PDA

View Full Version : Pope /Musilms



Drop1
09-21-2006, 09:07 AM
I hope this gives some of the Bible thumping morons,that want the Ten Commandments in government buildings,some understanding why the founders wanted a seperation between Church,and State,to allow every person to express their beliefs,with out government intrusion. America is a work in progress,and the goal is a free and safe America. Islam is a religious form of government. And thats what many dumb Christians,in their ignorance want America to be. If these words offend you,ask yourself why.

Fran Crimi
09-21-2006, 09:22 AM
No, the threatening Muslims who want to kill the Pope over his words are the sickos here. Let's recognize that, please. This is how they are and they only proved the Pope's quotes as correct. "Hey listen up, Pope, we are NOT a violent-based religion and we're going to have to kill you for saying that."

What we stand for in this country is the ability to practice your religion without discrimination. And guess what, we don't get our heads chopped off (literally) for criticizing other religions. What the Islamic extremists stand for is that whoever doesn't bow down to them and their religion should die.

I don't remember the Pope issuing an order to kill Muslims.

There is a HUGE difference here and don't forget that.

Fran

eg8r
09-21-2006, 09:59 AM
You might want to work on your delivery a little. OK, you have an opinion (although flawed with respect to our founding fathers), being a jerk when stating it will get you no where.

eg8r

wolfdancer
09-21-2006, 10:35 AM
Hows this...I removed the descriptives.....?

I hope this gives some of the believers in the Bible ,that want the Ten Commandments in government buildings,some understanding why the founders wanted a seperation between Church,and State,to allow every person to express their beliefs,with out government intrusion. America is a work in progress,and the goal is a free and safe America. Islam is a religious form of government. And thats what many Christians, want America to be. If these words offend you,ask yourself why.
It's a valid concern for many people, the inclusion of religious doctrine into Gov't policy...
It worked fine thousands of year ago, when the rulers were thought to be descended from the Gods, and therefore their rulings were profound ....like say "God told me to start this war". Who are we( the liberals), children of a lesser God, to then argue against a Heavenly directive?

pooltchr
09-21-2006, 11:29 AM
Separation of church and state! How long will it take people to understand that isn't what our founding fathers wrote! They wanted to make sure that no one religeon became the official religeon to the exclusion of others. There is a HUGE difference.

You are old enough to remember how upset everyone in this country was when JFK (a CATHOLIC!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif) was running for office. Then there was Jimmy Carter, a southern Baptist). I dare say nearly every president we have had held some personal religeous beliefs, and those beliefs probably guided them somewhat in their moral decisions.

Should we only allow athiests to run for office to make sure nothing religeous gets close to the government???? Should Billy Graham be banned from the White House? How about the Rev. Jesse Jackson? Religeon has always had a place in government. The idea is to make sure the Government doesn't sanction any one religeon.

There are many governments in the middle east where religeon is the government. That is where the problems come from. Religeous people in the government isn't the problem. I thank God we have some!!!
Steve

wolfdancer
09-21-2006, 12:10 PM
Steve, you are missing the point a bit...imho.
I believe the founding fathers wanted people to have freedom of religion...freedom to choose their religion, and freedom not to follow any religion. AND the freedom from the party in power from imposing their religious precepts on the populace.
We've always had Christians in high office, and except for some weird "blue" laws, a strong belief in God has never been viewed as negative, or even questioned until JFK ran for the Presidency. No one is calling for Aethiesm to be the
requisite to be elected. I don't think they would be any more crooked though, then the "Christians" we have voted in.
I think Bush's veto of embryo research, was done only for his own religious beliefs, or to gain favor with some fundamentalist group.....in this instance, Religious beliefs won over humanitarian research.
Who knows...maybe he has an inquisition agenda ready, on the table, to extract the truth from these captured heathens....and save their soul in the process.

Drop1
09-21-2006, 12:31 PM
Could you please quote what our founding fathers wrote,to support your what you say. There is no Christian tradition in the Constitutional laws of the U.S.,it protects it in peoples lives of Faith. I don't think our founding fathers meant government and Christianity should be co-mingled. In short,this is not by law a Christian nation. In your post,you are 100% right. So what is the word God doing on our money? Why are we one nation under God,and why to we swear on the Bible?

Drop1
09-21-2006, 12:34 PM
What ever floats your boat.

Drop1
09-21-2006, 12:39 PM
I like your version,but couldn't you throw in "right wing Christian moron,just for me. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

wolfdancer
09-21-2006, 12:48 PM
lol

pooltchr
09-21-2006, 01:50 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> Could you please quote what our founding fathers wrote,to support your what you say. <hr /></blockquote>

My pleasure! The first ammendment in the Bill of Rights:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Seems pretty clear to me.
Steve

wolfdancer
09-21-2006, 05:50 PM
Well, not this Pope....but Pope Urban II had no such compunction
From Wikipedia:
The Crusades were a series of military campaigns waged in the name of Christendom[1] and usually sanctioned by the Pope.[2] They were of a religious character, combining pilgrimage with militarism. When originally conceptualized, the aim was to recapture Jerusalem and the Holy Land from the Muslims while supporting the Byzantine Empire against the "ghazwat" of the Seljuq [3] expansion into Anatolia. The fourth crusade however was diverted and resulted in the conquest of Constantinople. Later crusades were launched against various targets for a mixture of religious, economic, and political reasons, such as the Albigensian Crusade, the Aragonese Crusade, and the Northern Crusades.

Drop1
09-21-2006, 08:28 PM
Thank You
I love those words,they are so direct as to the intent of Congress. Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion. I assume that would limit the rights of all religions, as to their rights to display religious propagnda,in buildings having the function of a school,or court ,and the the ditribution of the "Watch Tower",or the setting up of a Christian Science reading room,would not be protected by the first ammendment,or the posting of the Ten Commandments. The Supreme Court was split on this issue.

Drop1
09-21-2006, 08:46 PM
Who can forget the gentle conquest of the Americas,and the enslavement of the indiginous people,or the words of John Adams in a letter to F.A. Van der Kamp,dated Dec. 27,1816 "But how has it happened that millions of fables,tales,legends have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made the most bloody religeon that ever existed?" Just a side observation from a founding father.

wolfdancer
09-21-2006, 09:26 PM
damn liberal...let's expunge his name from that "it's only a piece of paper" document, as GWB calls it.

pooltchr
09-22-2006, 05:31 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> Thank You
I love those words,they are so direct as to the intent of Congress. Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion. I assume that would limit the rights of all religions, as to their rights to display religious propagnda,in buildings having the function of a school,or court ,and the the ditribution of the "Watch Tower",or the setting up of a Christian Science reading room,would not be protected by the first ammendment,or the posting of the Ten Commandments. The Supreme Court was split on this issue. <hr /></blockquote>

What part of that quote says anything about limiting the rights of any religeon????? It says "Congress shall make no law..." It specifically addresses the limits of the GOVERNMENT...not any religeon. In otherwords...the government can't pass a law stating that the Baptist church is the official religeon of the country. The government has gone overboard in the other direction to the point where they will eventually not allow any reference to any religeon anywhere other than church. I believe that is going against the part about placing restrictions on the people's right to practice their religeon in any manner they see fit.

How would you feel if the country wasn't allowed to celebrate Christmas? It's comming! The politically correct crowd wants us to replace "Merry Christmas" with "Happy Holidays". Is that not limiting my right to practice my religeon? My holiday is CHRISTMAS...celebrating the birth of the Christ child.

How about Easter? It's no longer about the raising of Christ from the tomb. It's about bunnies and candy!

The Christian religeon is still what the majority of Americans believe in. But Judeism is still openly practiced and celebrated in this country. Nobody wants to stop Jews from practicing their religeon. Nobody wants to stop Muslums from practicing their religeon. And nobody is going to force an athiest to practice any religeon.

When I was in the military, every base I was on had a "non-denominational" church where EVERYONE was free to attend or not. I read recently that our tax dollars (yours and mine) are being used to build a mosk on one of our bases! The government bends over backward not to do anything that might be construed as supporting the Christians....but God forbid we offend the Muslums! Bull $hit!!!!!! I AM OFFENDED!!!! But since I am a white Christian male, it doesn't matter.
Steve

eg8r
09-22-2006, 07:40 AM
Any chance you have spent any time looking at what the founding fathers actually wanted. You could not have been more wrong.

eg8r

Deeman3
09-22-2006, 10:13 AM
The enemy of your enemy is not your friend
(Joe Scarborough)


Nothing makes you look like Secretariat more than having a jackass stand beside you. The international equivalent would be if you were a struggling politician who was followed by Hugo Chavez.

Yesterday, the crackpot South American leader called George W. Bush the devil and said the President of the United States had left a sulfur smell behind even after he departed the UN. Yesterday, Mr. Bush competed with Iranís tyrannical leader. You know, the guy with a long last name that denies the Holocaust, calls for the destruction of Israel and violates one UN resolution after another so his terror state can develop nuclear weapons.

He is, without doubt, the most dangerous man on the globe. Such statements usually make left wing intellectuals shudder, and grimly suggest that calling any leader a tyrant only coarsens international dialogue.

But regardless of how much you hate George Bush, I must warn you again that your anger over Katrina, WMDís, Joe Wilson, NSA wiretaps, yellowcake uranium, Iraq, Sam Alito and the 2000 Florida recount does not change the fact that Iran has been the epicenter of international terrorism since 1979. Theirs is a brutal theocracy that detests Western freedoms, disdains womenís rights, punishes free speech, hates our allies and sees America as their mortal enemy.

That has nothing to do with George Bush. They hated America long before Dubya gave up the strong stuff. They took our hostages when Jimmy Carter was president. They started their nuclear program when Bill Clinton was president. They will keep trying to destroy the Great Satan when Hillary Clinton is president.

Tyrants running Venezuela and Iran may hate George W. Bush as much as you do. But they hate you just as much. Itís one time when the enemy of your enemy is not your friend.

DRIVE BY CUT AND PASTE

wolfdancer
09-22-2006, 10:39 AM
Deeman, while the left is always cowering, as opposed to the brave of heart right,according to the right wing manifesto, ...at least they were smart enough to question the wisdom of further empowering Iran by weakening their hated neighbor Iraq.
What a trite statement...to accuse a group whose dogma is not in line with yours, of being cowardly just because they oppose your heroic leader, and his sham agenda, a front for his new world order...if some folks are correct about the totally flawed agenda he has undertaken.
I don't see how any intelligent person can review what he has done, what he has proposed to do, and what he has failed to do....and still rally behind him....but then as you say...if you want to look like Secretariat.......
I'd be willing to bet the farm that more right-wingers weaseled out of the last few wars that we fought, then the left.

pooltchr
09-22-2006, 10:45 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr> They will keep trying to destroy the Great Satan when Hillary Clinton is president.
<font color="red"> One more reason to vote against her!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color>

Tyrants running Venezuela and Iran may hate George W. Bush as much as you do. But they hate you just as much. Itís one time when the enemy of your enemy is not your friend.

<font color="blue"> Great point! There are too many who want us to believe that GWB is the enemy. He has not vowed to destroy this country. There are many in the world who have done exactly that. They are the enemy, and understanding that simple fact is our only chance to survive. </font color>

DRIVE BY CUT AND PASTE

<hr /></blockquote>

hondo
09-22-2006, 10:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> You might want to work on your delivery a little. OK, you have an opinion (although flawed with respect to our founding fathers), being a jerk when stating it will get you no where.

Wow!! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!?!?!

hondo
09-22-2006, 10:55 AM
Could you please state that in a nicer way?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Any chance you have spent any time looking at what the founding fathers actually wanted. You could not have been more wrong.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

hondo
09-22-2006, 10:59 AM
Chavez? Is he that idiot that's been selling cheap
heating oil to poor people in America?
The nerve of some people! Doesn't he realize he's
messing with the American way?



<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr> The enemy of your enemy is not your friend
(Joe Scarborough)


Nothing makes you look like Secretariat more than having a jackass stand beside you. The international equivalent would be if you were a struggling politician who was followed by Hugo Chavez.

Yesterday, the crackpot South American leader called George W. Bush the devil and said the President of the United States had left a sulfur smell behind even after he departed the UN. Yesterday, Mr. Bush competed with Iran&amp;#8217;s tyrannical leader. You know, the guy with a long last name that denies the Holocaust, calls for the destruction of Israel and violates one UN resolution after another so his terror state can develop nuclear weapons.

He is, without doubt, the most dangerous man on the globe. Such statements usually make left wing intellectuals shudder, and grimly suggest that calling any leader a tyrant only coarsens international dialogue.

But regardless of how much you hate George Bush, I must warn you again that your anger over Katrina, WMD&amp;#8217;s, Joe Wilson, NSA wiretaps, yellowcake uranium, Iraq, Sam Alito and the 2000 Florida recount does not change the fact that Iran has been the epicenter of international terrorism since 1979. Theirs is a brutal theocracy that detests Western freedoms, disdains women&amp;#8217;s rights, punishes free speech, hates our allies and sees America as their mortal enemy.

That has nothing to do with George Bush. They hated America long before Dubya gave up the strong stuff. They took our hostages when Jimmy Carter was president. They started their nuclear program when Bill Clinton was president. They will keep trying to destroy the Great Satan when Hillary Clinton is president.

Tyrants running Venezuela and Iran may hate George W. Bush as much as you do. But they hate you just as much. It&amp;#8217;s one time when the enemy of your enemy is not your friend.

DRIVE BY CUT AND PASTE

<hr /></blockquote>

Drop1
09-22-2006, 11:08 AM
Please enlighten me,and start with Jefferson the author of the Constitution. If you took the time you would know that he denied, Christ ever existed,the Virgin birth was a sham,and that the resurecton ever took place. You could deny that Jefferson ever existed,which would be consistent with your responses to Wolfdancer's post on GWB. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif How is the new baby?

hondo
09-22-2006, 11:17 AM
I'd be willing to bet the farm that more right-wingers weaseled out of the last few wars that we fought, then the left. <hr /></blockquote>


.................................................. ..
I think that you are absolutely right, Wolfie.
Until recent years when all the good ole boys
turned right wing because of the NRA, the po folks
always did the fighting while the rich tried to
convince them they were fighting for our freedom.
Meanwhile their kids stayed home or joined the
National Guard. ( I bet that's changed, huh?)
I grew up in a poor Democratic area. Everybody
went to Nam.

hondo
09-22-2006, 11:22 AM
Well, much as I hate to, I agree with a lot of what
you're saying.In this PC BS world we live in, the
only people you can insult without repurcussions are
white ,male Christians.


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> Thank You
I love those words,they are so direct as to the intent of Congress. Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion. I assume that would limit the rights of all religions, as to their rights to display religious propagnda,in buildings having the function of a school,or court ,and the the ditribution of the "Watch Tower",or the setting up of a Christian Science reading room,would not be protected by the first ammendment,or the posting of the Ten Commandments. The Supreme Court was split on this issue. <hr /></blockquote>

What part of that quote says anything about limiting the rights of any religeon????? It says "Congress shall make no law..." It specifically addresses the limits of the GOVERNMENT...not any religeon. In otherwords...the government can't pass a law stating that the Baptist church is the official religeon of the country. The government has gone overboard in the other direction to the point where they will eventually not allow any reference to any religeon anywhere other than church. I believe that is going against the part about placing restrictions on the people's right to practice their religeon in any manner they see fit.

How would you feel if the country wasn't allowed to celebrate Christmas? It's comming! The politically correct crowd wants us to replace "Merry Christmas" with "Happy Holidays". Is that not limiting my right to practice my religeon? My holiday is CHRISTMAS...celebrating the birth of the Christ child.

How about Easter? It's no longer about the raising of Christ from the tomb. It's about bunnies and candy!

The Christian religeon is still what the majority of Americans believe in. But Judeism is still openly practiced and celebrated in this country. Nobody wants to stop Jews from practicing their religeon. Nobody wants to stop Muslums from practicing their religeon. And nobody is going to force an athiest to practice any religeon.

When I was in the military, every base I was on had a "non-denominational" church where EVERYONE was free to attend or not. I read recently that our tax dollars (yours and mine) are being used to build a mosk on one of our bases! The government bends over backward not to do anything that might be construed as supporting the Christians....but God forbid we offend the Muslums! Bull $hit!!!!!! I AM OFFENDED!!!! But since I am a white Christian male, it doesn't matter.
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

Drop1
09-22-2006, 11:23 AM
You are wrong in saying the government does nothing to support Christianity. I would refer you to GWB's Faith Based Charities,where in the government gives millions to religious organizations,such as Catholic Charities. I think this program does violate the concept of seperation between Church and State,but I don't care,and I think GWB is on to a good idea,in expanding the idea,because it works better than government programs,and costs less.

Deeman3
09-22-2006, 11:27 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> that we fought, then the left. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> They keep telling you, "Than the left." /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color>

I don't know Wolfdancer, perhaps I should cuddle up with you alongside anyone who criticizes GWB. I know it's popular now. That's my main character flaw, not careing enough about worldwide public opinion and seeing people who are trying with all their might to kill us as somehow, unredeamable.

I know GWB is not the most charamatic persident to come down the pike in a while and that Hillary, John Kerry or a dozen others would have done it differently. I just have my right, as you have yours, to believe we are in much better hands than those who are just political panderers. As I have said, you will probably get some one who will do nothing but do the PC things driven by popularity polls soon enough. That means, to me, we have a couple of years before it starts to get really dangerous here and that gives all us, thankfully, enough time to prepare, relocate or just duck. You honestly believe (and I know you can'tr help it) that GWB awakened a sleeping giant that was otherwise not interested in the destruction of the free world, Isreal and us. Most adults do know better despite their partisan pretense that this all started with Iraq. This changes nothing on the front against terror. However, it does draw it out in the open more so we have to deal with it until the Democrats get in and sweep it under that big rug they are keeping handy. These are the very same people that really think the battle with the Muslims started on 9/11/2001. Tey also think it will end with the elections of 2008. Nope, it will just have a happy face put on it like was done for the thousands of terror attacks before 9/11.

Hillary will learn these are not carbon copies of Rodney King and can't be bought off with "I feel your pain."

I might take your bet on the weasle out of service issue but there's probably not a good manner to measure this aside from people bragging to us about how brave they are. I am not saying democrats lack courage in battle and never have. I only question their judgement, motives and problem solving skills. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif


DeeMan

wolfdancer
09-22-2006, 11:33 AM
Since the next President can not possibly undue the damage this one has caused to the country, some of the blame will be passed on to him/her. I'd hope that whoever wins is willing to sacrifice their reputation, as the cost of helping America recover from the Bush carnage.

web page (http://www.lilesnet.com/patriotic/music/KateSmithGodBlessAmerica.mp3)

hondo
09-22-2006, 11:58 AM
to me there's a difference between having the
courage to stand up to the enemy &amp; being just
plain stupid. I bet there's an awful lot of
young Democrats caught in the crossfire of that
nutty, insane , foolish, stupid, unnecessary war.
Ten years from now when we just pull out like we
did during Nixon maybe you "brave" Republicans
will come to your senses.

Deeman3
09-22-2006, 11:58 AM
Respectfully, It seems you are already setting up excuses for your candidate not having ideas nor the ability to deal with the issues. GWB, despite these wild claims, has and will not leave the country in conditions the union has not had before. Yes, some carryover will be there but some of us believe we will one day fondly look back on the Bush administration as understanding a war that it required a large percentage of our population a few more decades to realize or even begin to cope with. I know, I ended a sentence with a preposition but I was finished early. /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

DeeMan
Right of Atila

wolfdancer
09-22-2006, 12:38 PM
I'm sorry....but the next President could be a Republican. After all, if the majority of the voters, opted for Bush in the last two elections....why would they switch parties now, esp. if, as you say, GWB has made the world a better, safer place to live in.
There are so many problems on the table for the next President...it's just a shame that there is this 2 term limit, because GWB would be the go to guy...to fix things

wolfdancer
09-22-2006, 12:43 PM
White, Christian, Male....
Steve, then the Democratic Party is for you. We have long been advocates for minority groups.

Deeman3
09-22-2006, 12:52 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> I'm sorry....but the next President could be a Republican. After all, if the majority of the voters, opted for Bush in the last two elections.. <font color="blue"> I am so happy to finally hear someone admit that Bush got the majority of the votes in the last two elections that I will not challenge any other points you have made. </font color> ..why would they switch parties now, esp. if, as you say, GWB has made the world a better, safer place to live in.
There are so many problems on the table for the next President...it's just a shame that there is this 2 term limit, because GWB would be the go to guy...to fix things
<hr /></blockquote>

pooltchr
09-22-2006, 01:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> White, Christian, Male....
Steve, then the Democratic Party is for you. We have long been advocates for minority groups. <hr /></blockquote>

Thanks for the invitation, but I don't see it that way. I think the Democratic Party has been the enablers of the minority groups, and taken advantage of them to try to win elections. They have created more and bigger give-away programs that only enslave people, creating greater dependency on the government. Now before I get jumped all over for making a comment that might be considered racist, just go down to your local social services office and see who is in line. I have been there, and it's those minority groups you say you are helping that are obviously the ones who have become dependent on those programs.

If you give an alcoholic a drink, you aren't helping him. You just help him become more of a slave to alcohol. If you keep giving away tax dollars to someone, you just make it harder for them to go out and find a job. As those programs grow, they will need more tax dollars to pay for them, so they can hook more and more people.

I've been thinking about voter reform. I would love to see a bill passed that anyone who doesn't pay any taxes couldn't get a voter registration card. That would never happen because one of the two political parties would lose a significant number of their base.

Steve

wolfdancer
09-22-2006, 02:14 PM
"But regardless of how much you hate George Bush, I must warn you again that your anger over Katrina, WMDís, Joe Wilson, NSA wiretaps, yellowcake uranium, Iraq, Sam Alito and the 2000 Florida recount does not change the fact that Iran has been the epicenter of international terrorism since 1979. Theirs is a brutal theocracy that detests Western freedoms, disdains womenís rights, punishes free speech, hates our allies and sees America as their mortal enemy.

That has nothing to do with George Bush. They hated America long before Dubya gave up the strong stuff. They took our hostages when Jimmy Carter was president. They started their nuclear program when Bill Clinton was president. They will keep trying to destroy the Great Satan when Hillary Clinton is president."
----------------
Dee, I hate to bust your bubble, but most Americans, and therefore most Democrats, have been aware of Iran, at least since the Shah was overthrown and the Ayatollah came into power around 1979, and expressed a hatred for the U.S.
That didn't seem to stop then President Reagan and his VP George Bush from violating the mandate of congress, and selling arms to Iran...around 1983-85...uh, breaking the law, by the way.
If any party was not awawe of the threat of Iran....it's the Republicans,,, that have played musical chairs in the arms dep't...alternately supplying Iraq...t-h-e-n Iran.
web page (http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/history/A0825447.html)
And the republicans go back even further in their dealings involving Iran:
"Coup plans which had stalled under Truman were immediately revived by an eager intelligence corps, with powerful aid from the brothers John Foster Dulles (Secretary of State) and Allen Welsh Dulles (CIA director), after Eisenhower's inauguration in 1953."...just google Shah of Iran
Sorry, I took so long with this reply....my smoke alarm went off...and I gathered my computers, porn collection, yelled woman and children first ( before realizing I was alone) and abandoned ship, so to speak.
turns out the battery needed replacing, even though it is hard-wired??
I've spent the last hour or so trying to plug blue wires into green slots...(I'm color blind)
But, to allay your fears, in case Hillary gets in....the left is aware that the right has armed Iran....and that they hate us for both past involvements, and conflicting religious beliefs

Deeman3
09-22-2006, 02:24 PM
But, to allay your fears, in case Hillary gets in....the left is aware that the right has armed Iran....and that they hate us for both past involvements, and conflicting religious beliefs

<font color="blue"> Indeed, America has armed the Iranians in the past, but if you believe we will be facing 27 year old M16's and Abram Tanks, you may have miss the Iranian Parades that contained only Chinese AK-47's and Russian Tanks. Anyway, I do have faith Hillary will handle it with Democratic flare.</font color>

DeeMan

nAz
09-22-2006, 02:39 PM
wonder what the world would really be like if Iran got it's hands on a few nukes?

Anyways fu@k all the Muslim, Christian and Jewish fanatics... I just want my MTV

Deeman3
09-22-2006, 02:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr> wonder what the world would really be like if Iran got it's hands on a few nukes? <font color="blue"> Probably a hair less responsible than the idiots that have them now (yes, us included) They would, no doubt, nuke Israel and Israel would retallitate. My money would be on the guys who have had them for many years. </font color>

Anyways fu@k all the Muslim, Christian and Jewish fanatics... I just want my MTV <font color="blue"> I agree, fanatics, no matter their persuasion are a problem. I just want you to have your MTV and me to nail that little actress that was married to Billy Bob Thorton a while back...At least your wish will come true but you know how us right wingers can fool ourselves.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif</font color>

DeeMan
<hr /></blockquote>

Qtec
09-24-2006, 08:09 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Probably a hair less responsible than the idiots that have them now (yes, us included) They would, no doubt, nuke Israel and Israel would retallitate. My money would be on the guys who have had them for many years.
<hr /></blockquote>

So if Iran was always going to lose, why would they attack?
Would a nuclear strike on Israel not trigger a response from the US?
Wouldn't a nuke strike on Israel kill Palestinians also? Reduce the Temple Mount in Jesusalem to glass?



Q

Deeman3
09-25-2006, 05:57 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Probably a hair less responsible than the idiots that have them now (yes, us included) They would, no doubt, nuke Israel and Israel would retallitate. My money would be on the guys who have had them for many years.
<hr /></blockquote>

So if Iran was always going to lose, why would they attack?
Would a nuclear strike on Israel not trigger a response from the US?
Wouldn't a nuke strike on Israel kill Palestinians also? Reduce the Temple Mount in Jesusalem to glass? <font color="blue">
Yes, but a deterrent such as mutual destruction does not seem to make a difference to the Islamic Terrorists. They would love to see a few bombs from both sides. They can't get the 72 virgins en mass without a lot of death can they? </font color>

DeeMan



Q <hr /></blockquote>

Chopstick
09-25-2006, 06:01 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr>

You know, the guy with a long last name that denies the Holocaust, calls for the destruction of Israel and violates one UN resolution after another so his terror state can develop nuclear weapons.

<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">and one of the hostage takers at the American Embassy in Iran. </font color>

Chopstick
09-25-2006, 06:18 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>

So if Iran was always going to lose, why would they attack?
<font color="blue">They do not believe that they will lose. They believe that the entire Muslim population will rise up and come to their aid. </font color>

Would a nuclear strike on Israel not trigger a response from the US?
<font color="blue">Not from a liberal president.</font color>

Wouldn't a nuke strike on Israel kill Palestinians also?
<font color="blue">They don't care. Every other war they started with Israel killed Palestinians. They are giving them the privilege of being martyrs. </font color>

Reduce the Temple Mount in Jesusalem to glass?
<font color="blue">Tel Aviv. </font color>

Q <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">We are going to see a mushroom cloud in our lifetime. One way or another. What do you propose we do when it happens?</font color>

eg8r
09-25-2006, 07:50 AM
The new baby is doing great. Just sitting around eating, sleeping and messing up the diapers. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
09-25-2006, 07:53 AM
Nope, but at least I did not call you a moron. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

eg8r

nAz
09-25-2006, 07:54 AM
ahh just like a baby republican. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

so you getting any sleep?

eg8r
09-25-2006, 07:58 AM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif I am sleeping about half the night. Actually we have a decent schedule worked out. I will stay up till the feeding around 12 - 1. Then she takes over after that. This way I can sleep a little before I run in to work. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif The baby is going around 3.5 to 4 hours in between feeding so you can get some rest in there. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
09-25-2006, 08:01 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't a nuke strike on Israel kill Palestinians also? <hr /></blockquote> We know you are not serious about this question. Palestinians don't mind killing themselves so if the US or Israel killed them it would not matter any differently. At least then they could rot in hell with the word martyr on their head. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

eg8r

Qtec
09-25-2006, 06:22 PM
hypothetical situation.

You are the President and a right-wing Ayrian Christian terrorist group asks you for an atomic bomb. They say they will smuggle it into Iran and blow-away their top nuclear facility.
Would you give them that weapon?

There are maybe 10,000 fanatical Islamic Jihad terrorists out of 1 billion Muslims and you class them all as the same!
They are completely different from the Palestinian suicide bombers.
The Taliban wanted an Afganhistan ruled by Islamic Law. They succeded but for OBL this wasn't enough. He wanted ALL western influence removed from the whole ME!
Iran is a whole different case. They see a threat from the US and rightly so. Didn't GW call them an EVIL country? When GW got into office Iran had a moderate PM, not the syncophant of the Religious right they have now.
Instead of supporting this moderate, they snubbed him, which gave the chance for the present PM to get into power. Bad mistake.

Q .

Deeman3
09-26-2006, 05:27 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> hypothetical situation.

You are the President and a right-wing Ayrian Christian terrorist group asks you for an atomic bomb. They say they will smuggle it into Iran and blow-away their top nuclear facility.
Would you give them that weapon? <font color="blue"> No. </font color>

There are maybe 10,000 fanatical Islamic Jihad terrorists out of 1 billion Muslims and you class them all as the same! <font color="blue"> The figures most Muslims experts quote is 15% of the Muslims are radical fundamentalists. That's more like 150 million worldwide. </font color>
They are completely different from the Palestinian suicide bombers.
The Taliban wanted an Afganhistan ruled by Islamic Law. They succeded but for OBL this wasn't enough. He wanted ALL western influence removed from the whole ME!
Iran is a whole different case. They see a threat from the US and rightly so. Didn't GW call them an EVIL country? When GW got into office Iran had a moderate PM, not the syncophant of the Religious right they have now.
Instead of supporting this moderate, they snubbed him, which gave the chance for the present PM to get into power. Bad mistake. <font color="blue"> Agreed. I think the mistake was treating them like an Arab state instead of recognising them for what they are. Now they have grown closer to the Arabs.</font color>

DeeMan

Q . <hr /></blockquote>