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?

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.

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:00:36 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 10:41:21 -0700, jps wrote:

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

Oil.

If this was just about oil we would have invaded Venezuela by now

We don't have any good excuse to invade Venezuela. Our history is to
undermine power in South America, we don't invade other than Grenada.

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:46:35 -0400, NotNow wrote:

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
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"? Insert ridiculous rant on Messianic Jews, here.

They are religious, cultural, and political wingnuts. If I seem to
lack patience with that.... J'm overdosed on it right now......

I know people like that, there is nothing you can do for them really. I
admire that you still deal with them. Either way, don't associate the
rest of us with them, they are as sick as junkies and twice as pathetic.



I'd still like to know about the little matter at hand about how the
world's only 6000 some odd years old, but science proves otherwise. Do I
have the answer? No. But I would think the proof of burden would be on
those who believe that's the age of the earth.

OK.... you ready for this?

First, you have to totally buy into the "fact" there is only Gawd's
law and it is entirely correct and infallible. Part of this argument
is that we must all adopt the same "interpretation," too, but I don't
have the time or patience to go there.

Those espousing "science" are well meaning, but mislead by the Devil.

Why the earth is 6,000 years old:
http://www.albatrus.org/english/theo..._age_earth.htm

Now, there, you have it! Believe the right thing and have everlasting
life. Make the wrong choice and burn in Hell.....

The stereotyping here is just unblieveable. I for instance realize that
folks around that time probably lived about 18 to 25 years old but their
writings or the translation says they lived 200!! A lot of things back
then were writtin from within very limited points of view and the
translations haven't kept up... Either way, we are not all fanatics, I
trust my Church, but I pretty much hate the people that go there...
--
Wafa free since 2009

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.
--
John H

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

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.
--
John H

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

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.
--
John H

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

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 08:38:48 -0400, NotNow wrote:

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
Another John wrote:
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:40:09 -0400, NotNow wrote:

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:04:57 -0400, NotNow wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:06:58 -0400, NotNow wrote:

That no good dirty, nasty liberal ******* went to North Korea, and used
that damned namby-pamby liberal bull**** called diplomacy and got those
journalists released.
It was simply a way of giving Lil Kim the photo op with an important
American kissing his ass that he demanded without actually sending a
government official. I guess Jimmy Carter was busy.
Sarah Palin probably would have worked too ... by golly

Yeah. We should have just let Kim do anything he wanted with our
innocent Americans.
We are not really sure what was in the bag, we just know who the bag
man was. I imagine we gave them a fat foreign aid package.
The lesson reaffirmed was, take hostages or threaten us and the US
will pay up.
That has been true at least since the Kennedy administration when JFK
gave Kruschev everything he wanted to get the missiles out of Cuba, in
spite of a lot of gothic theater and saber rattling.
And what do you think would have happened if there was a (R) in office?
Kim asked specifically for Clinton. Clinton had the fortitude and
compassion to help DESPITE what he knew the naysayers would say about
him. What has come out here in rec.boats is foolish even on a Harry
scale of political one-sidedness.
Funny, I haven't seen any "naysayers" here, all supportive. Just want to
point out that Obama is God, not Clinton (anymore) so it is reasonable
to suspect this meeting was a cold call with nothing predecided... Show
me what anybody said that should be considered negative about Clinton in
this situation??

Again, just like the reverse of Harry, some find it plausible to dis
Clinton but hide it behind a very thin veil of bull****. I'm about sick
of it. From both sides.
I just don't know what you think we are saying that is negative, what
was it? All we are saying it "it isn't a cold call, issues were pre-
arranged". As it should be, these are countries involved, not
individuals. It shouldn't be left to any one person, democrat or
republican... He did exactly as he should of with his role in this
rescue. I give him nothing but credit. I always kinda' liked Bill, even
if I don't agree with his politics...

I for one, commend the man for what he done. You do realize that he put
his ass right in the line of fire, don't you? The North Koreans could
have just took him and did whatever they wanted. But what do all of the
conservatives say? All of the remarks were no where near "it isn't a
cold call". More like *we probably gave him rights to build all of the
nukes he wants* kind of bull****. Funny, a lot of the remarks I heard
here yesterday completely parroted Hannity when I listened to him on the
way home. Face it. Nothing a liberal does will ever please some people,
simply because it's a liberal. Hide it under a thin veil, and it's
Harryopposite.
I wonder if Hannity said, "Wow, that's the same thing those folks on
rec.boats were saying!"

Yes, the North Koreans could have just "took him and did whatever they
wanted". But then they wouldn't benefit from any promises made during
any negotiations, would they?

Diplomacy is not a one-way street.
--
John H

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

Loogie.! Do you really think that KJI just let those girls go because
President Clinton came and asked him nicely, and absolutly for no other
reason?


No but the way you and John are going about it here, it sounds like you
two have an inside track and know all about it. You don't know what if
anything happened. Kim DID ask specifically for Clinton. Clinton went
and did an honorable thing, risking his life to do so. That is the
truth. But it seems you two just can't take it for that because of who
he is.
Have you two been approached by the RNC to disrupt town hall meetings
yet? I remember when dems were disrupting Bush, the republicans had a
hissy fit, saying they were insulting, using tactics like yelling so
much that the speaker couldn't make a point or answer there tirades.
Now it seems the conservatives think it's the right thing to do.....

Where did the 'risking his life' come from. Oh, maybe you were talking
of the plane landings. Those are risky, but millions do it every day.

--
John H

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

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!
--
John H

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

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.