Yo jps - religious ridicule
 

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:09:24 -0400, John Leo
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:58:09 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 10:31:57 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

.....unless you married into one of those "fundie" families....

When I married my wife, these folks weren't fundies, they were
reasonably normal (as far as in-laws can be, anyway).

They found Gawd, and changed everything about their lives, turning
their back on education (some holding advanced degrees) and assuming
radical religious and political positions. They travel in packs of
like thinking "believers" and will tolerate other folks only so far as
their potential to conversion to the "right" side. How do you respond
to things such as, "even the Jews are seeing the light and coming over
to *our* side"?

You don't. You accept that there are fools in the world. Again,
ridicule of someone's religious beliefs just puts a asshole on both
sides of the coin.

Do you think those who worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster deserve
ridicule or should their ministries be granted the same tax-free
status as the Catholic Church.

How about the Church of Anti-Secular Humanism (CASH). Should they be
granted tax free status? I think they worship the dollar.

What's more valid about Christianity than either of these two?

Would you ridicule either sect for their beliefs?

Yo jps - religious ridicule
 

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:07:17 -0400, John Leo
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:17:21 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 07:21:47 -0400, Little John
wrote:

......seem to get your jollies attempting to ridicule the
religious beliefs of others.

Two edged sword, dude.....

Yesterday, we had a [my wife's] family outing to the planetarium....

I ended up apologizing to the presenter because those family members
that believe in Jayzus and KNOW that the world is only 6,000 years old
because of the infallible word of Gawd.... ostentatiously giggled
their way through the presentation because of how ignorant and wrong
the presenter was. It seems that the idiot had read scientific
material instead of the Wurd and was educated instead of
indoctrinated.

There's that Ox again...

There are assholes on both sides of the coin.

I hope you used words like 'Jayzus and Gawd' to express your
displeasure and show which side of the coin you were on.

Dude.

Adjust your blinkers, they're obviously covering your eyes completely.

That damned Clinton
 

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:37:35 -0400, John Leo
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:44:23 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:20:34 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:06:17 -0700, jps wrote:

As for JPs allegation that Bush ignored Israel, why does he think we
are in Iraq in the first place?

Oil.

That was funny the first time you said it. It's even funnier now.

Where's the oil?

Don't you know that they (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz) ****ed
the whole thing up?

They didn't have a plan other than to destabelize the country and
attempt to be the country's resource broker. They had long term
objectives but didn't have a plan. They were stupid.


We took out Saddam so Israel wouldn't have to.

Excuse me for objecting but I think that's hooey.

Bush didn't engage with Israel (or than to maintain status quo) until
his fourth or fifth year in office.

Cheney was after the oil and Bush was after retribution for Saddam
threatening his daddy. He was going to finish what his daddy couldn't
(because his daddy knew it was going to result in a Bagdhad
bloodbath).

It was also a Christian crusade, as is now being revealed. Fits right
into Bush's little brain and it's why Rumsfeld put bible quotes on his
daily briefings to Bush.

Chalk it up to Jesus for Bush, oil for Cheney. They were doing no
favors for Israel, since everyone knew Iran was the much bigger
problem.

A 'Christian crusade'? Wow!

Were these the same Christians who planned 9/11and planted the charges
in the buildings? You and Rosie go well together!

Look up the latest Blackwater news. Eric Prince's mission was to kill
Muslims. He's a conservative Christian from a conservative Christian
family that believes we're in a war of religions.

That's the very definition of Crusade. But what would you know?

That damned Clinton
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:06:17 -0700, jps wrote:

As for JPs allegation that Bush ignored Israel, why does he think we
are in Iraq in the first place?

Oil.

That was funny the first time you said it. It's even funnier now.

Where's the oil?

Don't you know that they (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz) ****ed
the whole thing up?

They didn't have a plan other than to destabelize the country and
attempt to be the country's resource broker. They had long term
objectives but didn't have a plan. They were stupid.


We took out Saddam so Israel wouldn't have to.
He never threatened the US and he would have been more than happy to
sell us all the oil he could pump at bargain basement prices to build
up his military capability. As long as he was aiming it at Iran we
were happy to let him do it, even selling him technology. As soon as
he started saying he was going after Israel, we went to war with him.
You can't even say we were protecting democracy in kuwait since there
isn't any.
Whether protecting Israel is a good thing or not is worth the debate
but the government will not frame the question that way. It is totally
ignored when we talk about Iraq and, increasingly, Iran.
It is easier to just say this is all about oil.
The fact is we don't even get the majority of our oil from anywhere in
the middle east.

Country May-09 Apr-09 YTD 2009 May-08 YTD 2008

CANADA 1,746 1,854 1,860 1,846 1,923
VENEZUELA 1,228 803 1,025 1,030 994
MEXICO 1,088 1,177 1,174 1,116 1,210
SAUDI ARABIA 996 1,021 1,079 1,579 1,528
NIGERIA 552 673 608 851 1,053

Saddam threatened the US big time. If he had got control of Kuwait in the
first war, he would have set up a really bad for us Oil Cartel, and force
the petrodollar to the Euro. But would have caused massive upheavels in
this country. As well as maybe triggered another world war.

Yo jps - religious ridicule
 

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:13:02 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:09:24 -0400, John Leo
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:58:09 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 10:31:57 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

.....unless you married into one of those "fundie" families....

When I married my wife, these folks weren't fundies, they were
reasonably normal (as far as in-laws can be, anyway).

They found Gawd, and changed everything about their lives, turning
their back on education (some holding advanced degrees) and assuming
radical religious and political positions. They travel in packs of
like thinking "believers" and will tolerate other folks only so far as
their potential to conversion to the "right" side. How do you respond
to things such as, "even the Jews are seeing the light and coming over
to *our* side"?

You don't. You accept that there are fools in the world. Again,
ridicule of someone's religious beliefs just puts a asshole on both
sides of the coin.

Do you think those who worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster deserve
ridicule or should their ministries be granted the same tax-free
status as the Catholic Church.

How about the Church of Anti-Secular Humanism (CASH). Should they be
granted tax free status? I think they worship the dollar.

What's more valid about Christianity than either of these two?

Would you ridicule either sect for their beliefs?

Key word: beliefs.

I wouldn't ridicule anyone for their religious *beliefs*.

That addresses any case you can throw up. Of course, I wouldn't
ridicule you for your beliefs either.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

Yo jps - religious ridicule
 

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:10:14 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:13:55 -0400, John Leo
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:30:10 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 06:06:43 -0400, Another John
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:04:06 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 13:53:53 -0400, Another John
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 10:40:29 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:00:14 -0400, Another John
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:13:36 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 07:21:47 -0400, Little John
wrote:

I would guess that in your eyes, Obama must be a raging hypocrite, an
irrationale 'believer', or just a good liar.

I'm an admirer of Christians who walk the path. AK47 ownership for
some reason doesn't seem to fit with the life Jesus would model.

I'm also an admirer of Republicans who walk the path. It's about
individual responsibility. There are simply too few of them to make
the vision work.

You side-stepped that one.

I didn't sidestep anything. I don't see Obama as a hypocrite. From
what I can tell, he takes his faith seriously and is much closer to
acting like a true Christian than any president since Eisenhower.

What does the ownership of a weapon have to do with the life Jesus
would model? He didn't drive a BMW or buy German screwdrivers either.
Hell, his house probably wasn't even air-conditioned.

Which of the above is Obama? You've commented frequently enough on the
irrationality of religious beliefs. Go for it.

I don't claim to be a follower of Jesus but I'm a lot closer to
walking his path than most of the idiots who claim him as their lord
and savior.

Who would Jesus kill with an AK 47?

I'm happy that you are proud of following the path of Jesus. Spread
the word. It's not a bad path to follow.

I've no idea where your silly AK 47 question came from. Who would
Jesus kill with a BMW or German screwdrivers?

Screwdrivers are used for screwing screws.

BMWs are used for transportation.

AK47s are used for killing.

Well, I don't think Jesus was into any of them, so why the stupid
question?

It's easy to answer, if you have a brain.

Jesus would use a screwdriver to screw screws.
Jesus would use a BMW for transportation.
Jesus wouldn't use an AK47 for its designed intent.

Is this difficult for you to understand?

You've presented nothing to 'understand'. You asked a stupid question
about Jesus and AK 47s.

And answered. Who'd Jesus kill with an AK 47? It's no different than
asking if he'd pick up a knife to either attack or defend himself
against an aggressor. The answer is no.

You're a silly old man who's as stiff in his head as he is in his
bones.

Filter me. I told you I wasn't good for your serenity and that you'd
soon be calling names.

QED
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

That damned Clinton
 

"NotNow" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:44:01 -0400, NotNow wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:58:11 -0400, NotNow wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 10:25:36 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Did you know that Bush signed more laws and executive orders
amending the Constitution than any president in U.S. history?
FDR changed the country from "united states" to a federal republic
and
changed "promote the general welfare" to "guaranteed welfare" (at
least for those over 65). That was the most significant change in our
history. In fact the
SCOTUS ruled that some of his changes went too far.
Yep, as expected.....it's all the liberals fault.

There is no "fault" involved here, just facts.
Righhhhhhhht.....


The allegation was that Bush changed the meaning of the Constitution
the most, it is simply not true. Most of what Bush did could be
rectified in a stroke of the pen by Obama. If you are right, why
hasn't Obama fixed it all by now. OTOH the FDR programs like SS and LBJ's
Medicare are still here and
getting ready to bankrupt us. Medicare is already upside down. SS will
be in about 6 years.

Barry Goldwater predicted this in 1964 and wanted to put SS on a path
to sustainability then (when the boomers could have done it). He lost
the election, partially over that issue.


No, I said that Bush signed more laws and executive orders to amend the
Constitution than any other president.

Name one admendment to the Constitution that Bush made.

That damned Clinton
 

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:15:51 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:37:35 -0400, John Leo
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:44:23 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:20:34 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:06:17 -0700, jps wrote:

As for JPs allegation that Bush ignored Israel, why does he think we
are in Iraq in the first place?

Oil.

That was funny the first time you said it. It's even funnier now.

Where's the oil?

Don't you know that they (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz) ****ed
the whole thing up?

They didn't have a plan other than to destabelize the country and
attempt to be the country's resource broker. They had long term
objectives but didn't have a plan. They were stupid.


We took out Saddam so Israel wouldn't have to.

Excuse me for objecting but I think that's hooey.

Bush didn't engage with Israel (or than to maintain status quo) until
his fourth or fifth year in office.

Cheney was after the oil and Bush was after retribution for Saddam
threatening his daddy. He was going to finish what his daddy couldn't
(because his daddy knew it was going to result in a Bagdhad
bloodbath).

It was also a Christian crusade, as is now being revealed. Fits right
into Bush's little brain and it's why Rumsfeld put bible quotes on his
daily briefings to Bush.

Chalk it up to Jesus for Bush, oil for Cheney. They were doing no
favors for Israel, since everyone knew Iran was the much bigger
problem.

A 'Christian crusade'? Wow!

Were these the same Christians who planned 9/11and planted the charges
in the buildings? You and Rosie go well together!

Look up the latest Blackwater news. Eric Prince's mission was to kill
Muslims. He's a conservative Christian from a conservative Christian
family that believes we're in a war of religions.

That's the very definition of Crusade. But what would you know?

A one man crusade.

Again, wow!

You're a regular Rosie.

Congratulations.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

Yo jps - religious ridicule
 

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 19:33:18 -0400, John Leo
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:10:14 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:13:55 -0400, John Leo
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:30:10 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 06:06:43 -0400, Another John
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:04:06 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 13:53:53 -0400, Another John
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 10:40:29 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:00:14 -0400, Another John
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:13:36 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 07:21:47 -0400, Little John
wrote:

I would guess that in your eyes, Obama must be a raging hypocrite, an
irrationale 'believer', or just a good liar.

I'm an admirer of Christians who walk the path. AK47 ownership for
some reason doesn't seem to fit with the life Jesus would model.

I'm also an admirer of Republicans who walk the path. It's about
individual responsibility. There are simply too few of them to make
the vision work.

You side-stepped that one.

I didn't sidestep anything. I don't see Obama as a hypocrite. From
what I can tell, he takes his faith seriously and is much closer to
acting like a true Christian than any president since Eisenhower.

What does the ownership of a weapon have to do with the life Jesus
would model? He didn't drive a BMW or buy German screwdrivers either.
Hell, his house probably wasn't even air-conditioned.

Which of the above is Obama? You've commented frequently enough on the
irrationality of religious beliefs. Go for it.

I don't claim to be a follower of Jesus but I'm a lot closer to
walking his path than most of the idiots who claim him as their lord
and savior.

Who would Jesus kill with an AK 47?

I'm happy that you are proud of following the path of Jesus. Spread
the word. It's not a bad path to follow.

I've no idea where your silly AK 47 question came from. Who would
Jesus kill with a BMW or German screwdrivers?

Screwdrivers are used for screwing screws.

BMWs are used for transportation.

AK47s are used for killing.

Well, I don't think Jesus was into any of them, so why the stupid
question?

It's easy to answer, if you have a brain.

Jesus would use a screwdriver to screw screws.
Jesus would use a BMW for transportation.
Jesus wouldn't use an AK47 for its designed intent.

Is this difficult for you to understand?

You've presented nothing to 'understand'. You asked a stupid question
about Jesus and AK 47s.

And answered. Who'd Jesus kill with an AK 47? It's no different than
asking if he'd pick up a knife to either attack or defend himself
against an aggressor. The answer is no.

You're a silly old man who's as stiff in his head as he is in his
bones.

Filter me. I told you I wasn't good for your serenity and that you'd
soon be calling names.

QED

Good luck breaking 100. Maybe a ladies executive course?

That damned Clinton
 

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 19:35:12 -0400, John Leo
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:15:51 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:37:35 -0400, John Leo
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:44:23 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:20:34 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:06:17 -0700, jps wrote:

As for JPs allegation that Bush ignored Israel, why does he think we
are in Iraq in the first place?

Oil.

That was funny the first time you said it. It's even funnier now.

Where's the oil?

Don't you know that they (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz) ****ed
the whole thing up?

They didn't have a plan other than to destabelize the country and
attempt to be the country's resource broker. They had long term
objectives but didn't have a plan. They were stupid.


We took out Saddam so Israel wouldn't have to.

Excuse me for objecting but I think that's hooey.

Bush didn't engage with Israel (or than to maintain status quo) until
his fourth or fifth year in office.

Cheney was after the oil and Bush was after retribution for Saddam
threatening his daddy. He was going to finish what his daddy couldn't
(because his daddy knew it was going to result in a Bagdhad
bloodbath).

It was also a Christian crusade, as is now being revealed. Fits right
into Bush's little brain and it's why Rumsfeld put bible quotes on his
daily briefings to Bush.

Chalk it up to Jesus for Bush, oil for Cheney. They were doing no
favors for Israel, since everyone knew Iran was the much bigger
problem.

A 'Christian crusade'? Wow!

Were these the same Christians who planned 9/11and planted the charges
in the buildings? You and Rosie go well together!

Look up the latest Blackwater news. Eric Prince's mission was to kill
Muslims. He's a conservative Christian from a conservative Christian
family that believes we're in a war of religions.

That's the very definition of Crusade. But what would you know?

A one man crusade.

Again, wow!

You're a regular Rosie.

Congratulations.

I expect that Eric Prince and the Federal Government would be
surprised he was running a one man crusade.

We've paid him and his firm billions of dollars to conduct a religious
crusade in the name of our country.

Maybe you'll open your eyes some day but I doubt it.