumsfeld were expecting the throwing of flowers? Here we are two years later and some Iraqi people are still killing us. Clearly, we are not wanted there.

Serious question -- What was your personal assessment when Saddam would make UN inspectors wait several days to get into an area, restrict where they could get access to, or would refuse them from areas altogether?

[Warham]

Ally, you are making Cunt think too hard! Stop!

:D

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by jacksmar
I’m already on a short list Nick. You seem like a reasonable poster with your references to the Sudan and the like. Are you beginning to understand what the African continent has produced for the rest of the world?

You want pictures and more video from Iraq?
http://www.thenausea.com/iraq.html

How about affirmation?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/889383/posts

Also Iranian, Korean here: http://www.ogrish.com/

I do see. But do not be so quick to judge the Africans. European colonialism is largely to blame (i.e. dividing national borders without considering ethinc or tribal make up [you know, like Tutsis and Hutus]or natural barriers) The African Gov'ts are often the end result of colonialism.

Iraq is a prime example, we can thank the British for combining three distinct nations (Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd) into one state.

[b1c2]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
I don't think that it was up to our military to remove him. There are violent repressive regimes all over the world.

I think that if the Iraqi citizens were truly unhappy with Saddam's rule, then change would have come from within. Revolutions happen.

Our invasion has caused chaos beyond belief. Remember when Bush and Rumsfeld were expecting the throwing of flowers? Here we are two years later and some Iraqi people are still killing us. Clearly, we are not wanted there.

"Some" people? "Some" people like the bad guys that want to go back to their murderous, theiving ways? "Some" people that prospered while Saddam was in power? If so. "Some" other people are clearly pretty damn happy we're there because their lives are dramtically improved.

[FORD]

Originally posted by jacksmar
For all the doubting scholars: http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.844,filter.all/event_detail.asp#

Use caution. Extremely graphic.

I wouldn't take the Likud Enterprise Institute's word for anything.

[jacksmar]

That’s it Nick. You got it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10 Stars!!!!!

That’s what the whole world is about at this time. Colonialism
You understand and I’m proud to say it.

The rest of the world, with a few exceptions, stuck in colonialism.

Until this goes away, the arguments about religions, cultures, borders, languages, and family will all sound the same.

The US gets it right most of the time. The last 100 years have been the best for the US. The US doesn’t get everything correct but because of how the nation is structured, we land on our collective feet.

Nick, I would have not guessed that anyone, anywhere would be able to have this type of discussion and least of all at some place fun like the Roth Army board.

This old dog just learned another lesson.

[FORD]

Originally posted by b1c2
"Some" people? "Some" people like the bad guys that want to go back to their murderous, theiving ways? "Some" people that prospered while Saddam was in power? If so. "Some" other people are clearly pretty damn happy we're there because their lives are dramtically improved.

I can' t believe you're buying into this crap :rolleyes:

Yeah, Saddam was a piece of shit. But he didn't become one without a little help from Poppy, Uncle Ronnie, and the gang. Personified here by Rummy himself...http://cnparm.home.texas.net/911/Backg/Rumsfeld-Saddam.jpg

The so called "insurgents" are just pissed off Iraqis who see what they consider an opportunity to end Western occupation of their country which has existed in one form or another for well over a century. Some times, as now, directly, and others indirectly through CIA puppets like Saddam.

[jacksmar]

I wouldn’t either Ford. The video speaks for itself.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by jacksmar
I wouldn’t either Ford. The video speaks for itself.

We only care about other people's torture when it's in our national "interest" to do so.

[FORD]

Originally posted by b1c2
Who's torturing who in the picture below?

Oh yea, thats REAL torturous! I know people that pay extra for that! [/B][/QUOTE]

But would they pay for trailer trash Lyndie??

[b1c2]

But would they pay for trailer trash Lyndie?? [/B][/QUOTE]

Have ya ever seen a Van Buren whore? They ain't exactly whatcha take home to Mom!

[Nickdfresh]

Maybe I can hire Ann Coulter to whip me for being a "bad liberal?"

[Warham]

We neocons here don't need Annie's help to whip you into shape here.

[b1c2]

Originally posted by FORD
I can' t believe you're buying into this crap :rolleyes:

Yeah, Saddam was a piece of shit. But he didn't become one without a little help from Poppy, Uncle Ronnie, and the gang. Personified here by Rummy himself...http://cnparm.home.texas.net/911/Backg/Rumsfeld-Saddam.jpg

The so called "insurgents" are just pissed off Iraqis who see what they consider an opportunity to end Western occupation of their country which has existed in one form or another for well over a century. Some times, as now, directly, and others indirectly through CIA puppets like Saddam.

ME!?!?!?! I can't believe you! I can't deny we supported Saddam when he was the lesser of two evils but that is certainly no longer the case. And I don't deny that "some" of the insurgents are pissed off Iraqis tired of occupation (nor do I blame them) but Iraq is in no place to run w/the ball yet. It would be a tragedy for us to pull out now and any Iraqi w/half a brain, pissed off or not, could see that. We're there because it is in the best interest of the world right now. RIGHT NOW not years ago. This isn't a freaking history lesson. It is about what is best in the current world we live in. Hopefully, it won't always be what is best but it is RIGHT NOW. How many people have shared a bed with someone at some time in their life that they wouldn't like to run over with a tank RIGHT NOW? Things change.

[b1c2]

Originally posted by Warham
We neocons here don't need Annie's help to whip you into shape here.

And we'll use Lyndie's leash to whip ya with!

[Nickdfresh]

I still could give a shit about Saddam's torture chambers, because it only mattered when he threatened our oil supplies.

On the eve of Gulf War I, Time magazine put out a special edition regarding all the horrible things Saddam did during his reign up to then. It was later found out that much of the information was leaked directly from a CIA file. A dossier that Rumsfeld no-doubt knew about when he shook Saddam's sweaty, bloody hand.

It is no justification of war unless we trot around the globe and remove every single tyrant. And our military is currently having a little trouble in Iraq.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
Serious question -- What was your personal assessment when Saddam would make UN inspectors wait several days to get into an area, restrict where they could get access to, or would refuse them from areas altogether?

It is what it is. He was playing games.

Hans Blix said several times that there were no WMD and he appears to be correct. So the UN weapons inspectors did their job. They looked for WMD and found none.

If you remember it was the Pentagon that ultimately told the UN inspectors to leave Iraq because the invasion was on deck.

Bush went against the UN charter when he called for the invasion. So both Bush and Saddam went against the UN.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Yeah, I value all life as well, cunt.

Do you think the Iraqi people were in heavenly bliss with Saddam in charge, and should we just let him stay there and torture to death whoever he wanted at his convenience?

Using this "logic", I guess we're in for many decades of pre-emptive invasion and occupation of ALL regimes who kill







Or only those who have oil and muslims?????


Dont look now, but your hypocrisy is showing.


BTW, just when DO WE bring this"heavenly bliss" to the Iraqi people?

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine



BTW, just when DO WE bring this"heavenly bliss" to the Iraqi people?

We don't. They vote for their own form of hell next Jan. :gulp:

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by jacksmar
Well demoncunt, you obviously don’t understand war. It’s either that or you want people to die.

Oh, and since you don’t like the US (and you should get the fuck out as quickly as possible, maybe Columbia), here’s a story. I’m with Warham because I don’t think you can read or comprehend but here you are:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3118262.stm

Good luck with your studies.

I do understand war. It's when two or more armies fight. Right now our troops are fighting the Iraqi people, not the Iraqi army. These people want us to leave. We have fucked up thier homes, lives and families. (You should really re-read your first sentance. It's war or I want people to die? Huh? Explain.)

I never said I didn't like the US. You NeoCons just love to accuse us LIBS of that.

I LOVE MY COUNTRY. I love the fact that I can read whatever I want. I love the fact that I can listen to Van Halen. I love the fact that I can say that Bush Inc. has fucked up and made even more terrorists that want to kill us.

I love my freedom.

I wouldn't want another regime to invade my home and force some new way of life on me. Would you?

Thanks for the link to the BBC article. I have never seen that.

So, given this admission, why is the Iraqi invasion still considered part of the war on terror?

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
http://www.archive-news.net/Articles/SH040923.html is a start. There's a shipload if linkies there, and, if you do not feel like reading all of them, there are summaries on the side.

Thanks again for this link. I don't really know many of those news sources. But there is indeed some interesting info there. I will be reading this for days. I eat this kinda stuff up.

Here's another terrorist pictured with Saddam:

http://www.livingstonemusic.net/saddam-rumsfeldfiles/rumsfield-saddam.gif

When Osama was in the "employ" of the U.S. to fight off the Russians, were we supporting terrorists?

Just like Saddam, the U.S. exercises the "the enemy of my enemy is my ally" philosophy.

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Using this "logic", I guess we're in for many decades of pre-emptive invasion and occupation of ALL regimes who kill




Does that bother you?

:D

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
Does that bother you?

:D

A more appropriate question is why it does NOT bother you. Especially when you call yourself a Christian.

[FORD]

Originally posted by b1c2
ME!?!?!?! I can't believe you! I can't deny we supported Saddam when he was the lesser of two evils but that is certainly no longer the case. And I don't deny that "some" of the insurgents are pissed off Iraqis tired of occupation (nor do I blame them) but Iraq is in no place to run w/the ball yet. It would be a tragedy for us to pull out now and any Iraqi w/half a brain, pissed off or not, could see that.

Not neccessarily. It was Western occupation which created the fictional country of "Iraq" out of three seperate ethnic and religious groups to begin with. The very existence of the country was never to the benefit of the people, but for the benefit of US and British oil companies. Same with Kuwait for that matter.

As for not "running with the ball", that doesn't change the fact that we shouldn't have been on the field in the first place. And maybe those "pissed off Iraqis with half a brain" are saying Thanks for getting rid of Saddam. Now get the fuck out!

We're there because it is in the best interest of the world right now. RIGHT NOW not years ago. This isn't a freaking history lesson. It is about what is best in the current world we live in. Hopefully, it won't always be what is best but it is RIGHT NOW. How many people have shared a bed with someone at some time in their life that they wouldn't like to run over with a tank RIGHT NOW? Things change.

RIGHT NOW?? Who let Sammy in here? ;)

Sorry, but NONE of this has been in the best interest of the world. Iraq was NEVER a threat to the world. If it's more of a threat now than it was when Saddam was there, then that's the fault of the neocon lying pieces of shit who wrote Junior's "foreign policy" 5 years before he was in office. I'm not saying that you should just turn your back and abandon someone in a fucked up situation that you created, but don't have any illusions that it's best for anybody.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by FORD
A more appropriate question is why it does NOT bother you. Especially when you call yourself a Christian.

Because blind patriotism is part of the brainwashing process that each Christian goes through.

They also fall for the whole "Bush is a man of faith" bullshit. Which is just laughable.

98% of Christains really only choose their faith to avoid HELL. They are pumped full of firey images of demons and torture from a very young age. Look at the crucifixion (or cruci-fiction, if you will) and you will see that Christianity itself is based on torture!

Clearly, It is not because they are attracted to the teachings of Christ. I would even go so far as to say most of them IGNORE the teachings of Christ.

Worst of all they are mentally lazy and proud of it.

Warham has been avoiding my questions for weeks... Because he has no answer.

[jacksmar]

I love how every well-intentioned commie lib thinks they understand war. First a commie lib can’t stand freedom and hates themselves for having any freedom. It puts them in a position of talking out one side of their ass because of where they live.
Second, a commie lib has to hate their country and hate themselves for living in a free country either by birth or they moved here. This is always true with a commie lib and they always follow their hatred of their country with how much they love it and that they have a right to disagree. This is a trademark of a commie lib. They love to disagree with anything that they FEEL they’ve been wronged by. For example the 2000 Presidential election left the bad taste of Al Gore’s cock in their mouth without an orgasm and President Bush’s cock broke off in their collective asses. The hardest part of non-acceptance in a commie libs view produces automatic disagreement. The commie lib always FEELS compelled to tell everyone about their pain and how they were screwed even if this is not the case.
Third, a commie lib only uses military apparatus for political gain. For example, World War II found that Japan and Germany that needed to be turned in another direction and reformed. It was a consensus world opinion and was correct. Now these two countries, which were invaded but not conquered, have reformed into positions of respect and authority. The commie lib finds fault at the premise of this and related positions. This is the position we find the US in Iraq. We’ll leave having conquered nothing but will help to create whatever evolves from that dictatorship. This dictatorship was formed from colonialism and failed democratic policy, but no longer exists. A commie lib believes the military should only be used from a distance and for humanitarian reasons.

Commie libs love to use the sentence in implying a position, “We live a democracy don’t we?” This is what a commie lib loves to FEEL we are. We are not. The commie lib fails to realize that dictatorships are formed from democracies when democracies fail.

A commie lib loves to believe that they are thought provoking intelligentsia and that those outside of that lot are uneducated and a commie lib FEELS a sense of empowerment from this. What a commie lib does is seek opinion, input, and approval from other commie libs believing and FEELING that many others must be of the same FEELING based on their commie lib FEELINGS. This assumption leads a commie lib to FEEL that they can provide better than those with a different point of view.

A commie lib will burn the US Flag instead of proudly waving the flag, proud to have a voice of dissent or contentment. The commie lib immediately jumps to the conclusion that because something they believe is wrong with the US, everything is wrong with the US and the whole US Nation should be torn apart. This is a commie libs FEELING of being absolved. It demonstrates that a commie lib doesn’t appreciate their freedom, their nations commitment to national and international issues, but to their selfish beliefs. A commie libs discourse is demonstrated by an action of dissolve for which so many would sacrifice. The latter defines a commie lib to the soul: selfish, pious, insipid existence.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by jacksmar
I love how every well-intentioned commie lib thinks they understand war. First a commie lib can’t stand freedom and hates themselves for having any freedom. It puts them in a position of talking out one side of their ass because of where they live.


Scream this in German and you would sound just like....

http://www.joric.com/Hitler-official.jpg

[jacksmar]

You’re so predictable demon.
You want to compare those words to "Mein Kampf". A commie lib is so easy to read.
One of the first issues Dolfie addressed in that tome was private gun ownership. That’s where I differ with all the commie libs. Dolfie, like American democrats, i.e. Rosie and FOrd, demoncunt, want private gun ownership controlled. The commie lib logic is along the lines of just the government officials should be able to carry firearms. This is because commie libs believe that government employees are superior to the governed and deserve special privileges. All the commie lib dems like Boxer, Feinstein, Kerry, Gore believe this. They believe just like Dolfie.

The purpose of the Second Amendment, as well as the rest of the Constitution, is to prevent the emergence of the privileged class that the commie libs want to create.

In Iraq, Sadam did the same thing as Dolfie. Sadam lived for today just like the typical American democrat. The commie lib American democrats can’t understand why their candidates for President can’t get 100 percent of the vote, like their heros Stalin and Castro. They’re happy the terrorists are interfering. What it actually does is remind everyone in the world that the Iraq hasn't gone to a one-party system again.

American commie lib democrats quite simply target the poor and minority neighborhoods with their bullshit. They bullshit them into believing that the commie libs can get something done for them. Fits the commie lib belief system. Like Dolfie, in the 2000 election where the commie libs were left like the little prom date on the front porch after a good fucking over, they pulled their same old predictable games. The commie libs always try to limit participation, and stir up class and race warfare to intimidate.

What you really want to say demoncunt is, as typical for a commie lib, you know better than me and everyone else.

I’ll listen but I may not agree.
And I’ll never apologize for my love of the United States of America. Sorry you can’t apologize for hating the United States of America.

[Warham]

Originally posted by FORD
A more appropriate question is why it does NOT bother you. Especially when you call yourself a Christian.

Why would I be for regimes that kill and torture their own populations, FORD?

That's not very Christ-like is it now?

[Warham]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Because blind patriotism is part of the brainwashing process that each Christian goes through.

They also fall for the whole "Bush is a man of faith" bullshit. Which is just laughable.

98% of Christains really only choose their faith to avoid HELL. They are pumped full of firey images of demons and torture from a very young age. Look at the crucifixion (or cruci-fiction, if you will) and you will see that Christianity itself is based on torture!

Clearly, It is not because they are attracted to the teachings of Christ. I would even go so far as to say most of them IGNORE the teachings of Christ.

Worst of all they are mentally lazy and proud of it.

Warham has been avoiding my questions for weeks... Because he has no answer.

Now I know why you struggle with the basic tenents of the Christian faith. You have no concept of how they work from this latest babbling post of yours. Boy you really are the dumbest cunt here aren't you?

98% of your brain doesn't function properly, but I'll get back to that in a minute.

Demon, I wasn't shown any pictures of demons or torture when I was raised a Christian in my youth, so I don't know who you are referring to by that. I went to good old church every Sunday and went to CCD every Monday night after school, and I was never taught to believe in Christ because otherwise I might go to Hell. And bringing up the crucifixion is really low for you, and that says alot. The crucifixion isn't the centerpiece for our faith, numbskull, the resurrection of Christ is! I don't see any torture in a resurrection of a man. You might, but I can understand why with that pea brain of yours.

How do you know Bush isn't a man of faith? Does that also mean I can that Bill Clinton isn't a man of faith because he got blowjobs from his intern. I mean, he said he read his bible all the time! Does that mean he's not a Christian? Does that mean that any man who might have faults (and that's every man) isn't a Christian if they say they are?

Idiot. You have alot of learning to do before you talk about Christianity around here.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by jacksmar
I love how every well-intentioned commie lib thinks they understand war. First a commie lib can’t stand freedom and hates themselves for having any freedom.

Commie-Lib? Are you still in fucking junior high school? Everything is so simple for you isn't it sunshine. Well, let me give you a clue. Communists are far leftist revolutionaries that controlled the Soviet Union and believe in a totalitarian police state, something this Administration has been striving for. They also started wars based on ruses and short sighted reasoning, again the Bush Administration has much in common with the USSR since we have handed Osama another Afghanistan on a silver platter.


It puts them in a position of talking out one side of their ass because of where they live.
Second, a commie lib has to hate their country and hate themselves for living in a free country either by birth or they moved here. This is always true with a commie lib and they always follow their hatred of their country with how much they love it and that they have a right to disagree.

Bravo!! Genius insight! Only a man who truly loves his country sends it's young people to die in a failed and pointless excercise in stupidity! Yeey! Billions are going down the drain in Iraq, and patriots like you are sending their fellow Americans to their death. Go fucking sing the 'Star Spangled Banner" over that one! I hope you don't have alcoholic parents, because a guy like you will go around the block to buy them liquer because you really love them (BLINDLY).

This is a trademark of a commie lib. They love to disagree with anything that they FEEL they’ve been wronged by. For example the 2000 Presidential election left the bad taste of Al Gore’s cock in their mouth without an orgasm and President Bush’s cock broke off in their collective asses.

So the Republican Party is made up of "commie libs" because all they did during the Clinton Administration, bitch, moan, and wage a jihad against a man they could not defeat in the polls, or by the ballot box. Ken Starr must be the fucking holy martyr of the "commie lib's."


The hardest part of non-acceptance in a commie libs view produces automatic disagreement. The commie lib always FEELS compelled to tell everyone about their pain and how they were screwed even if this is not the case.

With brialliant arguments you have so far put forth, HOW COULD ANYONE DISAGREE?

Third, a commie lib only uses military apparatus for political gain.

Ahhahahahaha...President Dubya Bush is the BIGGEST COMMIE LIB of 'em all!

For example, World War II found that Japan and Germany that needed to be turned in another direction and reformed. It was a consensus world opinion and was correct. Now these two countries, which were invaded but not conquered, have reformed into positions of respect and authority.[b/]

Read a history book! Germany was invaded in force in December of 1944 and "CONQUERED in May of 45'. Japan attacked the US on December 7, 1941 and Germany CLAIMED WAR ON US! How can that even be used as an analogy to the Iraq war? Germany and Japan "reformed" into respect and authority only because several countries were occupying them and they were blugeoned after 6 years of combat and strategic bombing, and finally the atom bomb in Japans case.


[b]The commie lib finds fault at the premise of this and related positions. This is the position we find the US in Iraq.

Because there IS NO postion or relation between the two. IRAQ DID NOT ATTACK US. READ A FUCKING HISTORY BOOK AND THE NEWSPAPER ONCE IN A WHILE AND MAYBE YOU"D KNOW THAT! Furthermore, the Germans were war weary and feared the barbarity of the real commie Russians and preferred to surrender to Americans since we didn't rape their wives & daughters everyday.


We’ll leave having conquered nothing but will help to create whatever evolves from that dictatorship. This dictatorship was formed from colonialism and failed democratic policy, but no longer exists. A commie lib believes the military should only be used from a distance and for humanitarian reasons.

We'll leave a huge fucking mess; it will be years of bitterness an hatred thyroughout the Islamic world for the United States and possibly a civil war in Iraq, which will further destabilize the region. We have only made more terrorists.

Commie libs love to use the sentence in implying a position, “We live a democracy don’t we?” This is what a commie lib loves to FEEL we are. We are not. The commie lib fails to realize that dictatorships are formed from democracies when democracies fail.

Exactly! When people's fear the terrorist "bogeymen" becomes an irrational obsession clouding any rational judgement, when people use scapegoats for all there problems (i.e. "commie libs"), and slowly surrender their civil rights in the blind name of security (i.e. The Patriot Act) and condone lawless behavior (holding suspects without a trial and violating US law by using torture), that's the start of a totalitarian regime!

A commie lib loves to believe that they are thought provoking intelligentsia and that those outside of that lot are uneducated and a commie lib FEELS a sense of empowerment from this.

Gee! I wonder why that would be?! Try forming an opinion based on facts and truth and not prefabricated ideology and ONLY what you want to hear.

What a commie lib does is seek opinion, input, and approval from other commie libs believing and FEELING that many others must be of the same FEELING based on their commie lib FEELINGS. This assumption leads a commie lib to FEEL that they can provide better than those with a different point of view.

Isn't that what you have just been doing?

A commie lib will burn the US Flag instead of proudly waving the flag, proud to have a voice of dissent or contentment.

When has a "commie lib' ever burned a flag?

The commie lib immediately jumps to the conclusion that because something they believe is wrong with the US, everything is wrong with the US and the whole US Nation should be torn apart.

What issue are we taliking about? The Iraqi War? It is wrong and completely detrimental to the War on Terror. That's all we are talking about here. Stop with the retarded (okay I'm gonna' say it and stoop to your level) RepublaNazi generalizations!

This is a commie libs FEELING of being absolved. It demonstrates that a commie lib doesn’t appreciate their freedom, their nations commitment to national and international issues, but to their selfish beliefs.

Oh? So 'commie libs' that have served in the military, pay their taxes, go to church, and are active in public organizations are second class citizens because they don't aggree with your blind following of an idiot? Brilliant!

"You have the right to free speech, As long as you don't try to actually use it!" --The Clash

Well, fuck everyone who ever served in the military! Let's all wipe our collective ass with the Constitution. I thought we were protecting and/or fighting for free speech! And really, according to you, we were fighting for the right to believe whatever the government told me to believe!

A commie libs discourse is demonstrated by an action of dissolve for which so many would sacrifice. The latter defines a commie lib to the soul: selfish, pious, insipid existence.

Ya', your so right there! I guess all your fine "conservatives" like Ken Ley, Michael Milken, Marge Scott, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and the list goes on really are soo honest and have hardly done any damage to the economy by lying, cheating, stealing, sending good people to die through their incompetence and hubris... Let me go do a march and sing "America the Beautiful" in their honor! Because wealthy people who scream for tax cuts aren't selfish at all! A government that is a plutocracy run by special interests such a conservative utopia! People who send people to die in their place in a War they support (Pres. Bush) are truly people of conscience. People who don't question those in power and everything they are told without thinking are sooo admirable. Conservatives that ignore problems like the Iraq quagmire, Social Security, that fact that we live in the richest nation the earth has ever known yet we are in economic decline with unprecedented rates of poverty, unemployment, lack of health insurance coverage!

Boy, they really have you hooked, SUCKER!

[Warham]

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/graphics/LNS14000000_128830_1102718332875.gif

God, look at those unemployment rates spiraling out of control!

It's the end of the United States as we know it!

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1994 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.8 5.6 5.5
1995 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.6
1996 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.3 5.5 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.4 5.4
1997 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.1 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.7
1998 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.4
1999 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.0
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.7
2002 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.8 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.7
2004 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4

[Warham]

Yearly Unemployment averages since:

1990 5.6
1991 6.8
1992 7.5
1993 6.9
1994 6.1
1995 5.6
1996 5.4
1997 4.9
1998 4.5
1999 4.2
2000 4.0
2001 4.7
2002 5.8
2003 6.0

Jesus is coming!

:D

[Nickdfresh]

Oh well, once those those unemployment benefits run out, you are no longer unemployed according to the government! Praise the lord!

I bet they hardly ever underreport unemployment!

[Warham]

Hey Nick,

What did the Liberals who controlled Congress until 1994 do about fixing Social Security or health care?

::crickets chirping::

[Warham]

How is President Bush responding?
To compensate for reduced benefits in the future, the president has charged his commission with exploring the “partial privatization” of Social Security. He favors diverting 2 percentage points of the payroll tax to individuals to invest as they see fit. Currently, Social Security reserves are invested only in ultrasafe government securities, which offer a very low rate of return—generally less than 3 percent. The president believes it makes more sense for people to put their own money in more profitable vehicles like the stock market, whose average rate of return since 1926 has been 7.7 percent.

What do critics say about Bush’s plans?
Opponents say that every one of the commission’s 16 members is at least somewhat predisposed to some form of privatization. They believe no real crisis will arrive until at least 2038, when the surplus will be exhausted. They also say that if the same projections used to justify the tax cut are applied to Social Security, the system will still be functioning in 2075. Many critics say that Social Security was meant to be a guaranteed base of retirement income, not an investment vehicle. Investing the money is all well and good in a bull market, but one could conceivably retire into a bear market at a heavy loss.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Hey Nick,

What did the Liberals who controlled Congress until 1994 do about fixing Social Security or health care?

::crickets chirping::

Great. lets reach back to ten years ago to defend Bush's complete disregard of Social Security and his efforts to "privatize" it, except he is using a euphemism in place of "privatization," because he realizes that it doesn't poll very well.

Crickets chirping right back at cha'!

[Warham]

Privatizing Social Security
Thomas Sowell

Would you sign a contract that enabled the other party to change the terms of that contract at will, while you could neither stop him nor make any changes of your own? Probably not. Yet that is exactly what happens when you pay money into Social Security.

No matter what you were promised or at what age you were supposed to get it, the government can always pass a new law that changes all of that. But you still have to pay into the system.

A private annuity plan run by an insurance company is legally required to pay you what was promised, when it was promised, and to maintain assets sufficient to redeem its promises.

One of the few issues on which Senator John Kerry has taken a stand and not changed it (yet) is Social Security. He has said: "I will not privatize Social Security."

This has long been the position of liberal Democrats, and John Kerry's voting record in the Senate makes him one of the very few Senators more liberal than Ted Kennedy. That is the ranking given by Americans for Democratic Action, a leading liberal organization that ought to know.

Why are liberals against letting people put part of their Social Security payments into private investments?

Risk is one of their arguments. Al Gore incessantly repeated the phrase "a risky scheme" during the 2000 election campaign and risk still seems to be the big objection to letting people put their own money where they want.

Some liberals may actually believe that politicians know what is best for you better than you know yourself. That is, after all, the philosophy behind many other government programs.

Another reason for liberal opposition to private investment of Social Security payments is that it deprives them of control of billions of dollars that they have been spending from the Social Security trust fund for years. They can buy a lot of votes with all sorts of giveaway programs, financed by money taken from Social Security.

As for the risk of making private investments, that might be a real concern if people were putting their money into commodity speculation or other volatile markets. Most people have better sense and privatization could limit where Social Security premiums could be invested.

Although the stock market bounces up and down from day to day, people are not investing today in order to retire next week. They begin paying Social Security premiums when they first get a job and they retire decades later.

Stocks are far less risky in the long run than they are in the short run because the ups and downs balance out over a long period of time. It is virtually impossible to find any 40-year period in which the stock market has not paid a higher rate of return on your money than you get from Social Security.

There are some mutual funds that simply buy a mixture of the stocks that make up the Dow Jones average (or Standard & Poor's), so that their clients will have the kind of return on their investments that the stock market as a whole has. They don't make a killing but they don't get killed either.

How did Social Security get into its present mess in the first place? Because politicians made it the "risky scheme" that they now claim privatization would be.

The same political expediency which caused Social Security to be called "insurance," in order to get public support, guaranteed that it would be nothing of the sort. Unlike an insurance company, Social Security has never had enough money to pay for all the pensions it promised.

Instead, Social Security has been run like a pyramid scheme, where the first people to pay in get money back from the second wave of people who pay in, and the second wave get money back from the third wave, etc. This is so risky that pyramid schemes are illegal -- except when the government does it.

They have gotten away with this thus far because the first generation covered by Social Security was an unusually small generation that was followed by the unusually large "baby boomer" generation. But when the baby boomers retire, the pyramid scheme will no longer bring in enough money to pay for their pensions.

Nothing is more risky than depending on politicians.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
How is President Bush responding?
To compensate for reduced benefits in the future, the president has charged his commission with exploring the “partial privatization” of Social Security. He favors diverting 2 percentage points of the payroll tax to individuals to invest as they see fit. Currently, Social Security reserves are invested only in ultrasafe government securities, which offer a very low rate of return—generally less than 3 percent. The president believes it makes more sense for people to put their own money in more profitable vehicles like the stock market, whose average rate of return since 1926 has been 7.7 percent.



STOCK MARKET?!?!? AHhahahahahahaha....You are insane! If I had a nickle for every person that has lost their ass in the stock market...

[Warham]

I don't know. I just put some funds in a stable account with a rate far better than 3%. I wouldn't privatize my retirement funds by using the stock market totally. It's a bullshit scare tactic by liberals to think that everybody would put 100% of their social security into some risky stocks.

[Nickdfresh]

Christian Science Monitor

from the November 30, 2004 edition

A better fix than privatizing Social Security

By Edith U. Fierst

WASHINGTON – The president's determination to partially privatize Social Security stems from ideological reasons. But in fact the projected Social Security deficit is small enough - 1.89 percent of payroll, under the Social Security trustees' intermediate assumptions (neither optimistic nor pessimistic) - that a major revision to the system is not necessary. The deficit can be remedied with a few discrete changes in the program, all of which are surprisingly easy to understand and accept.
The first is to raise the earned income on which the Social Security payroll tax is assessed and benefits are paid. At present, the maximum is $87,900 a year, subject to annual indexing to wage growth. But it could be raised gradually over several years to 90 percent of covered earnings of individuals, from its current level of about 85 percent, and indexed thereafter. If that were done, the additional payroll tax paid by the 6 percent of those who earn more than $87,900 would reduce the long-range deficit by 0.61 percent of payroll.

A second proposal is to keep the tax on estates worth $3.5 million and more and dedicate the proceeds to Social Security. At present, the tax applies to estates valued at a minimum of $1.5 million. In 2009 the exemption rises to $3.5 million and the following year the estate tax is scheduled to end. Dedicating the tax on estates worth $3.5 million and over, and retaining it, would reduce the long-range deficit by another 0.6 percent of payroll.

A third change would be to bring all newly hired public employees under mandatory coverage of Social Security, thereby reducing the long-range deficit by about 0.22 percent of payroll. About 6.7 million state and local government employees are currently exempt - virtually the only workers not covered by America's retirement system. Instead these employees are covered by plans operated by their employers. For long-term employees, the benefits of state and local government plans are often greater than those paid by Social Security. But these plans, unlike Social Security, are not portable, so employees who change jobs or employers may lose their coverage. If they become disabled before acquiring substitute coverage, they may be without disability benefits. Furthermore, the dependents of public employees exempt from Social Security, even employees fully covered by state and local government plans, are unlikely to be protected by disability, spouse, or survivor benefits.

If coverage were to be broadened to include newly hired public employees, the governments involved would need time and possibly financial help to phase in the new coverage. Delicate negotiations between these governments and public-employee unions might be required, but the example of how smoothly newly hired federal employees were brought under mandatory coverage and a revamped federal retirement system in 1984 would be a good model.

The final change would be to adopt the more accurate formula for cost-of-living increases designed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and in use by many programs. Using that formula would reduce the long-range deficit by 0.3 percent of payroll.

Delaying retirement age seems like a common-sense solution, but it would be a mistake. Many people retire early for good reason, such as physically demanding work, family responsibilities, or poor health. Social Security permits anyone to retire at age 62 with a reduction in benefits. The reduction for those who retire at 62 in 2004 is 24.17 percent of benefits. That reduction will go up to 30 percent for those who retire at 62 when the normal retirement age rises to 67 in 2027. Typically, early retirees have slim resources other than Social Security, so if the normal retirement age were raised further, the resulting reduction in benefits could be impoverishing.

Under the intermediate assumptions of the Social Security trustees, these recommended changes would save more than three-quarters of the projected deficit - which in any event won't threaten payments before 2042. If the lower deficits estimated by the Congressional Budget Office are right, they would wipe it out.

Guaranteed benefits after these changes would be far better than privatized accounts, full or partial, because:

• Individual accounts are inevitably insecure when the market goes down or the worker makes poor investments.

• With private accounts, but not Social Security, the retiree runs the risk of outliving benefits unless he or she purchases an annuity, usually at considerable expense.

• Administrative costs, now about 1 percent of benefits, would go up because individual accounts would have to be administered separately and commissions paid.

• Spouses, survivors, and other dependents of workers would lose their benefits if the worker decides to stop sharing with them.

Moving to privatization - even partial - would also be enormously expensive; the government would have to pay for benefits for older retirees if contributions of younger workers were to go into their own private accounts.

In short, privatization unnecessarily risks the security of Americans during retirement or disability. Guaranteed benefits under Social Security can and must be saved.

• Edith U. Fierst was a member of the Clinton administration's Social Security Advisory Council. © The Washington Post.

[Warham]

Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it
in the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic-controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which party put a tax on Social Security?
A: The Democratic party.

Q: Which party increased the tax on Social Security?
A: The Democratic Party with Al Gore casting the deciding vote.

Q: Which party decided to give money to immigrants?
A: That's right, immigrants moved into this country and at 65 got SSI
Social Security. The Democratic Party gave that to them although they
never paid a dime into it.

Then, after doing all this, the Democrats turn around and tell you the
Republicans want to take your Social Security.

[Nickdfresh]

This is a blatant attempt by Bush to push the "Undoing the New Deal Agenda" as part of his "legacy" and you know it! He wants to return to the days of Herbert Hoover, and economically speaking, he's doing a simply smashing job of it!

[Warham]

An “Alarming” Flip-Flop
Krugman says Social Security is in crisis. Wait — no — he says it's fine.

Paul Krugman devotes his New York Times column today to promoting the lie that the Social Security system is "in pretty good financial shape." Krugman counsels that we ignore "alarming reports generated by people who work at ideologically driven institutions" who are "itching for an excuse to dismantle the system."


Here's an example of the kind of "alarming report" that Krugman warns against:

In 2010 ... the boomers will begin to retire ... The budgetary effects of this demographic tidal wave are straightforward to compute, but so huge as almost to defy comprehension ... Yet if you think even briefly about what the Federal budget will look like in 20 years, you immediately realize that we are drifting inexorably toward crisis; if you think 30 years ahead, you wonder whether the Republic can be saved.
That "alarming report" was "generated" in 1996 by Paul Krugman himself, and it was published by an "ideologically driven institution" called the New York Times.

But that was when there was a Democrat in the White House, a man who pretty much never gave Social Security a second thought. Now there's a Republican in the White House, a man who has made Social Security reform through private accounts a signature policy initiative. Can America's most dangerous liberal pundit stand by and let conservatives rein in America's largest New Deal-era program? Of course not! So now the "crisis" that he himself called "inexorable" in 1996 simply doesn't exist anymore.

Krugman has completely reversed his 1996 position that Social Security's problems are "so huge as almost to defy comprehension." How so? Because, he says, if you consider Social Security and Medicare together, then "only 16 percent of that $44 trillion shortfall comes from Social Security." What a wonderful example of Evasion English. "Only 16 percent" means "only $7 trillion" — about the same size as the entire gross federal debt.

Krugman now relies heavily on "the fact that Social Security, unlike the rest of the federal government, is currently running a surplus." In other words, payroll taxes coming in are greater than benefit payments going out. The surplus goes into the Social Security Trust Fund, held in reserve to pay benefits in the future, when taxes coming in are no longer sufficient. So, no problem.

But here's what Krugman had to say about that in 1996:

... aren't Social Security and Medicare basically pension funds, in which workers' contributions are invested to provide for their retirement? Hardly. A private pension fund that planned to pay the benefits these programs promise would be accumulating huge reserves. In fact, the so-called "trust funds" are making barely any provisions for the future.
He's right. And it reads just like something from the Cato Institute, complete with the withering quotation marks around "trust fund," and the dismissive "so-called."

Here's the reality, and it's as real today as it was in 1996. When payroll tax surpluses come in today, the government takes them and issues a Treasury bond to the "so-called 'trust fund.'" And then the government simply spends the money.

That's right — the government has borrowed and spent all the money in the "so-called 'trust fund.'" Every penny.

According to the 2003 annual report of the Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustees, current taxes won't be enough to pay current benefits starting in 2018. Heading into that date with destiny, the payroll tax surplus will get less and less, so the government is going to have to find somewhere else to borrow the money.

After 2018 the Social Security system will have to start dipping into that "so-called 'trust fund'" to pay the benefits no longer completely covered by payroll taxes. But it will find that there's no money there. Just Treasury bonds. In order to turn those bonds into money in order to pay benefits, the Social Security system will have to redeem them or sell them. And as the old Wall Street joke goes, "Sell? To whom?"

Think of the "so-called 'trust fund'" as a huge long-term holder of federal debt that one day decides to unload it on the market. Where's the money going to come from to buy it?

And as if that's not bad enough, even the "so-called 'trust fund'" will be exhausted in 2042, according to the Social Security trustees. No wonder the trustees wrote in their 2003 annual report that "the program continues to fail our test of financial balance by a wide margin."

The only mystery is how Krugman could have stated in the very first sentence of today's column that "The annual report of the Social Security system's trustees reveals a system in pretty good financial shape."

This is a shocking misrepresentation of what the trustees actually said. But it's not the only way in which Krugman's analysis of Social Security's finances is at utter variance with non-partisan expert judgment.

He asks at the end of today's column, "Why is it so hard to say clearly that privatization would worsen, not improve, Social Security's finances?" Why? Because it isn't true. Steve Goss, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration, reported late last year that the ambitious private-account proposal put forth by Peter Ferrara of the Institute for Policy Innovation, which would dedicate half an employee's payroll taxes to private accounts, would strengthen the long-term fiscal solvency of the system.

Why all the lies, and all the contradictions? Simple. For liberals, Social Security is a fortress of New Deal collectivism and paternalism that must be held fast against conservative assaults, at all costs. What liberals fear is that, through private accounts, system beneficiaries would become real stakeholders in America and captains of their own financial fates — not wards of the state, dependent on the whims of incumbent legislators to tell them what benefits they will be permitted to receive.

The truth is that private accounts would both strengthen the integrity of the system and provide increased benefits for retirees, especially low-income and minority retirees. But that's a truth you're never going to read in the opinion columns of Paul Krugman, an economics professor who certainly understands the reality of the numbers in his heart of hearts — and who professes to be the champion of the "little people."

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
Now I know why you struggle with the basic tenents of the Christian faith. You have no concept of how they work from this latest babbling post of yours. Boy you really are the dumbest cunt here aren't you?

98% of your brain doesn't function properly, but I'll get back to that in a minute.

Blah, blah, blah... More typical Warham bullshit.



Demon, I wasn't shown any pictures of demons or torture when I was raised a Christian in my youth, so I don't know who you are referring to by that. I went to good old church every Sunday and went to CCD every Monday night after school, and I was never taught to believe in Christ because otherwise I might go to Hell. And bringing up the crucifixion is really low for you, and that says alot. The crucifixion isn't the centerpiece for our faith, numbskull, the resurrection of Christ is! I don't see any torture in a resurrection of a man. You might, but I can understand why with that pea brain of yours.

Was it the resurrection of Christ that clensed your sins? Or was it the BLOOD?

In communion you eat the flesh and drink the blood? Right?

So the old saying "Christ died for our sins" is incorrect? Should it be "Christ resurrected for our sins" then?

The crucifiction is the centerpiece because God sacraficed his son. In biblical terms a sacrafice means to kill. It was the blood of Christ that clensed your sin not his raising from the dead.

So you never read John 3:16? Doesn't "perish" in that verse refer to eternity in hell?


How do you know Bush isn't a man of faith? Does that also mean I can that Bill Clinton isn't a man of faith because he got blowjobs from his intern. I mean, he said he read his bible all the time! Does that mean he's not a Christian? Does that mean that any man who might have faults (and that's every man) isn't a Christian if they say they are?

Because men of faith follow the teachings of the faith. THOU SHALT NOT KILL? GW executed a record number of people while he was Gov. of Texas. Including some with mental disibilities who did not understand. Incuding a woman who became a Christian while in prison.

THOU SHALT NOT KILL is very, very clear.

I said nothing about Clinton. He is irrelevant to this conversation. I really don't give a fuck about Clinton.

Is it that simple to be a Christain? All you gotta do is say is that you are one?


Idiot. You have alot of learning to do before you talk about Christianity around here.

Not really, but you can keep telling yourself that.

Is this what you call turning the other cheek? Loving your enemies?

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
How is President Bush responding?
To compensate for reduced benefits in the future, the president has charged his commission with exploring the “partial privatization” of Social Security. He favors diverting 2 percentage points of the payroll tax to individuals to invest as they see fit. Currently, Social Security reserves are invested only in ultrasafe government securities, which offer a very low rate of return—generally less than 3 percent. The president believes it makes more sense for people to put their own money in more profitable vehicles like the stock market, whose average rate of return since 1926 has been 7.7 percent.

What do critics say about Bush’s plans?
Opponents say that every one of the commission’s 16 members is at least somewhat predisposed to some form of privatization. They believe no real crisis will arrive until at least 2038, when the surplus will be exhausted. They also say that if the same projections used to justify the tax cut are applied to Social Security, the system will still be functioning in 2075. Many critics say that Social Security was meant to be a guaranteed base of retirement income, not an investment vehicle. Investing the money is all well and good in a bull market, but one could conceivably retire into a bear market at a heavy loss.

Warham - quit fucking stealing your answers!

What a dumb ass! You filthy plagiarist dicklicker!

He copied this shit from here:

http://www.theweekmagazine.com/briefing.asp?a_id=117

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by jacksmar
You’re so predictable demon.
You want to compare those words to "Mein Kampf". A commie lib is so easy to read.
One of the first issues Dolfie addressed in that tome was private gun ownership. That’s where I differ with all the commie libs. Dolfie, like American democrats, i.e. Rosie and FOrd, demoncunt, want private gun ownership controlled. The commie lib logic is along the lines of just the government officials should be able to carry firearms. This is because commie libs believe that government employees are superior to the governed and deserve special privileges...

What the fuck? This rant is "unabomber crazy!"

http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1996/apr/04-09-96/photos/unabomber.gif

Get a clue and an editor, bro!

You jack off to the Rush Limbaugh show, don't you?

[Warham]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Warham - quit fucking stealing your answers!

What a dumb ass! You filthy plagiarist dicklicker!

He copied this shit from here:

http://www.theweekmagazine.com/briefing.asp?a_id=117

Demon,

I think Nick knows I copied it...like I copied all the other articles I posted.

Are you an idiot or what?

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
Demon,

I think Nick knows I copied it...like I copied all the other articles I posted.

Are you an idiot or what?

Nick? Can you verify what this cockhungry plagaristic dickeater is saying?

By the way, can we just copy the first paragraph then a link? Not all of us want to read or scroll past lengthy articles from www.rightwingnews.com.

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT

Was it the resurrection of Christ that clensed your sins? Or was it the BLOOD?

In communion you eat the flesh and drink the blood? Right?

So the old saying "Christ died for our sins" is incorrect? Should it be "Christ resurrected for our sins" then?

The crucifiction is the centerpiece because God sacraficed his son. In biblical terms a sacrafice means to kill. It was the blood of Christ that clensed your sin not his raising from the dead.

So you never read John 3:16? Doesn't "perish" in that verse refer to eternity in hell?




Jesus carried the cross and its increasing weight represented the growing sins of the world. Him dying on the cross did not cleanse our sins. We are not Baptists. We do not hold that once in grace always in grace belief. What happened after rising from the dead was that Jesus ascended into Heaven and opened the gates for all those that acknowledged Him and His teachings. He was a new covenant that was established with His resurrection.

Yes, when we celebrate Eucharist, we believe we are receiving the blood and body of Jesus Christ. This doesn't have anything to do with the crucifixion but with the Last Supper. He blessed the bread and wine saying it was His body and to do this ritual in remembrance of Him. We do not do it because of the crucifixion.

Yes, Christ did die because of our sins, the entire world's, but it was with the resurrection that He gave us new life.

The crucifixion is not the centerpiece of the Catholic faith. It was that third day when Jesus rose from the dead. Why? Because that proved He was the Son of God and that he was legit. it just wasn't some crazy guy proclaiming to be God. The crucifixion is an important symbol within the Church. It is a symbol of what had to happen because of mankind and the evils in the world. But alone, it does nothing to prove the Catholic faith. The centerpiece of the religion is the Resurrection because it fulfills the Scriptural prophecies. If you do not believe in the resurrection, than you are not Catholic -- or most any other Christian religion for that matter.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
If you do not believe in the resurrection, than you are not Catholic -- or most any other Christian religion for that matter.

Indeed. :gulp:

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
Jesus carried the cross and its increasing weight represented the growing sins of the world. Him dying on the cross did not cleanse our sins. We are not Baptists. We do not hold that once in grace always in grace belief. What happened after rising from the dead was that Jesus ascended into Heaven and opened the gates for all those that acknowledged Him and His teachings. He was a new covenant that was established with His resurrection...


Thanks for your perspective. Clearly you pay attention in church.

I grew up a Grace Brethren (a little left of Baptist) later attending an Assembly of God church. Spent about 20 years practicing. Also went to a Christian school for 2.5 years until I insited that my parents send me back to public school half way through my freshman year.

I was taught pretty much what I talked about in my post, simple version, of course. I think we are finding out how the different sects interpret the stories.

Do you speak in tongues?

[FORD]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Indeed. :gulp:

Then maybe you should quit falsely proclaiming Thomas Jefferson as a Christian?

[Jesus Christ]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
Jesus carried the cross and its increasing weight represented the growing sins of the world. Him dying on the cross did not cleanse our sins. We are not Baptists. We do not hold that once in grace always in grace belief. What happened after rising from the dead was that Jesus ascended into Heaven and opened the gates for all those that acknowledged Him and His teachings. He was a new covenant that was established with His resurrection.

Yes, when we celebrate Eucharist, we believe we are receiving the blood and body of Jesus Christ. This doesn't have anything to do with the crucifixion but with the Last Supper. He blessed the bread and wine saying it was His body and to do this ritual in remembrance of Him. We do not do it because of the crucifixion.

Yes, Christ did die because of our sins, the entire world's, but it was with the resurrection that He gave us new life.

The crucifixion is not the centerpiece of the Catholic faith. It was that third day when Jesus rose from the dead. Why? Because that proved He was the Son of God and that he was legit. it just wasn't some crazy guy proclaiming to be God. The crucifixion is an important symbol within the Church. It is a symbol of what had to happen because of mankind and the evils in the world. But alone, it does nothing to prove the Catholic faith. The centerpiece of the religion is the Resurrection because it fulfills the Scriptural prophecies. If you do not believe in the resurrection, than you are not Catholic -- or most any other Christian religion for that matter.

Very well said, My child :)

Thou hast earned 5 stars from the Messiah this night.

[Warham]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Thanks for your perspective. Clearly you pay attention in church.

I grew up a Grace Brethren (a little left of Baptist) later attending an Assembly of God church. Spent about 20 years practicing. Also went to a Christian school for 2.5 years until I insited that my parents send me back to public school half way through my freshman year.

I was taught pretty much what I talked about in my post, simple version, of course. I think we are finding out how the different sects interpret the stories.

Do you speak in tongues?

That's funny that you find her post so informative when I told you the same fucking thing to which you responded with some more of your babble. If you'd actually read what I post instead of glossing it over, you might learn something.

What can I expect though?

:rolleyes:

[jacksmar]

Demon, still throwing names and comparisons. That’s the thought provoking stuff I look forward to. Usually comes from hating America. That’s what you have to do though to make yourself FEEL better. Rush doesn’t get me hard like he does you. That’s an easy one.

Commie lib must have hit home a little too closely. Nick, President Clinton is a communist sympathizer. You might re-think using him in any example.
I love the fact the Germany now belongs to the US and we there was never a Soviet Bloc or…..wait a minute. Did the US lose Germany? We took so much time to conquer Germany.

Nick you speak of rape and bogey men and Clinton and police states and don’t seem to bring up Waco much.

And you do make a good point about looking for other sources of information. I would suggest for you the first Chapter of The Gathering Storm.

To paraphrase: So 'Neocons' that have served in the military, pay their taxes, go to church, and are active in public organizations are second class citizens because they don't agree with your blind following of an idiot?

Warham covered the rest correctly. Sorry you can’t see New Deal politics for what they are.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by jacksmar
Demon, still throwing names and comparisons. That’s the thought provoking stuff I look forward to. Usually comes from hating America. That’s what you have to do though to make yourself FEEL better. Rush doesn’t get me hard like he does you. That’s an easy one.

Commie lib must have hit home a little too closely. Nick, President Clinton is a communist sympathizer. You might re-think using him in

To paraphrase: So 'Neocons' that have served in the military, pay their taxes, go to church, and are active in public organizations are second class citizens because they don't agree with your blind following of an idiot?

Warham covered the rest correctly. Sorry you can’t see New Deal politics for what they are.

Are we supposed to take you seriously with your simple minded "commie lib" crap?:rolleyes:

Clinton was hardly a communist sympathizer. Try reading the 'Communist Manifesto' some time and then tell me all about what communism is.

The Neocons have gotten us into a disastrous war in which nearly 1,300 Americans have been killed. And OUR SOLDIERS HAVE TRIED TO KILL THEM for that (i.e. Paul Wolfoshitz')

I agree with Demon Cunt, you DO jerk-off to Rush Limbaugh!

[FORD]

I stopped taking mulletboy seriously with his first post here, a few months ago. He may be more literate than Cook or AssVibe, but he's definitely just as insane as either of them.

And I stopped reading his rant in this thread the minute he called me a "commielib" gun confiscator, which I'm not or never have been.

The fascists took the guns in Germany, and it will be the fascists that do so here. And it's obvious that mulletboy has his head so filled with hatred (though against whom, exactly it's hard to tell) that there's no room there for him to rationally discover who it is that is using Hitler's playbook for his own plans.

Hint, jackoff : it ain't any "commielibs".

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by FORD
I stopped taking mulletboy seriously with his first post here, a few months ago. He may be more literate than Cook or AssVibe, but he's definitely just as insane as either of them.

And I stopped reading his rant in this thread the minute he called me a "commielib" gun confiscator, which I'm not or never have been.

The fascists took the guns in Germany, and it will be the fascists that do so here. And it's obvious that mulletboy has his head so filled with hatred (though against whom, exactly it's hard to tell) that there's no room there for him to rationally discover who it is that is using Hitler's playbook for his own plans.

Hint, jackoff : it ain't any "commielibs".

At least Assvibe is funny on occasion. Jack-me-hoffer is just plain delusional.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
That's funny that you find her post so informative when I told you the same fucking thing to which you responded with some more of your babble. If you'd actually read what I post instead of glossing it over, you might learn something.

What can I expect though?


More of the same from you, Warham. You really have nothing to say.

Which post are you talking about? Which one of your posts even comes close to articulating what Ally has written? And which website did you copy it from?

Nice language, co called Christian! Do you kiss your pastor with thtat mouth?

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Warham
Yearly Unemployment averages since:

1990 5.6
1991 6.8
1992 7.5
1993 6.9
1994 6.1
1995 5.6
1996 5.4
1997 4.9
1998 4.5
1999 4.2
2000 4.0
2001 4.7
2002 5.8
2003 6.0

Jesus is coming!

:D

My math isn't that great but that looks to me like a 50% increase since you elected Bush...

[FORD]

Bush's math is even worse. He thinks it's an improvement.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by FORD
Then maybe you should quit falsely proclaiming Thomas Jefferson as a Christian?

There are quite a few documents claiming he was. :gulp:


http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/cp-jefferson-letter/tjchristian2.gif

[jacksmar]

Ford, I know you’re concerned about my hair but it’s a lot longer and dyed jet black. You really should get your own band and stop trying to determine how I should look in mine.

Nick, President Clinton is a communist sympathizer along with Al Gore and Johnny Chung. I know when I hear a Tom Hayden shitbag speaking, I’m listening to someone that wants to justify more legislation and control over individuals. That’s the Communist Manifesto. Commie libs like to use judges, instead of legislators, when it comes to making law. Appointed judges don’t have to face election and are mostly immune. They can enact the unpopular and totalitarian agenda for the commie libs and have almost no accountability.

“In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.”

Nick, right left, centrist? Do you know where you stand from the Communist Manifesto?

By the way Ford, the antigun pukers are in for a real shock. Instead of worrying about my hair style, you really should look at what will happen now without Tom obstruct Daschle. This commie lib puker was the architect of the defeat of S. 1805. This would have put an end to politically motivated, reckless lawsuits against the firearm industry. Guess what’s coming back to the Senate floor? New bill - Cocked, Locked, and ready to rock Doc!

Go out and see what shooting a 41 Mag will do for that bad Gore-Kerry cock taste in your mouth. You might learn something about yourselves.:fucku2:

[FORD]

Go back to KKK.com, you fucking insane asshole. This ain't a hate site, and it's obvious that hate is all you know.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat


The crucifixion is not the centerpiece of the Catholic faith. It was that third day when Jesus rose from the dead. Why? Because that proved He was the Son of God and that he was legit.

Interesting use of the word proved.

I could just as easily 'prove' that Mithras was the true god.

[jacksmar]

Wow. Ford, you constantly make leaps at my expense. The KKK in was put to bed when then President Reagan went to the heart of their Indiana organization and said that we’re all Americans and we all need one and other.
I refuse to go to bed by the light of a communist moon. I guess I don’t have to hate them to understand them and what the communists did to their people in the gulags.

I hate some things Ford like a discussion of religion and politics with in-laws, police stations and cold toilet seat. But believe me, I value your opinion more than know. It either validates my opinions or makes me re-think what I might or might not know. And I’d buy your first round of drinks anywhere and anytime.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by jacksmar
Ford, I know you’re concerned about my hair but it’s a lot longer and dyed jet black. You really should get your own band and stop trying to determine how I should look in mine.

Nick, President Clinton is a communist sympathizer...

You are a clueless moron. I know where I stand because I've read the Manifesto along with many other historical documents.

Reading once in a while might help you get that Rush limbaugh cock out of your mouth and your head out of your ass.

Have you ever shot an M-16A2 tough guy? Didn't think so you pussified-macho-poser.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by jacksmar
...a discussion of religion and politics with in-laws, police stations and cold toilet seat. But believe me, I value your opinion more than know. It either validates my opinions or makes me re-think what I might or might not know. And I’d buy your first round of drinks anywhere and anytime.

Try taking Political Science 101, and maybe someday you'll be able to tell your ass from a hole in the ground politically speaking. Broaden your horizens!

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Thanks for your perspective. Clearly you pay attention in church.

I grew up a Grace Brethren (a little left of Baptist) later attending an Assembly of God church. Spent about 20 years practicing. Also went to a Christian school for 2.5 years until I insited that my parents send me back to public school half way through my freshman year.

I was taught pretty much what I talked about in my post, simple version, of course. I think we are finding out how the different sects interpret the stories.

Do you speak in tongues?

I went to a Catholic Elementary school for 10 years (pre-K, K, 1-8). Religion was a subject along with Math and all the rest. Then I went to a Lutheran high school where Theology was a required subject. Nothing too Lutherany was taught in those four years -- we went over the different books of the Bible and who wrote what, followed by ethics and Christianity, the Protestant Reformation, and World Religions. The set up was pretty similar to the Catholic high schools, so I don't think I missed out on much there.

No, I don't speak in tongues and I don't believe in it. It's more of a Protestant thing, but taking away denomination, I think it greatly distorts a part of the Bible.

The only people who "spoke in tounges" were the apostles. They were given the gift to talk to people in those peoples' own language. They needed it to help start and spread the new-found Church. This whole business of speaking gibberish and having others translate it to the group sounds exactly like what it says in the Bible that you should not be doing as far as false prophecies and adding to God's works, seeing how it's an alledged language only known by God and those special enough to have it are considered mainly to be giving direct messages from God.

I also find it hard to swallow that whole notion some of the denominations have that you are not saved and are going to hell if you don't speak in tounges especially when I always come across many references they themselves make that it is a prophetical gift. Not everyone is called to be a prophet of the Lord and to suggest that one may go to hell because they aren't is judging. That is the job of someone else higher up ;)

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Interesting use of the word proved.

I could just as easily 'prove' that Mithras was the true god.

Yeah, I know. I meant more within the realm of the faith. I didn't mean it as a demeaning explination that this faith is right and this one is wrong. I'm sorry if it came across as such.

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Jesus Christ
Very well said, My child :)

Thou hast earned 5 stars from the Messiah this night.

If you address that personal matter of mine, we can call it even ;)

Or if not, a pony for my birthday which is always overshadowed due to yours. :D

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
If you address that personal matter of mine, we can call it even ;)

Or if not, a pony for my birthday which is always overshadowed due to yours. :D

Where would you keep a pony in New York City?:confused:

[FORD]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat

The only people who "spoke in tounges" were the apostles. They were given the gift to talk to people in those peoples' own language. They needed it to help start and spread the new-found Church. This whole business of speaking gibberish and having others translate it to the group sounds exactly like what it says in the Bible that you should not be doing as far as false prophecies and adding to God's works, seeing how it's an alledged language only known by God and those special enough to have it are considered mainly to be giving direct messages from God.

I also find it hard to swallow that whole notion some of the denominations have that you are not saved and are going to hell if you don't speak in tounges especially when I always come across many references they themselves make that it is a prophetical gift. Not everyone is called to be a prophet of the Lord and to suggest that one may go to hell because they aren't is judging. That is the job of someone else higher up ;)

Speaking in tounges was a gift of the Holy Spirit. Not THE gift of the Holy Spirit, as in not the only one, but **a** gift of the Spirit, one among many described in Paul's writings.....


1 Corinthians 12

1Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.


2Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.


3Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.


4Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.


5And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.


6And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.


7But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.


8For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;


9To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;


10To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:


11But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.


12For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ

[Ally_Kat]

There's a stable down the block from me. If not, I have a big backyard. I can build a nice stable and have some room for it to walk around :D

[jacksmar]

Nick, I don’t think it was an A2 in the late 80’s. The USAF may have had a different issue. We all qualified with the M16 and later .38. I like the .38 and carry a simple 5 round with target loads. In my home is another story.

Don’t steal my lines; come up with your own Nick. The jack off to Limbaugh was pretty good but he lost any credibility with the drug thing. Fucking hypocrite. Drug users are weak and insecure. Just one too many is what I always hope for those idiots. The fix that should kill a drug user should always be the next fix.

Sorry if the facts get in the way of President Clinton. How about stealth communist?
Nick the line you took issue with is straight from the Communist Manifesto. Sorry you can’t see how the drug laden counter culture of the late 60’s and early 70’s used this verbatim for their positions.

Nick, seriously. Guys like me don’t macho pose. Only young bullet proof guys that have something to prove do that. Old guys that do that won’t be old long.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by jacksmar
Nick, I don’t think it was an A2 in the late 80’s. The USAF may have had a different issue. We all qualified with the M16 and later .38. I like the .38 and carry a simple 5 round with target loads. In my home is another story.

It was an A1 until 86', then was "improved" to fire three-round bursts instead of full-auto, which the troops reportedly hate.

Don’t steal my lines; come up with your own Nick. The jack off to Limbaugh was pretty good but he lost any credibility with the drug thing. Fucking hypocrite. Drug users are weak and insecure. Just one too many is what I always hope for those idiots. The fix that should kill a drug user should always be the next fix.

Some of the most brilliant novelists, poets, artists, and musicians used drugs. Sometimes it was gratuitous consumption, sometimes it was claimed the drugs unleashed creativity or allowed one to be closer to God. I don't know since the only illegal drug I ever used was pot (actually somebody slipped me a mickey of LSD I believe, but I can't prove it).

We are a culture of junkies that abuses caffine (ME!), alcohol, and prescription drugs. I have a harder time drawing a fine line between illegal drugs and the dependent prescription culture we have become.

Sorry if the facts get in the way of President Clinton. How about stealth communist?

What facts? The guy who helped enable NAFTA was a "stealth communist?" I highley doubt it! By the way, he's a multi-millionare from all of his speaking engagements. Sounds more like an entrepreneur to me.

Nick the line you took issue with is straight from the Communist Manifesto. Sorry you can’t see how the drug laden counter culture of the late 60’s and early 70’s used this verbatim for their positions.

Nick, seriously. Guys like me don’t macho pose. Only young bullet proof guys that have something to prove do that. Old guys that do that won’t be old long. [/b]

Now you are displaying the classic syndrome of "Monolithic Thinking," which is lumping everything you hate/love or whatever into one large amalgamation. In fact, there were many groups struggle in the sixties, and certainly not all were hippies. In fact the "New Left" of the sixties and early seventies had a sharp break with the "Old Left" (Communist Party USA) that they thought were corrupt sellouts to the Soviet Union. Most anti-war demonstrators regarded with them contempt.

Certainly some groups were communistic in the sixties, but there were plenty of right-wing fascist groups to counterbalance that as well as a Federal Government that broke laws and conducted illegal espionage activities on it's citizens.

I was even in a course on Beatnik Literature. The overall thesis of the course stated that Reagan's conservative revolution of "individualistic" philosophy was in fact a direct offshoot of the sixties counter-culture's "New Left."

The New Left was also obsessed with individual liberation, and if you read the writings of, for instance, The Students for a Democratic Society (SDS-Tom Hayden), you'll find in fact that they were in many ways vehemently opposed to a strong centralized "Federal" government and favored "Participatory Democracy," which is a very nebulous term and difficult to define. But I believe it was akin to a representational government at a collective regional level (i.e. the classic town hall meeting). By the way, there are numerous right-wing groups that have espoused the same thing.

[Warham]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
More of the same from you, Warham. You really have nothing to say.

Which post are you talking about? Which one of your posts even comes close to articulating what Ally has written? And which website did you copy it from?

Nice language, co called Christian! Do you kiss your pastor with thtat mouth?

More proof that you don't read before you post replies.

Why don't you go back and read the posts?

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by FORD
Speaking in tounges was a gift of the Holy Spirit. Not THE gift of the Holy Spirit, as in not the only one, but **a** gift of the Spirit, one among many described in Paul's writings.....

My friend is in one of those faiths I talked about and, even though she's one of those people who will give and give even when she has nothing to give, she's been told she is going to hell because God doesn't want to save her all because she can't do that gibberish thing. Her whole congregation meets up and they all start standing there while the guy leading it -- I don't know whether to call him a priest or a minister, or what -- but after everyone has enough of "communication", he tells them what secrets God has told them all. I keep telling her to fake it. If they are all being legit, the guy will notice. If it's not and a bunch of people are messing around to appear "saved", then they'll figure she's been baptized and they'll leave her be. I tell her the worst case is that they'll notice, but they already think she is destined for Satan, so what's to lose?

I'm sorry, but that whole thing seems sketchy to me. And even there, Paul says we are many members of one body. Why is it in those faiths that EVERYONE has to have this gift, or that they go to hell? I've asked and I'm told it was because of the Apostles being baptized in the Holy Spirit. Well, unless my reading comprehension is really off, after that in my NIV, they went up to random people and those people could understand what the Apostles were saying in their own native language -- not speaking some unknown tounge. Where did this gibberish version come from? It's really ranking up there with the people on tv who "heal" people for me.

Now, I will admit I don't know much outside the everyone must speak it or go to hell part. Everything I've looked up as basically summed up to that. If there's some sane side of this that isn't as visible, I'm willing to hear it out. But as of the moment, I'm pissed that a teenage girl, who has a lot of decisions to make that will help pan out who she'll be once she is grown, was told not to bother anymore cuz she's going to hell. I'm sorry, but that's seriously fucked up.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
More proof that you don't read before you post replies.

Why don't you go back and read the posts?

Because you have not written one.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by jacksmar
Demon, still throwing names and comparisons. That’s the thought provoking stuff I look forward to. Usually comes from hating America. That’s what you have to do though to make yourself FEEL better. Rush doesn’t get me hard like he does you. That’s an easy one.


You are the only one talking about hating America.

Dude, take a Paxil!

http://www.k12.de.us/laurelhs/project/McCarthy.jpg

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
My friend is in one of those faiths I talked about and, even though she's one of those people who will give and give even when she has nothing to give, she's been told she is going to hell because God doesn't want to save her all because she can't do that gibberish thing. Her whole congregation meets up and they all start standing there while the guy leading it -- I don't know whether to call him a priest or a minister, or what -- but after everyone has enough of "communication", he tells them what secrets God has told them all. I keep telling her to fake it. If they are all being legit, the guy will notice. If it's not and a bunch of people are messing around to appear "saved", then they'll figure she's been baptized and they'll leave her be. I tell her the worst case is that they'll notice, but they already think she is destined for Satan, so what's to lose?

I'm sorry, but that whole thing seems sketchy to me. And even there, Paul says we are many members of one body. Why is it in those faiths that EVERYONE has to have this gift, or that they go to hell? I've asked and I'm told it was because of the Apostles being baptized in the Holy Spirit. Well, unless my reading comprehension is really off, after that in my NIV, they went up to random people and those people could understand what the Apostles were saying in their own native language -- not speaking some unknown tounge. Where did this gibberish version come from? It's really ranking up there with the people on tv who "heal" people for me.

Now, I will admit I don't know much outside the everyone must speak it or go to hell part. Everything I've looked up as basically summed up to that. If there's some sane side of this that isn't as visible, I'm willing to hear it out. But as of the moment, I'm pissed that a teenage girl, who has a lot of decisions to make that will help pan out who she'll be once she is grown, was told not to bother anymore cuz she's going to hell. I'm sorry, but that's seriously fucked up.

Speaking in Tongues is a gift like FORD said...Gifts from the Holy Spirit are many and not everyone has every gift. I believe some people have this gift. No everyone does. Some people have the ability to discern this (interpret it) gift and others do not. Ally, it sounds as if your friend needs to get out of this church. If they are preaching that everyone either has this gift or is going to Hell, then she's being misled in my opinion...

[Seshmeister]

Holy shit(quite literally)...:)

Every day I learn more about how whacked out and disturbed even mainstream superstitions in the US are...

Speaking in tongues?

LMFAO!

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Holy shit(quite literally)...:)

Every day I learn more about how whacked out and disturbed even mainstream superstitions in the US are...

Speaking in tongues?

LMFAO!

http://medlem.spray.se/aniaras/hpbimg/exorcist.jpg