The real 'reason for the season'....
SANTA SATAN
by Mr. Normal
(Xmas Eve, 2000)
Is it plausible that Santa is really Satan?"
Think about it, folks! It's not just that "Santa" is an obvious
anagram of Satan; that Santa wears a demonic red suit symbolic of the
fires of Hell; and that his huge hat must conceal horns. The clincher
is that Santa represents xmas, that time of year when christian greed
and phony sincerity reach their unctuous peak. It's the season when
braindead followers of the ultimate cult are whipped into frenzies that
leave them figuratively drained -- broke and exhausted.
Understandably, it's also the time of the year when depression and
suicides max out as the futility of achieving happiness sinks in at
least subliminally. A December, 2000 Gallup poll shows that 85% of us
think that xmas is too commercial, but Santa/Satan wouldn't have it any
other way! Our most respected institutions are in on the plot too.
Even the law of the land (U.S.A.) forbids a baby Jesus in the town
square, but who's there instead? You
guessed it! Santa! - Satan.
Lucifer/Satan once was one of God's angels. Satan's attempted
heavenly coup failed (Isa. 14:12-15), but he was given his very own
place to rule and called it Hell/Earth (Rev. 12:9) Satan also got free
reign to tempt as many people as he wanted (even Christ himself!) and
lots of fabulous stuff to tempt them with (like eternal youth and
Mercedes Benzes). However, Satan still was not satisfied. He worked
hard to make xmas the most important retail event of the year. A
recent survey showed that 60% of holiday spending occurs at xmas, and
another 20% at Satan's recognized holiday of Halloween. Think about
it, folks! Satan has locked up 80% of our holiday dollars! Who else
could be the "red dragon" of Revelation 12:3, ?. More important is
that asking Santa for something really is an unwitting pact with the
Devil, and parents are dooming their children's souls to Hell-Fire!
(Coming to your neighbourhood; soon - JAH.)
"Santa Satan's" devilish temptations have achieved what John Lennon
could only try to claim for the Beatles -- greater popularity than
Jesus! Indeed, "Santa Satan" truly is the reason for the season!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To read the whole article, and the whole truth about Christ-mas, please
visit http://www.truth.fi/xmas.htm
Long live the fighters for Good & Truth.
Freeman
.
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
25 Dec 2006 01:26:31 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 02:46:45 -0600, Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Sorry, the bible isn't an authoritative source, either of
history or morality. You bible thumpers have been misled.
Try looking to the life of Jesus for your guidance.
Then explain to me, in general terms, what you meant by Jesus "hating"
people who stuck dogmatically to tradition.
If you spent less time memorizing chapters and verses and more
time thinking about what Jesus actually did in his adult ministry,
you wouldn't have said something like that. Jesus' life and ministry
is well known even to school children.
I actually do know the
Bible chapter and verse you're thinking of, but I'm sure you have no
idea what you're talking about.
I'd say you've already proved my point for me. All you can
do is boast about knowing some chapter and verse, but you
don't appear to know much about the subject material.
Explain something for me Stephen. Why is the fundamentalist
christian right wing so consumed about saving their own
sorry-***** lives that they promote unilateral invasion of
a country that didn't even attack us ?
Are you guys really that concerned about your own lives ?
You talk all the time about gang members who might kill
you in south LA. You're obsessed with saving your own sorry
life. It's really pathetic Stephen.
Is it that fundie Christians are concerned about preserving their lives,
or have they, instead, gotten so carried away with fault finding in others
(to avoid self-scrutiny) that they have magnified everything and everyone
else's faults in their minds? I tend to think the latter.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
25 Dec 2006 02:00:39 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, Woodswun
<woodswun@tepidmail.com> Spat the Words
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 02:46:45 -0600, Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Sorry, the bible isn't an authoritative source, either of
history or morality. You bible thumpers have been misled.
Try looking to the life of Jesus for your guidance.
Then explain to me, in general terms, what you meant by Jesus "hating"
people who stuck dogmatically to tradition.
If you spent less time memorizing chapters and verses and more
time thinking about what Jesus actually did in his adult ministry,
you wouldn't have said something like that. Jesus' life and ministry
is well known even to school children.
I actually do know the
Bible chapter and verse you're thinking of, but I'm sure you have no
idea what you're talking about.
I'd say you've already proved my point for me. All you can
do is boast about knowing some chapter and verse, but you
don't appear to know much about the subject material.
Explain something for me Stephen. Why is the fundamentalist
christian right wing so consumed about saving their own
sorry-***** lives that they promote unilateral invasion of
a country that didn't even attack us ?
Are you guys really that concerned about your own lives ?
You talk all the time about gang members who might kill
you in south LA. You're obsessed with saving your own sorry
life. It's really pathetic Stephen.
Is it that fundie Christians are concerned about preserving their lives,
or have they, instead, gotten so carried away with fault finding in
others
(to avoid self-scrutiny) that they have magnified everything and
everyone
else's faults in their minds? I tend to think the latter.
Woods
Indeed. Many of the fundamentalists have turned their personal
relationship with a creator into a social event and they're
tripping all over themselves trying to compete with one another.
My interpretation of what Jesus said is pretty simple... give
until it hurts, and when you have nothing left, give some more.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
25 Dec 2006 03:11:54 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, Woodswun
<woodswun@tepidmail.com> Spat the Words
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 02:46:45 -0600, Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Sorry, the bible isn't an authoritative source, either of
history or morality. You bible thumpers have been misled.
Try looking to the life of Jesus for your guidance.
Then explain to me, in general terms, what you meant by Jesus "hating"
people who stuck dogmatically to tradition.
If you spent less time memorizing chapters and verses and more
time thinking about what Jesus actually did in his adult ministry,
you wouldn't have said something like that. Jesus' life and ministry
is well known even to school children.
I actually do know the
Bible chapter and verse you're thinking of, but I'm sure you have no
idea what you're talking about.
I'd say you've already proved my point for me. All you can
do is boast about knowing some chapter and verse, but you
don't appear to know much about the subject material.
Explain something for me Stephen. Why is the fundamentalist
christian right wing so consumed about saving their own
sorry-***** lives that they promote unilateral invasion of
a country that didn't even attack us ?
Are you guys really that concerned about your own lives ?
You talk all the time about gang members who might kill
you in south LA. You're obsessed with saving your own sorry
life. It's really pathetic Stephen.
Is it that fundie Christians are concerned about preserving their lives,
or have they, instead, gotten so carried away with fault finding in
others
(to avoid self-scrutiny) that they have magnified everything and
everyone
else's faults in their minds? I tend to think the latter.
Woods
Indeed. Many of the fundamentalists have turned their personal
relationship with a creator into a social event and they're
tripping all over themselves trying to compete with one another.
So Woods is saying they find fault in others to avoid self-scrutiny --
I wonder, Randolph, is that what you're doing in this post?
My interpretation of what Jesus said is pretty simple... give
until it hurts, and when you have nothing left, give some more.
Is that what you do? Do you follow the belief you're expressed just
above?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
26 Dec 2006 01:53:56 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
My interpretation of what Jesus said is pretty simple... give
until it hurts, and when you have nothing left, give some more.
Is that what you do? Do you follow the belief you're expressed just
above?
You need to get back in school Stephen, because you really don't
know how to argue very well. Discussion with you always turns into
an exercise in denigration.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
26 Dec 2006 11:33:50 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
My interpretation of what Jesus said is pretty simple... give
until it hurts, and when you have nothing left, give some more.
Is that what you do? Do you follow the belief you're expressed just
above?
You need to get back in school Stephen, because you really don't
know how to argue very well. Discussion with you always turns into
an exercise in denigration.
Look in the mirror, change "Stephen" to "Randolph" and repeat those
words to yourself.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
25 Dec 2006 03:09:16 PM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 02:46:45 -0600, Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Sorry, the bible isn't an authoritative source, either of
history or morality. You bible thumpers have been misled.
Try looking to the life of Jesus for your guidance.
Then explain to me, in general terms, what you meant by Jesus "hating"
people who stuck dogmatically to tradition.
If you spent less time memorizing chapters and verses and more
time thinking about what Jesus actually did in his adult ministry,
you wouldn't have said something like that. Jesus' life and ministry
is well known even to school children.
I actually do know the
Bible chapter and verse you're thinking of, but I'm sure you have no
idea what you're talking about.
I'd say you've already proved my point for me. All you can
do is boast about knowing some chapter and verse, but you
don't appear to know much about the subject material.
Explain something for me Stephen. Why is the fundamentalist
christian right wing so consumed about saving their own
sorry-***** lives that they promote unilateral invasion of
a country that didn't even attack us ?
Are you guys really that concerned about your own lives ?
You talk all the time about gang members who might kill
you in south LA. You're obsessed with saving your own sorry
life. It's really pathetic Stephen.
Is it that fundie Christians are concerned about preserving their lives,
or have they, instead, gotten so carried away with fault finding in others
(to avoid self-scrutiny) that they have magnified everything and everyone
else's faults in their minds? I tend to think the latter.
Are you defending the gang thugs I was referring to in South Los
Angeles? Just curious, that's all. Merry Christmas to you, Woods.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
25 Dec 2006 03:06:12 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Sorry, the bible isn't an authoritative source, either of
history or morality. You bible thumpers have been misled.
Try looking to the life of Jesus for your guidance.
Then explain to me, in general terms, what you meant by Jesus "hating"
people who stuck dogmatically to tradition.
If you spent less time memorizing chapters and verses and more
time thinking about what Jesus actually did in his adult ministry,
you wouldn't have said something like that.
Since you are telling me I've got it all wrong, I'm asking for your
interpretation of what Jesus did in his adult ministry that I should
pay more attention to.
Jesus' life and ministry is well known even to school children.
Then you should be able to tell me why Jesus *hated* people who
dogmatically followed tradition. Please, instruct me.
I actually do know the
Bible chapter and verse you're thinking of, but I'm sure you have no
idea what you're talking about.
I'd say you've already proved my point for me. All you can
do is boast about knowing some chapter and verse, but you
don't appear to know much about the subject material.
Then why don't you explain it to me? Please.
Explain something for me Stephen. Why is the fundamentalist
christian right wing so consumed about saving their own
sorry-***** lives
Are you thinking of these fundamentalist Christian right-wingers?
Senators Max Baucus (D-MT), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Joe Biden (D-DE), John
Breaux (D-LA), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Jean Carnahan (D-MO), Tom Carper
(D-DE), Max Cleland (D-GA), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Tom Daschle (D-SD),
Christopher Dodd (D-CT), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), John Edwards (D-NC),
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Fritz Hollings (D-SC), Tim
Johnson(D-SD), John Kerry (D-MA), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Mary Landrieu
(D-LA), Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Zell Miller
(D-GA), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Harry Reid (D-NV), Jay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Robert Torricelli (D-NJ), and
Congressmen Ackerman, Andrews, Barcia, Bentsen, Berkley, Berman, Berry,
Bishop, Blagojevich, Borski, Boswell, Boucher, Boyd, Carson, Clement,
Cramer, Crowley, Davis, Deutsch, Dicks, Dooley, Edwards, Engel,
Etheridge, Ford, Frost, Gephardt, Gordon, Green, Hall, Harman, Hill,
Hoeffel, Holden, Hoyer, Israel, Jefferson, John, Kanjorski, Kennedy,
Kind, Lampson, Lantos, Lowey, Lucas, Luther, Lynch, Maloney, Markey,
Mascara, Matheson, McCarthy, McIntyre, McNulty, Meehan, Moore, Murtha,
Pascrell, Peterson, Phelps, Pomeroy, Roemer, Ross, Rothman, Sandlin,
Schiff, Sherman, Shows, Skelton, Smith, Spratt, Stenholm, Tanner,
Tauscher, Taylor, Thurman, Turner, Waxman, Weiner, and Wexler. Those
fundamentalist Christian right-wingers?
that they promote unilateral invasion of a country that didn't
even attack us ?
Did you ever answer my question concerning whether or not you supported
President Clinton's bombing of Belgrade? Answer my question, and I'll
answer yours.
Are you guys really that concerned about your own lives ?
Jay Rockefeller said we couldn't afford to wait for further evidence of
Iraq's WMD, because to wait might put his fellow Americans in danger.
John Edwards said Iraq was an imminent threat. Hillary Clinton said
Iraq had not only rebuilt its WMD capability in the four years since
inspectors left (between 1998 and 2002), but that they had given aid
and sanctuary to Al Qaeda members. Here's the point: it is the
responsibility of our leaders to protect our society. If they didn't,
they'd be negligent -- wouldn't they? And it all goes back to Saddam
Hussein FAILING to cooperate with the inspectors. He behaved as if he
had something to hide, and that led to his downfall.
You talk all the time about gang members who might kill
you in south LA. You're obsessed with saving your own sorry
life. It's really pathetic Stephen.
Something that is obviously lost on you is that every one of my posts
on that topic mentioned the people WHO LIVE THERE being the victims of
the gang thugs. Did that point somehow slip past your superior
intellect? What you don't seem to get is that I'm a proponent of
VICTIMS of criminal thugs, while you seem to forget all about those
victims and focus your sympathy with the thugs. That's what you've been
doing with the terrorist thugs in Iraq. You've expressed plenty of
sympathy for them, yet you seem to have forgotten all about the victims
of their terrorism.That's a major difference in our outlook on the
world, Randolph. Merry Christmas to you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
25 Dec 2006 07:49:41 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Sorry, the bible isn't an authoritative source, either of
history or morality. You bible thumpers have been misled.
Try looking to the life of Jesus for your guidance.
Then explain to me, in general terms, what you meant by Jesus
"hating"
people who stuck dogmatically to tradition.
If you spent less time memorizing chapters and verses and more
time thinking about what Jesus actually did in his adult ministry,
you wouldn't have said something like that.
Since you are telling me I've got it all wrong, I'm asking for your
interpretation of what Jesus did in his adult ministry that I should
pay more attention to.
Jesus' life and ministry is well known even to school children.
Then you should be able to tell me why Jesus *hated* people who
dogmatically followed tradition. Please, instruct me.
I already did. I instructed you to pay more attention to Jesus'
life and less attention to the interpretations and already second-hand
information of his apostles and the book which they were laid out in.
You don't remember this ? It wasn't more than 1 post ago that I said
this.
I actually do know the
Bible chapter and verse you're thinking of, but I'm sure you have no
idea what you're talking about.
I'd say you've already proved my point for me. All you can
do is boast about knowing some chapter and verse, but you
don't appear to know much about the subject material.
Then why don't you explain it to me? Please.
Explain something for me Stephen. Why is the fundamentalist
christian right wing so consumed about saving their own
sorry-***** lives
Are you thinking of these fundamentalist Christian right-wingers?
Senators Max Baucus (D-MT), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Joe Biden (D-DE), John
Breaux (D-LA), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Jean Carnahan (D-MO), Tom Carper
(D-DE), Max Cleland (D-GA), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Tom Daschle (D-SD),
Christopher Dodd (D-CT), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), John Edwards (D-NC),
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Fritz Hollings (D-SC), Tim
Johnson(D-SD), John Kerry (D-MA), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Mary Landrieu
(D-LA), Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Zell Miller
(D-GA), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Harry Reid (D-NV), Jay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Robert Torricelli (D-NJ), and
Congressmen Ackerman, Andrews, Barcia, Bentsen, Berkley, Berman, Berry,
Bishop, Blagojevich, Borski, Boswell, Boucher, Boyd, Carson, Clement,
Cramer, Crowley, Davis, Deutsch, Dicks, Dooley, Edwards, Engel,
Etheridge, Ford, Frost, Gephardt, Gordon, Green, Hall, Harman, Hill,
Hoeffel, Holden, Hoyer, Israel, Jefferson, John, Kanjorski, Kennedy,
Kind, Lampson, Lantos, Lowey, Lucas, Luther, Lynch, Maloney, Markey,
Mascara, Matheson, McCarthy, McIntyre, McNulty, Meehan, Moore, Murtha,
Pascrell, Peterson, Phelps, Pomeroy, Roemer, Ross, Rothman, Sandlin,
Schiff, Sherman, Shows, Skelton, Smith, Spratt, Stenholm, Tanner,
Tauscher, Taylor, Thurman, Turner, Waxman, Weiner, and Wexler. Those
fundamentalist Christian right-wingers?
Most of Congress has since come to their senses and realized
they were hood-winked, that Iraq is a dead-end situation, but
Bush has not yet come to his senses and neither have you.
What gives ?
that they promote unilateral invasion of a country that didn't
even attack us ?
Did you ever answer my question concerning whether or not you supported
President Clinton's bombing of Belgrade? Answer my question, and I'll
answer yours.
Are you guys really that concerned about your own lives ?
Jay Rockefeller said we couldn't afford to wait for further evidence of
Iraq's WMD, because to wait might put his fellow Americans in danger.
John Edwards said Iraq was an imminent threat. Hillary Clinton said
Iraq had not only rebuilt its WMD capability in the four years since
inspectors left (between 1998 and 2002), but that they had given aid
and sanctuary to Al Qaeda members. Here's the point: it is the
responsibility of our leaders to protect our society. If they didn't,
they'd be negligent -- wouldn't they? And it all goes back to Saddam
Hussein FAILING to cooperate with the inspectors. He behaved as if he
had something to hide, and that led to his downfall.
Ok, so 'going forward', all those guys are saying Iraq is
a quagmire. Bush himself recently said we're not losing, but
we're not winning... the very definition of quagmire. Why
do you still support staying in Iraq ?
You talk all the time about gang members who might kill
you in south LA. You're obsessed with saving your own sorry
life. It's really pathetic Stephen.
Something that is obviously lost on you is that every one of my posts
on that topic mentioned the people WHO LIVE THERE being the victims of
the gang thugs. Did that point somehow slip past your superior
intellect? What you don't seem to get is that I'm a proponent of
VICTIMS of criminal thugs, while you seem to forget all about those
victims and focus your sympathy with the thugs. That's what you've been
doing with the terrorist thugs in Iraq. You've expressed plenty of
sympathy for them, yet you seem to have forgotten all about the victims
of their terrorism.That's a major difference in our outlook on the
world, Randolph. Merry Christmas to you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
25 Dec 2006 11:14:44 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Sorry, the bible isn't an authoritative source, either of
history or morality. You bible thumpers have been misled.
Try looking to the life of Jesus for your guidance.
Then explain to me, in general terms, what you meant by Jesus
"hating" people who stuck dogmatically to tradition.
If you spent less time memorizing chapters and verses and more
time thinking about what Jesus actually did in his adult ministry,
you wouldn't have said something like that.
Since you are telling me I've got it all wrong, I'm asking for your
interpretation of what Jesus did in his adult ministry that I should
pay more attention to.
Jesus' life and ministry is well known even to school children.
Then you should be able to tell me why Jesus *hated* people who
dogmatically followed tradition. Please, instruct me.
I already did. I instructed you to pay more attention to Jesus'
life and less attention to the interpretations and already second-hand
information of his apostles and the book which they were laid out in.
There are plenty of quotations from Jesus in that book. I'm not sure
why you're having such difficulty explaining to me why you believe
Jesus "hated" people who stuck dogmatically to tradition. Isn't there a
quote from Jesus somewhere that you can give to back up your claim? Or
are you just going to continue to play this silly game you're playing?
I actually do know the
Bible chapter and verse you're thinking of, but I'm sure you have no
idea what you're talking about.
I'd say you've already proved my point for me. All you can
do is boast about knowing some chapter and verse, but you
don't appear to know much about the subject material.
Then why don't you explain it to me? Please.
Explain something for me Stephen. Why is the fundamentalist
christian right wing so consumed about saving their own
sorry-***** lives
Are you thinking of these fundamentalist Christian right-wingers?
Senators Max Baucus (D-MT), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Joe Biden (D-DE), John
Breaux (D-LA), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Jean Carnahan (D-MO), Tom Carper
(D-DE), Max Cleland (D-GA), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Tom Daschle (D-SD),
Christopher Dodd (D-CT), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), John Edwards (D-NC),
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Fritz Hollings (D-SC), Tim
Johnson(D-SD), John Kerry (D-MA), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Mary Landrieu
(D-LA), Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Zell Miller
(D-GA), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Harry Reid (D-NV), Jay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Robert Torricelli (D-NJ), and
Congressmen Ackerman, Andrews, Barcia, Bentsen, Berkley, Berman, Berry,
Bishop, Blagojevich, Borski, Boswell, Boucher, Boyd, Carson, Clement,
Cramer, Crowley, Davis, Deutsch, Dicks, Dooley, Edwards, Engel,
Etheridge, Ford, Frost, Gephardt, Gordon, Green, Hall, Harman, Hill,
Hoeffel, Holden, Hoyer, Israel, Jefferson, John, Kanjorski, Kennedy,
Kind, Lampson, Lantos, Lowey, Lucas, Luther, Lynch, Maloney, Markey,
Mascara, Matheson, McCarthy, McIntyre, McNulty, Meehan, Moore, Murtha,
Pascrell, Peterson, Phelps, Pomeroy, Roemer, Ross, Rothman, Sandlin,
Schiff, Sherman, Shows, Skelton, Smith, Spratt, Stenholm, Tanner,
Tauscher, Taylor, Thurman, Turner, Waxman, Weiner, and Wexler. Those
fundamentalist Christian right-wingers?
Most of Congress has since come to their senses and realized
they were hood-winked, that Iraq is a dead-end situation, but
Bush has not yet come to his senses and neither have you.
What gives ?
If most of Congress believes that, why haven't they voted to shut down
funding for the war?
that they promote unilateral invasion of a country that didn't
even attack us ?
Did you ever answer my question concerning whether or not you supported
President Clinton's bombing of Belgrade? Answer my question, and I'll
answer yours.
Are you guys really that concerned about your own lives ?
Jay Rockefeller said we couldn't afford to wait for further evidence of
Iraq's WMD, because to wait might put his fellow Americans in danger.
John Edwards said Iraq was an imminent threat. Hillary Clinton said
Iraq had not only rebuilt its WMD capability in the four years since
inspectors left (between 1998 and 2002), but that they had given aid
and sanctuary to Al Qaeda members. Here's the point: it is the
responsibility of our leaders to protect our society. If they didn't,
they'd be negligent -- wouldn't they? And it all goes back to Saddam
Hussein FAILING to cooperate with the inspectors. He behaved as if he
had something to hide, and that led to his downfall.
Ok, so 'going forward', all those guys are saying Iraq is
a quagmire. Bush himself recently said we're not losing, but
we're not winning... the very definition of quagmire. Why
do you still support staying in Iraq ?
Because, unlike you, I support the democratically elected government of
Iraq. They don't want us to leave just yet, in case you haven't heard.
But you don't really care about the Iraqi people, do you? You've
already made your case that you support the terrorists. And cutting and
running before the Iraqi government is ready to take over security
would be handing the terrorists a victory. While that may be what
you're hoping for, I can't support that.
You talk all the time about gang members who might kill
you in south LA. You're obsessed with saving your own sorry
life. It's really pathetic Stephen.
Something that is obviously lost on you is that every one of my posts
on that topic mentioned the people WHO LIVE THERE being the victims of
the gang thugs. Did that point somehow slip past your superior
intellect? What you don't seem to get is that I'm a proponent of
VICTIMS of criminal thugs, while you seem to forget all about those
victims and focus your sympathy with the thugs. That's what you've been
doing with the terrorist thugs in Iraq. You've expressed plenty of
sympathy for them, yet you seem to have forgotten all about the victims
of their terrorism.That's a major difference in our outlook on the
world, Randolph. Merry Christmas to you.
<crickets>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
26 Dec 2006 03:40:17 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Sorry, the bible isn't an authoritative source, either of
history or morality. You bible thumpers have been misled.
Try looking to the life of Jesus for your guidance.
Then explain to me, in general terms, what you meant by Jesus
"hating" people who stuck dogmatically to tradition.
If you spent less time memorizing chapters and verses and more
time thinking about what Jesus actually did in his adult ministry,
you wouldn't have said something like that.
Since you are telling me I've got it all wrong, I'm asking for your
interpretation of what Jesus did in his adult ministry that I should
pay more attention to.
Jesus' life and ministry is well known even to school children.
Then you should be able to tell me why Jesus *hated* people who
dogmatically followed tradition. Please, instruct me.
I already did. I instructed you to pay more attention to Jesus'
life and less attention to the interpretations and already second-hand
information of his apostles and the book which they were laid out in.
There are plenty of quotations from Jesus in that book.
You spend so much time memorizing bible quotes that you don't
know what Christ actually said.
I'm not sure
why you're having such difficulty explaining to me why you believe
Jesus "hated" people who stuck dogmatically to tradition. Isn't there a
quote from Jesus somewhere that you can give to back up your claim? Or
are you just going to continue to play this silly game you're playing?
I actually do know the
Bible chapter and verse you're thinking of, but I'm sure you have
no
idea what you're talking about.
I'd say you've already proved my point for me. All you can
do is boast about knowing some chapter and verse, but you
don't appear to know much about the subject material.
Then why don't you explain it to me? Please.
Explain something for me Stephen. Why is the fundamentalist
christian right wing so consumed about saving their own
sorry-***** lives
Are you thinking of these fundamentalist Christian right-wingers?
Senators Max Baucus (D-MT), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Joe Biden (D-DE), John
Breaux (D-LA), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Jean Carnahan (D-MO), Tom
Carper
(D-DE), Max Cleland (D-GA), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Tom Daschle (D-
SD),
Christopher Dodd (D-CT), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), John Edwards (D-NC),
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Fritz Hollings (D-SC),
Tim
Johnson(D-SD), John Kerry (D-MA), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Mary Landrieu
(D-LA), Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Zell Miller
(D-GA), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Harry Reid (D-NV), Jay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Robert Torricelli (D-NJ),
and
Congressmen Ackerman, Andrews, Barcia, Bentsen, Berkley, Berman,
Berry,
Bishop, Blagojevich, Borski, Boswell, Boucher, Boyd, Carson, Clement,
Cramer, Crowley, Davis, Deutsch, Dicks, Dooley, Edwards, Engel,
Etheridge, Ford, Frost, Gephardt, Gordon, Green, Hall, Harman, Hill,
Hoeffel, Holden, Hoyer, Israel, Jefferson, John, Kanjorski, Kennedy,
Kind, Lampson, Lantos, Lowey, Lucas, Luther, Lynch, Maloney, Markey,
Mascara, Matheson, McCarthy, McIntyre, McNulty, Meehan, Moore,
Murtha,
Pascrell, Peterson, Phelps, Pomeroy, Roemer, Ross, Rothman, Sandlin,
Schiff, Sherman, Shows, Skelton, Smith, Spratt, Stenholm, Tanner,
Tauscher, Taylor, Thurman, Turner, Waxman, Weiner, and Wexler. Those
fundamentalist Christian right-wingers?
Most of Congress has since come to their senses and realized
they were hood-winked, that Iraq is a dead-end situation, but
Bush has not yet come to his senses and neither have you.
What gives ?
If most of Congress believes that, why haven't they voted to shut down
funding for the war?
They will once the democrats take over. We've been working with
a bunch of bush monkeys (all yes-men) up 'til now.
that they promote unilateral invasion of a country that didn't
even attack us ?
Did you ever answer my question concerning whether or not you
supported
President Clinton's bombing of Belgrade? Answer my question, and I'll
answer yours.
Are you guys really that concerned about your own lives ?
Jay Rockefeller said we couldn't afford to wait for further evidence
of
Iraq's WMD, because to wait might put his fellow Americans in danger.
John Edwards said Iraq was an imminent threat. Hillary Clinton said
Iraq had not only rebuilt its WMD capability in the four years since
inspectors left (between 1998 and 2002), but that they had given aid
and sanctuary to Al Qaeda members. Here's the point: it is the
responsibility of our leaders to protect our society. If they didn't,
they'd be negligent -- wouldn't they? And it all goes back to Saddam
Hussein FAILING to cooperate with the inspectors. He behaved as if he
had something to hide, and that led to his downfall.
Ok, so 'going forward', all those guys are saying Iraq is
a quagmire. Bush himself recently said we're not losing, but
we're not winning... the very definition of quagmire. Why
do you still support staying in Iraq ?
Because, unlike you, I support the democratically elected government of
Iraq.
Sure you do. You support big oil corporations and naked
agression to steal Iraqi resources.
They don't want us to leave just yet, in case you haven't heard.
But you don't really care about the Iraqi people, do you? You've
already made your case that you support the terrorists. And cutting and
running before the Iraqi government is ready to take over security
would be handing the terrorists a victory. While that may be what
you're hoping for, I can't support that.
You talk all the time about gang members who might kill
you in south LA. You're obsessed with saving your own sorry
life. It's really pathetic Stephen.
Something that is obviously lost on you is that every one of my posts
on that topic mentioned the people WHO LIVE THERE being the victims
of
the gang thugs. Did that point somehow slip past your superior
intellect? What you don't seem to get is that I'm a proponent of
VICTIMS of criminal thugs, while you seem to forget all about those
victims and focus your sympathy with the thugs. That's what you've
been
doing with the terrorist thugs in Iraq. You've expressed plenty of
sympathy for them, yet you seem to have forgotten all about the
victims
of their terrorism.That's a major difference in our outlook on the
world, Randolph. Merry Christmas to you.
<crickets>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
26 Dec 2006 07:52:54 AM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Sorry, the bible isn't an authoritative source, either of
history or morality. You bible thumpers have been misled.
Try looking to the life of Jesus for your guidance.
Then explain to me, in general terms, what you meant by Jesus
"hating" people who stuck dogmatically to tradition.
If you spent less time memorizing chapters and verses and more
time thinking about what Jesus actually did in his adult ministry,
you wouldn't have said something like that.
Since you are telling me I've got it all wrong, I'm asking for your
interpretation of what Jesus did in his adult ministry that I should
pay more attention to.
Jesus' life and ministry is well known even to school children.
Then you should be able to tell me why Jesus *hated* people who
dogmatically followed tradition. Please, instruct me.
I already did. I instructed you to pay more attention to Jesus'
life and less attention to the interpretations and already second-hand
information of his apostles and the book which they were laid out in.
There are plenty of quotations from Jesus in that book.
You spend so much time memorizing bible quotes that you don't
know what Christ actually said.
Let's review the conflicting arguments you've made so far in this
thread -- first, you said:
"Jesus Christ hated people who stuck dogmatically to tradition (you'd
know this if you
actually were reading the Bible)."
So, after telling me I'd know something about Jesus if I were actually
reading the Bible, your floating argument has morphed all the way into
this:
"You spend so much time memorizing bible quotes that you don't know
what Christ actually said."
So please, once and for all, tell me if I should be reading the Bible
or if I should not? How am I supposed to know what Jesus actually said
without reading his quoted words in the Bible?
I'm not sure
why you're having such difficulty explaining to me why you believe
Jesus "hated" people who stuck dogmatically to tradition. Isn't there a
quote from Jesus somewhere that you can give to back up your claim? Or
are you just going to continue to play this silly game you're playing?
I actually do know the
Bible chapter and verse you're thinking of, but I'm sure you have
no
idea what you're talking about.
I'd say you've already proved my point for me. All you can
do is boast about knowing some chapter and verse, but you
don't appear to know much about the subject material.
Then why don't you explain it to me? Please.
Explain something for me Stephen. Why is the fundamentalist
christian right wing so consumed about saving their own
sorry-***** lives
Are you thinking of these fundamentalist Christian right-wingers?
Senators Max Baucus (D-MT), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Joe Biden (D-DE), John
Breaux (D-LA), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Jean Carnahan (D-MO), Tom
Carper
(D-DE), Max Cleland (D-GA), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Tom Daschle (D-
SD),
Christopher Dodd (D-CT), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), John Edwards (D-NC),
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Fritz Hollings (D-SC),
Tim
Johnson(D-SD), John Kerry (D-MA), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Mary Landrieu
(D-LA), Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Zell Miller
(D-GA), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Harry Reid (D-NV), Jay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Robert Torricelli (D-NJ),
and
Congressmen Ackerman, Andrews, Barcia, Bentsen, Berkley, Berman,
Berry,
Bishop, Blagojevich, Borski, Boswell, Boucher, Boyd, Carson, Clement,
Cramer, Crowley, Davis, Deutsch, Dicks, Dooley, Edwards, Engel,
Etheridge, Ford, Frost, Gephardt, Gordon, Green, Hall, Harman, Hill,
Hoeffel, Holden, Hoyer, Israel, Jefferson, John, Kanjorski, Kennedy,
Kind, Lampson, Lantos, Lowey, Lucas, Luther, Lynch, Maloney, Markey,
Mascara, Matheson, McCarthy, McIntyre, McNulty, Meehan, Moore,
Murtha,
Pascrell, Peterson, Phelps, Pomeroy, Roemer, Ross, Rothman, Sandlin,
Schiff, Sherman, Shows, Skelton, Smith, Spratt, Stenholm, Tanner,
Tauscher, Taylor, Thurman, Turner, Waxman, Weiner, and Wexler. Those
fundamentalist Christian right-wingers?
Most of Congress has since come to their senses and realized
they were hood-winked, that Iraq is a dead-end situation, but
Bush has not yet come to his senses and neither have you.
What gives ?
If most of Congress believes that, why haven't they voted to shut down
funding for the war?
They will once the democrats take over. We've been working with
a bunch of bush monkeys (all yes-men) up 'til now.
Well, since the majority of the US population does *not* favor an
immediate unconditional withdrawal from Iraq, it will be interesting to
see if the new Democratic leadership goes ahead with your prediction.
that they promote unilateral invasion of a country that didn't
even attack us ?
Did you ever answer my question concerning whether or not you
supported
President Clinton's bombing of Belgrade? Answer my question, and I'll
answer yours.
Are you guys really that concerned about your own lives ?
Jay Rockefeller said we couldn't afford to wait for further evidence
of
Iraq's WMD, because to wait might put his fellow Americans in danger.
John Edwards said Iraq was an imminent threat. Hillary Clinton said
Iraq had not only rebuilt its WMD capability in the four years since
inspectors left (between 1998 and 2002), but that they had given aid
and sanctuary to Al Qaeda members. Here's the point: it is the
responsibility of our leaders to protect our society. If they didn't,
they'd be negligent -- wouldn't they? And it all goes back to Saddam
Hussein FAILING to cooperate with the inspectors. He behaved as if he
had something to hide, and that led to his downfall.
Ok, so 'going forward', all those guys are saying Iraq is
a quagmire. Bush himself recently said we're not losing, but
we're not winning... the very definition of quagmire. Why
do you still support staying in Iraq ?
Because, unlike you, I support the democratically elected government of
Iraq.
Sure you do. You support big oil corporations and naked
agression to steal Iraqi resources.
You say you're not a wacky leftist, but that statement is right out of
the wacky leftist playbook. It's really a shame you believe those wacky
leftist conspiracy theories. Have you jumped on board the WTC
controlled demolition conspiracy theory yet? By the way, if you read
the article I posted (in another thread) about the Iraq economy, you'll
notice one of the reasons for the growing economy in Iraq is their
exportation of oil. That money belongs to the Iraqi people. Your tired
old BS about "stealing" oil if unfounded. It's a figment of your (and
your fellow wacky leftists) imagination.
They don't want us to leave just yet, in case you haven't heard.
But you don't really care about the Iraqi people, do you? You've
already made your case that you support the terrorists. And cutting and
running before the Iraqi government is ready to take over security
would be handing the terrorists a victory. While that may be what
you're hoping for, I can't support that.
You talk all the time about gang members who might kill
you in south LA. You're obsessed with saving your own sorry
life. It's really pathetic Stephen.
Something that is obviously lost on you is that every one of my posts
on that topic mentioned the people WHO LIVE THERE being the victims
of
the gang thugs. Did that point somehow slip past your superior
intellect? What you don't seem to get is that I'm a proponent of
VICTIMS of criminal thugs, while you seem to forget all about those
victims and focus your sympathy with the thugs. That's what you've
been
doing with the terrorist thugs in Iraq. You've expressed plenty of
sympathy for them, yet you seem to have forgotten all about the
victims
of their terrorism.That's a major difference in our outlook on the
world, Randolph. Merry Christmas to you.
<crickets>
<crickets>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
26 Dec 2006 01:49:10 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Most of Congress has since come to their senses and realized
they were hood-winked, that Iraq is a dead-end situation, but
Bush has not yet come to his senses and neither have you.
What gives ?
If most of Congress believes that, why haven't they voted to shut down
funding for the war?
They will once the democrats take over. We've been working with
a bunch of bush monkeys (all yes-men) up 'til now.
Well, since the majority of the US population does *not* favor an
immediate unconditional withdrawal from Iraq,
Sure they do. We just have to make sure that your hero George
Dingleberry Bush doesn't sabotage the United States when we go
after him. He's likely to get VERY agitated if we investigate
him too closely, and you neocons are so in love with yourselves
that saving your own sorry skins is worth destroying everything
around you.
it will be interesting to
see if the new Democratic leadership goes ahead with your prediction.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
26 Dec 2006 09:17:50 PM |
|
|
"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns98A58268530E8rrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
Sure they do. We just have to make sure that your hero George
Dingleberry Bush doesn't sabotage the United States when we go
after him. He's likely to get VERY agitated if we investigate
him too closely, and you neocons are so in love with yourselves
that saving your own sorry skins is worth destroying everything
around you.
Programming note:
Next week on PBS' series "Frontline" they're broadcasting a program titled
"The Dark Side" It's an investigation of the run up to the invasion with
emphasis on the way intelligence was used and misused and the role *****
Cheney has played in the administration. In the trailer for the show
they're calling Cheney a co-president and certainly the most powerful
Vice-President in the history of the country.
Nationally broadcast now on Tuesday nights you'll want to check your local
listings. That would make January 2 the air date.
Nice timing by the media. The new leadership in Congress, promising
investigations into the Bush Administration, takes over on January 4.
God bless them all.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
26 Dec 2006 11:31:25 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Most of Congress has since come to their senses and realized
they were hood-winked, that Iraq is a dead-end situation, but
Bush has not yet come to his senses and neither have you.
What gives ?
If most of Congress believes that, why haven't they voted to shut down
funding for the war?
They will once the democrats take over. We've been working with
a bunch of bush monkeys (all yes-men) up 'til now.
Well, since the majority of the US population does *not* favor an
immediate unconditional withdrawal from Iraq,
Sure they do.
Can you show me the poll that shows a majority of the American people
want an immediate uncondititional withdrawal from Iraq?
We just have to make sure that your hero George
Dingleberry Bush doesn't sabotage the United States when we go
after him. He's likely to get VERY agitated if we investigate
him too closely, and you neocons are so in love with yourselves
that saving your own sorry skins is worth destroying everything
around you.
That argument looks something like denigration to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
27 Dec 2006 10:04:07 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Most of Congress has since come to their senses and realized
they were hood-winked, that Iraq is a dead-end situation, but
Bush has not yet come to his senses and neither have you.
What gives ?
If most of Congress believes that, why haven't they voted to shut
down funding for the war?
They will once the democrats take over. We've been working with
a bunch of bush monkeys (all yes-men) up 'til now.
Well, since the majority of the US population does *not* favor an
immediate unconditional withdrawal from Iraq,
Sure they do.
Can you show me the poll that shows a majority of the American people
want an immediate uncondititional withdrawal from Iraq?
The poll was called '2006 midterm election'.
We just have to make sure that your hero George
Dingleberry Bush doesn't sabotage the United States when we go
after him. He's likely to get VERY agitated if we investigate
him too closely, and you neocons are so in love with yourselves
that saving your own sorry skins is worth destroying everything
around you.
That argument looks something like denigration to me.
Your mastery of the obvious is as impressive as ever Stephen.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
27 Dec 2006 11:23:11 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Most of Congress has since come to their senses and realized
they were hood-winked, that Iraq is a dead-end situation, but
Bush has not yet come to his senses and neither have you.
What gives ?
If most of Congress believes that, why haven't they voted to shut
down funding for the war?
They will once the democrats take over. We've been working with
a bunch of bush monkeys (all yes-men) up 'til now.
Well, since the majority of the US population does *not* favor an
immediate unconditional withdrawal from Iraq,
Sure they do.
Can you show me the poll that shows a majority of the American people
want an immediate uncondititional withdrawal from Iraq?
The poll was called '2006 midterm election'.
I'm sure, much to your disappoinment, you'll be misreading the results
of that election for the next two years. That being the case, let's
look at the exit polling:
Voters were asked what should happen in Iraq now. The answers were:
We should send more troops -- 17%
Troop levels the same -- 21%
Withdraw some troops -- 26%
Withdraw all troops -- 29%
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html
As you can see quite clearly, 29% say we should withdraw all troops
now. Am I forced to state the obvious for you once again?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
28 Dec 2006 01:04:40 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Most of Congress has since come to their senses and realized
they were hood-winked, that Iraq is a dead-end situation, but
Bush has not yet come to his senses and neither have you.
What gives ?
If most of Congress believes that, why haven't they voted to
shut
down funding for the war?
They will once the democrats take over. We've been working with
a bunch of bush monkeys (all yes-men) up 'til now.
Well, since the majority of the US population does *not* favor an
immediate unconditional withdrawal from Iraq,
Sure they do.
Can you show me the poll that shows a majority of the American people
want an immediate uncondititional withdrawal from Iraq?
The poll was called '2006 midterm election'.
I'm sure, much to your disappoinment, you'll be misreading the results
of that election for the next two years. That being the case, let's
look at the exit polling:
Voters were asked what should happen in Iraq now. The answers were:
We should send more troops -- 17%
Troop levels the same -- 21%
Withdraw some troops -- 26%
Withdraw all troops -- 29%
Sure, let's talk about the 2004 exit polls indicating a Kerry
victory by a wide margin. Exit polls apparently don't mean as
much as you had hoped. The actual election outcome, on the other
hand, indicates a majority of people disillusioned with the
'stay the course' agenda. KaChinDig ? And, as you well know,
either we stay in Iraq or we go... so are you with us or against us ?
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.h
tml
As you can see quite clearly, 29% say we should withdraw all troops
now. Am I forced to state the obvious for you once again?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
28 Dec 2006 06:39:34 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Most of Congress has since come to their senses and realized
they were hood-winked, that Iraq is a dead-end situation, but
Bush has not yet come to his senses and neither have you.
What gives ?
If most of Congress believes that, why haven't they voted to
shut
down funding for the war?
They will once the democrats take over. We've been working with
a bunch of bush monkeys (all yes-men) up 'til now.
Well, since the majority of the US population does *not* favor an
immediate unconditional withdrawal from Iraq,
Sure they do.
Can you show me the poll that shows a majority of the American people
want an immediate uncondititional withdrawal from Iraq?
The poll was called '2006 midterm election'.
I'm sure, much to your disappoinment, you'll be misreading the results
of that election for the next two years. That being the case, let's
look at the exit polling:
Voters were asked what should happen in Iraq now. The answers were:
We should send more troops -- 17%
Troop levels the same -- 21%
Withdraw some troops -- 26%
Withdraw all troops -- 29%
Sure, let's talk about the 2004 exit polls indicating a Kerry
victory by a wide margin.
Those were incomplete exit polls from the middle of the day. They
should have never been released to the public. I remember how some
members of this group were so excited HOURS before the polls closed --
only to have their hopes dashed once the polls were actually closed.
Exit polls apparently don't mean as
much as you had hoped. The actual election outcome, on the other
hand, indicates a majority of people disillusioned with the
'stay the course' agenda. KaChinDig ?
That wasn't the question. I asked you to show me a poll that shows the
majority of the American people want an IMMEDIATE unconditional
withdrawal from Iraq. Of course you can't, so you change the subject
and make it about something else.
And, as you well know, either we stay in Iraq or we go...
But do the majority of Americans want an IMMEDIATE unconditional
withdrawal? NO!
so are you with us or against us ?
Who is us? Meanwhile, here's another poll for you to ignore:
Withdraw troops immediately -- 21%
Withdraw troops in 12 months -- 33%
As many years as needed -- 32%
Send more troops -- 11%
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/12/18/approval.1218.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa - Satan |
28 Dec 2006 09:37:47 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
And, as you well know, either we stay in Iraq or we go...
But do the majority of Americans want an IMMEDIATE unconditional
withdrawal?
Yes.
NO!
so are you with us or against us ?
Who is us?
Uh, if you need an answer to that, then you're in serious trouble.
How do people like you survive to adulthood ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa |
28 Dec 2006 10:18:25 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
And, as you well know, either we stay in Iraq or we go...
But do the majority of Americans want an IMMEDIATE unconditional
withdrawal?
Yes.
Show the poll.
so are you with us or against us ?
Who is us?
Uh, if you need an answer to that, then you're in serious trouble.
Why? Because I want to know who you consider "us"? You think the
majority of Americans want an immediate unconditional withdrawal. I'm
NOT with that figment of your imagination.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa |
28 Dec 2006 11:53:17 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
And, as you well know, either we stay in Iraq or we go...
But do the majority of Americans want an IMMEDIATE unconditional
withdrawal?
Yes.
Show the poll.
You and your polls... What do 'YOU' think Stephen ? How are the
US troops going to leave Iraq, and regardless of 'when' that
happens, what do you think will happen in Iraq then ? Here are
your choices:
1. Peace and democracy will erupt outward like a beneficial
explosion, encompassing Syria and Iran. Peace, harmony, and
goodwill toward America will be the result. People everywhere
will flock to Washington DC to admire George Bush, and he will
be elected to a 3rd, even 4th term.
2. Escalation of violence in Iraq, starting with shiites and
sunnis around Baghdad, then spreading to Kurds and ultimately
drawing in surrounding muslim states. The US may act as an
arms dealer in this large regional war (after spending a trillion
dollars we'll want to recoup some of our costs).
so are you with us or against us ?
Who is us?
Uh, if you need an answer to that, then you're in serious trouble.
Why? Because I want to know who you consider "us"? You think the
majority of Americans want an immediate unconditional withdrawal. I'm
NOT with that figment of your imagination.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa |
29 Dec 2006 02:48:39 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
And, as you well know, either we stay in Iraq or we go...
But do the majority of Americans want an IMMEDIATE unconditional
withdrawal?
Yes.
Show the poll.
You and your polls... What do 'YOU' think Stephen ? How are the
US troops going to leave Iraq, and regardless of 'when' that
happens, what do you think will happen in Iraq then ? Here are
your choices:
I don't accept your choices. I want the free people of Iraq to remain
free. I want the new deomcratic style of government they voted for to
succeed. Here's someone who has an opinion:
Why We Need More Troops in Iraq
By Joseph Lieberman
Friday, December 29, 2006
Read the article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/28/AR2006122801055.html
So when I say I'm a Democrat, I'm a Joe Lieberman Democrat. Remember,
he is the margin of victory for the Democratic controlled Senate this
election.
.
|
|
|
| User: "URN" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa |
01 Jan 2007 02:58:34 AM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167425319.271821.297180@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
And, as you well know, either we stay in Iraq or we go...
But do the majority of Americans want an IMMEDIATE unconditional
withdrawal?
Yes.
Show the poll.
You and your polls... What do 'YOU' think Stephen ? How are the
US troops going to leave Iraq, and regardless of 'when' that
happens, what do you think will happen in Iraq then ? Here are
your choices:
I don't accept your choices. I want the free people of Iraq to remain
free. I want the new deomcratic style of government they voted for to
succeed.
They didn't vote to have a democratic government, they voted for
candidates in a democratic government the US/Britain/mega-corporations
helped set up. Now you and others of your ilk find that puppet government
being challenged. This is what happens when sovereign peoples' internal
interests are interfered with externally. You now have a civil war.
Foreign interventionalist powers cannot win a nationalistically based
war -- they can only provide support for the side that favors their
commercial/strategic/ideological interests and, as a result, get dragged
into defending that interest by an increasingly hostile, determined
resistance that views them as meddlesome interlopers...who'd like to
control what is essentially their sovereign destiny to exclusively
control.
You just don't get it, Stevie...but time isn't on your side. Either you
don't get it, or you're an incredibly egotistical, immature, stubborn *****.
It'll become all too clear to you soon enough with events on the ground
there, and changes around that nation's borders, and changes here
policy-wise. I wonder what will happen then...what will become of you and
your entertaining 'cottage industry' online of arguing til the cows come
home??? It'll be interesting to see if you are still here when that time
arrives and have chosen to take a long 'vacation' offline. LOL!!!
Many of those who joined your neo-con chorus have now shrunk back into the
slippery fanatical political cracks from which they came. You're a dying
breed today, Stevie, looking over the the edge of the ideological
abyss...twisting, spinning, dodging, bobbing, and weaving. But, life's a
long learning process...and you're about to learn some unforgiving lessons
about supporting hierarchial power machinations, corporate collusional
deceit, etc., and something about yourself, too.
Since you likely haven't gotten this far in my message, I'll refer you to
the first two or three sentences for any reply you might have. LOL!!
ADD...it must be an awful malady to live with...eh?
Dr. Bipolar :))
Here's someone who has an opinion:
Yeah, he's the Dem who sucked on Bush's ***** so much that Connecticut
voters went to a virtual unknown in the primary and voted for him
instead...and then, of course, ol' power-mad, *****-lickin' Joe suddenly
went independent to regain his lost Dem support, pulling more
conservatives to his side.
Yep, Stevie, ol' tricky Joe's got an 'opinion' on all kinds of things you
conservatives would generally agree with. It's good ol' Joe...the
assmeister of politics.
LOL!!
Dr. Bipolar :))
Why We Need More Troops in Iraq
By Joseph Lieberman
Friday, December 29, 2006
Read the article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/28/AR2006122801055.html
So when I say I'm a Democrat, I'm a Joe Lieberman Democrat. Remember,
he is the margin of victory for the Democratic controlled Senate this
election.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Santa |
30 Dec 2006 01:33:48 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
And, as you well know, either we stay in Iraq or we go...
But do the majority of Americans want an IMMEDIATE unconditional
withdrawal?
Yes.
Show the poll.
You and your polls... What do 'YOU' think Stephen ? How are the
US troops going to leave Iraq, and regardless of 'when' that
happens, what do you think will happen in Iraq then ? Here are
your choices:
I don't accept your choices. I want the free people of Iraq to remain
free. I want the new deomcratic style of government they voted for to
succeed. Here's someone who has an opinion:
Nice sentiment, but misplaced. The very people our troops are
trying to put down (the bad guys, the 'terrorists'), are the same
people we're trying to install into power. All those Iraqi police,
national guard, etc, that we're training, are also members of the
various conflicting factions, inseparably linked to their 'tribe'.
The people our troops are dying to provide 'democracy' for, are
the same people setting off the bombs. You've heard people here
talk about a no-win situation and this is what they're talking
about. We can't protect Iraqis from themselves because it is
civil strife. We have to let them work this out themselves.
I'm hearing more and more hard-core republicans coming to this
conclusion, and I'm hoping you will too.
Bush keeps saying that if we leave Iraq too soon, all will be
lost, the end of civilization, that sort of nonsense. People
were saying the same thing 30 years ago in deciding to leave
Vietnam, and guess what... now we have normalized relations
with North Vietnam. The world didn't end just because we
pulled our troops out of there... in fact, things got better.
In the short term, leaving Iraq will cause chaos... no doubt
about that. Those religious sects are going to duke it out,
but they have to resolve this on their own.
Why We Need More Troops in Iraq
By Joseph Lieberman
Friday, December 29, 2006
Read the article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2006/12/28/AR2006122
801055.html
I read the article, and disagree on more than a few points.
US troop withdrawal from Iraq would be a Vietnam for Al-Qaeda.
They would have no one to kill but their fellow muslims, and
they would be more vulnerable than ever to being rounded up by
local militias. If you didn't notice, all the 9-11 hijackers
came from 'successful' muslim countries like Saudi Arabia,
Yemen, and Egypt, and none came from the 'axis of evil' countries
like Syria and Iran. An Iraq in internal turmoil wouldn't be
a terrorist threat for years, even decades to come.
I have to believe Lieberman's Jewish roots are prompting him
to advocate for a more permanent US troop deployment in Iraq.
We shouldn't be fighting the Iraqi civil war for them... we
should be figuring out how to deal with Iran, Hezbolla, the
Palestinian-Israeli problem, securing our own borders, and
dealing with the problem of illegal workers in the US. I just
can't justify spending a 10th of our national budget on fighting
the Iraqi civil war and plunging deeply into debt to do it.
This will come back to us before long in the form of higher real
costs and hence lower standard of living, all thanks to an
unnecessary war started by an uneducated chimp who stole the
US Presidency.
So when I say I'm a Democrat, I'm a Joe Lieberman Democrat. Remember,
he is the margin of victory for the Democratic controlled Senate this
election.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?utf-8?B?LsK3OirCqMKoKjrCty7CtzoqwqjCqCo6wrcuICDimaUgV29ybGQgV2FyIElJSSAyMDA3IC0tIFRoZSBMYXN0IDIwMDAgRGF5cyAgLsK3OirCqMKoKjrCty4g4pmlwqnCruKEog==?=" |
|
| Title: An eyewitness view of the new world war |
29 Dec 2006 09:24:19 PM |
|
|
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/an-eyewitness-view-of-the-new-world-war/=
2006/12/29/1166895477181.html
An eyewitness view of the new world war
Paul Sheehan
December 30, 2006
Anyone who doubts that the Cold War has quickly given way to a hot war
- World War III - would have their doubts sorely tested should they pay
a visit to the Israel-Lebanon border. Last week I visited border mark
105, the nondescript gully where the 2006 Lebanese war began. Only
scorch marks on the ground remain from the death and violence that took
place there.
The build-up took months to plan and execute. On or about July 5, a
group of between 20 and 30 Hezbollah fighters infiltrated the Israeli
border near the village of Aita Al-Shaab, barely 800 metres from the
border fences. They set up camp on a thickly wooded slope above the
Israeli patrol road. They pitched a small tent. They set up firing
positions for two rocket-propelled grenade launchers. And then they
waited.
It was not the first time Hezbollah had attempted to infiltrate a team
into Israel this year. At least four other attempts had been thwarted.
This was the first to succeed, because this section of the border was
both densely wooded and in a blind spot between the Israel Defence
Forces observation posts, where teams of soldiers, mostly young women
on national service, monitor cameras day and night.
The site was also within range of rocket and mortar positions Hezbollah
had set up around Aita Al-Shaab, part of a porcupine of minefields, gun
emplacements, tunnels and bunkers it had secretly built along the
border since Israel withdrew its forces from southern Lebanon in 2000.
Most of this military build-up was funded by Iran.
On the morning of July 12, 2006, the infiltrators received the "go"
signal. They touched the security fence at several points, triggering
several Israeli patrols. Two Israeli Humvees were sent to border point
105.
At 9.05am, as the first Humvee slowed to negotiate a turn in the road
just below the firing positions, it was hit by two rocket-propelled
grenades.
The Humvee was destroyed. All three soldiers on board died. The second
Humvee was hit, but was disabled rather than destroyed. The driver was
killed but two other Israeli soldiers, believed to have been wounded
based on bloodstains left at the scene, were dragged from the Humvee
and carried towards the border.
The firing of the grenades was the signal for a co-ordinated response
by Hezbollah along the border. Waves of rocket and mortar fire were
sent across into Israel to confuse their defence and buy time for the
infiltrators. When the Israelis realised where its patrol had been
attacked, the Hezbollah team had already left the scene. A heavy tank
was dispatched to border post 105. It crossed the border to occupy the
high point and begin laying fire into the valley where the Hezbollah
team was fleeing towards the nearby village. What the Israelis did not
know, one of many unpleasant surprises to come, was that this response
had been anticipated by Hezbollah.
"There was a huge mine," an Israeli major told me, pointing to the
spot. "The tank only got 200 metres. Everybody was killed." Four tank
crew died, along with four soldiers in the Humvees. The Hezbollah
infiltrators escaped without casualties. The Israel Defence Forces were
humiliated.
"They mined everything along the border," the Israeli major, who cannot
be named, told me. "The extent of the tunnels, bunkers, mines was much
greater than we had expected. One Hezbollah bunker was built within 15
metres of a UN observation post. What were they observing?"
The ambush and abduction, so long in the making, had been executed to
perfection.
It was an act of war, yet no border disputes existed between Israel and
Lebanon. (The disputed Shebaa Farms are claimed by Syria, a claim
recognised by Lebanon, Israel and the United Nations.) The relationship
between the governments of Jerusalem and Beirut were cordial. The
Lebanese Prime Minister, Fouad Siniora, was a moderate, pro-Western
reformer. The Lebanese economy had been rehabilitated, Beirut rebuilt,
and tourism had begun to flourish again. This was not an of act of war
between states but an act of jihad. It was driven by the Islamic
theocracy in Iran, through its proxies in the Shiite Muslim
state-within-a-state in southern Lebanon. Iran has been at war against
the West for some time. It is at war with the United States in Iraq via
its proxies in the Shiite militias. It is at war against Israel via
Hezbollah in Lebanon, and via Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank.
"Iran is pushing Hamas to a more hardline position," says Walid Sadi,
Jordan's former ambassador to Turkey and formerly chief editor of The
Jordan Times. "The Palestinian internal disputes are increasingly
resembling those between Hezbollah and the [moderate] camp in Lebanon.
In both cases, the footprints of Iran are wide and clear and fit
perfectly with Iran's designs for the region."
Those designs include nuclear weapons. This, in turn, has led the Sunni
Muslim states in the region, led by Saudi Arabia, to consider a nuclear
response. On December 10 the Gulf Cooperation Council, representing the
six oil-rich Gulf states, met in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and issued a
statement that began: "The leaders commissioned a study to set up a
common program in the area of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes."
Like Iran's nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
Long before the attack on border post 105, the military commander of
Hamas, Khaled Mashaal, speaking at a mosque in Damascus, where he is
based and protected, an address broadcast on Al-Jazeera television,
warning not just Israel but the West of militant Islam's intent. It
went far beyond the Palestinian cause: "We say this to the West, which
does not act reasonably, and does not learn lessons: by Allah, you will
be defeated. Tomorrow our nation [Islam] will sit on the throne of the
world. This is not a figment of the imagination, but a fact. Tomorrow
we will lead the world=E2=80=A6 Today, you are fighting the army of Allah.
You are fighting against people for whom death for the sake of Allah,
and for the sake of honour and glory, is preferable to life."
This is the language of "shahada". A "shahid" is to worship God and the
Prophet Muhammad through a violent death in the cause of Islam. "A
suicide bombing is not an act of desperation but a religious act," says
Itamar Marcus, director of Palestinian Media Watch, during a briefing
in Jerusalem. "When suicide bombers make videos they will sometimes
talk about their 'weddings', referring to their suicide. Violence is
put on a pedestal, even in preschool education. The videos talk about
the sweetness of shahada."
During the past week the latest call to jihad and holy death has led to
carnage and full-scale war between Islamic Somalia and Christian
Ethiopia.
More than 1000 Islamist fighters, most of them teenagers, have died
since they attacked Baidoa, the seat of the Somali provisional
government, and Islamist leaders declared that Somalia was open to any
Muslim around the world who wanted to wage a holy war against Ethiopia.
The Ethiopians responded with invasion. Yesterday, its army had taken
control of the capital, Mogadishu.
Next week the war will flare somewhere else. The primary targets of
al-Qaeda, now a virtual state within the Muslim diaspora, are the key
moderate Muslim regimes in the Middle East, which are constantly being
tested | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
