On 3/3/12 10:10 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

In ,
says...

In ,
says...

In ,
says...

In ,
says...

On 3/2/12 5:49 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 3/2/2012 5:20 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 3/2/12 4:32 PM, Happy John wrote:
I hope this is not taken as a 'political' post. There is no intention
that it be political. I
received the link in an email and thought it was pretty scary.

http://downloads.cbn.com/cbnnewsplay....swf?aid=17933


From CBN and it's not political?

Hehehe.

Right.

It has already started he

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-dismisse...204051912.html



We have a long history in this country of the self-described religious
attacking/isolating/discriminating against those whose beliefs differ
from theirs, a history that began long before anyone noticed we have
Muslims here.

Such religious bigotry is as American as apple pie.

What is the difference between those who have a religious axe to grind
and those with a political axe to grind.

Exactly! When the Ayatollah Santorum has his way, we'll be a theocracy
just like that.

Do you want to be a Catholic theocracy or a Muslim theocracy?

Neither. And neither did our founding fathers.

Read the declaration of independence again. We were founded with an
acknowledgment of God's grace and that everyone could practice their
religion without interference by others. Contrary to popular belief
there is not separation of church and state.


snerk

On 3/3/2012 8:15 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On 3/2/12 9:14 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 3/2/2012 8:53 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 3/2/12 8:31 PM, Happy John wrote:
On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 17:20:22 -0500, X `
wrote:

On 3/2/12 4:32 PM, Happy John wrote:
I hope this is not taken as a 'political' post. There is no
intention that it be political. I
received the link in an email and thought it was pretty scary.

http://downloads.cbn.com/cbnnewsplay....swf?aid=17933


From CBN and it's not political?

Hehehe.

Right.

I had no idea what CBN was until your comment. Is the article I posted
political? I think not. Is
this political:
http://www.cbn.com/finance/calculato...geSavings.aspx
I think not.

I don't think every article in the Washington Post or the NY Times is
political either. Why do you
imply that the source of news makes the news 'political'?


CBN is nothing but right-wing political. Period.

Do you think the events shown on the video are not real because of the
source?


Are you asking me if they've been..."Breitbarted..." ? On CBN? The odds
are pretty good they have. CBN, after all, is Pat Robertson's scam
broadcasting operation.

When was the 1st amendment repealed?



Jan 21, 2008..

On 3/3/2012 8:29 AM, oscar wrote:
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 08:20:04 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:
On 3/3/12 8:15 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,

says...

On 3/2/12 9:14 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 3/2/2012 8:53 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 3/2/12 8:31 PM, Happy John wrote:
On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 17:20:22 -0500, X `
wrote:

On 3/2/12 4:32 PM, Happy John wrote:
I hope this is not taken as a 'political' post. There is no
intention that it be political. I
received the link in an email and thought it was pretty
scary.


http://downloads.cbn.com/cbnnewsplay....swf?aid=17933


From CBN and it's not political?

Hehehe.

Right.

I had no idea what CBN was until your comment. Is the article
I posted
political? I think not. Is
this political:
http://www.cbn.com/finance/calculato...geSavings.aspx
I think not.

I don't think every article in the Washington Post or the NY
Times is
political either. Why do you
imply that the source of news makes the news 'political'?


CBN is nothing but right-wing political. Period.

Do you think the events shown on the video are not real because
of the
source?


Are you asking me if they've been..."Breitbarted..." ? On CBN?
The odds
are pretty good they have. CBN, after all, is Pat Robertson's
scam
broadcasting operation.

When was the 1st amendment repealed?




The question, mr. undereducated, was whether the scammy pat
robertson
christian broadcasting network had credibility, not whether it
could
broadcast the crap it does. Go back to school and learn how to read
for
content.

I see Harry is back in his personal attack and insult mode. He doesn't
seem to have any self restraint

well, we all knew he would have to crank it up for election season. Too
bad really, but he stated scant days after the agreement began...

On 3/3/2012 10:13 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 3/3/12 10:10 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

In ,
says...

In ,
says...

In ,
says...

In ,
says...

On 3/2/12 5:49 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 3/2/2012 5:20 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 3/2/12 4:32 PM, Happy John wrote:
I hope this is not taken as a 'political' post. There is no
intention
that it be political. I
received the link in an email and thought it was pretty scary.

http://downloads.cbn.com/cbnnewsplay....swf?aid=17933


From CBN and it's not political?

Hehehe.

Right.

It has already started he

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-dismisse...204051912.html




We have a long history in this country of the self-described
religious
attacking/isolating/discriminating against those whose beliefs
differ
from theirs, a history that began long before anyone noticed we have
Muslims here.

Such religious bigotry is as American as apple pie.

What is the difference between those who have a religious axe to
grind
and those with a political axe to grind.

Exactly! When the Ayatollah Santorum has his way, we'll be a theocracy
just like that.

Do you want to be a Catholic theocracy or a Muslim theocracy?

Neither. And neither did our founding fathers.

Read the declaration of independence again. We were founded with an
acknowledgment of God's grace and that everyone could practice their
religion without interference by others. Contrary to popular belief
there is not separation of church and state.


snerk



Yeah, we know the constitution is a joke to you.. We get it..

In article , dump-on-
says...

On 3/3/12 9:54 AM, BAR wrote:
In articleyKadnQGdHZuEt8_SnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on-
says...


Do you want to be a Catholic theocracy or a Muslim theocracy?


What's the difference?

The problem is that you lefties are willing to lay down and be walked
all over by the Muslims but, when it is any form of Christianity you
freak out.




Really? I don't recall saying or implying that I am "willing to lay down
and be walked all over by Muslims." You should cut back on those magic
'shrooms.

Don't start projecting your recreational activities onto me or others.

As a student of history (actual history, not the "conservative" view of
history), I don't see the difference between being slaughtered by
christian zealots or by muslim zealots, the two religious groups under
discussion in this thread. Both religions have a long and bloody history
of slaughter in the name of the faith.

Actions speak louder than words Harry. Your actions and your fellow
lefty's action's belie your words.


My actions? What actions of mine in preferring to being slaughtered
by christian or muslim zealots? I don't see the difference. If you are
killed by a religious fanatic, you are just as dead, whether that
fanatic be christian or muslim. Or are you trying to contend that
muslims kill in the name of religion and christians don't? That's nonsense.



I also don't "freak out" about christianity. To me, it's just another
superstition-based collection of beliefs. My objections arise when its
practitioners attempt to force their religious beliefs onto my secular
society. I'm having many good laughs these days watching the "christian"
political zealots fall on their swords over womens' reproductive health
issues.

We don't have a secular society. Never have and never will.

Yeah, we do. You just don't understand what the word means.



Women's reproductive health? This is a joke and most people can see
right through the "issue." The poor student Ms. Fluke is a 30 year old
woman who is going to Georgetown Law on a "public interest"
(http://www.law.georgetown.edu/pils/) scholarship. Her whole "beef" is
that someone else isn't paying for her birth control pills. Her argument
falls apart when it comes down to the low cost of condoms.

When a 30 year old woman stands up and says I want someone else to pay
for my birth control pills while I attend law school on a scholarship,
she doesn't garner sympathy from the majority of the country.


Ahh. You read Limbaugh's explanation of her testimony, not her
testimony. Lights out. Good night.


http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politic...etterhead-2nd%
20hearing.pdf

"When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected,
and I have
heard more and more of their stories. . On a daily basis, I hear from
yet another
woman from Georgetown or other schools or who works for a religiously
affiliated employer who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical
burdens
because of this lack of contraceptive coverage. And so, I am here to
share their
voices and I thank you for allowing them to be heard."

"Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000
during
law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest
scholarships,
that?s practically an entire summer?s salary. Forty percent of female
students at
Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy.
One told
us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at
the
pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn?t
covered,
and had to walk away because she couldn?t afford it. Women like her have
no
choice but to go without contraception. Just last week, a married female
student
told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn?t afford
it any longer. Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive
coverage face
the same choice."

Ms. Fluke needs to understand that her employer or school is not
responsible for the cost of her birth control pills. Nor is that
employer responsible for the cost of condoms. If she doesn't want to get
pregnant she can stopping ****ing guys and start studying. It is her
choice and she should be responsible for paying for her choices.

If Ms. Fluke doesn't like the policies of Georgetown University than she
is free to attend another school.

In article m,
says...

On 3/2/2012 8:31 PM, Happy John wrote:
On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 17:30:49 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 17:20:22 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:
On 3/2/12 4:32 PM, Happy John wrote:
I hope this is not taken as a 'political' post. There is no
intention that it be political. I
received the link in an email and thought it was pretty scary.

http://downloads.cbn.com/cbnnewsplay....swf?aid=17933




From CBN and it's not political?


Hehehe.


Right.

Can,t get the link to work.

Try this: http://tinyurl.com/29ghyhx

Got it. And the cops were ordered to do nothing? That's the french for you.

Cheese eating surrender monkeys.

On 3/3/12 10:32 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 3/3/2012 10:13 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 3/3/12 10:10 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

In ,
says...

In ,
says...

In ,
says...

In ,
says...

On 3/2/12 5:49 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 3/2/2012 5:20 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 3/2/12 4:32 PM, Happy John wrote:
I hope this is not taken as a 'political' post. There is no
intention
that it be political. I
received the link in an email and thought it was pretty scary.

http://downloads.cbn.com/cbnnewsplay....swf?aid=17933


From CBN and it's not political?

Hehehe.

Right.

It has already started he

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-dismisse...204051912.html





We have a long history in this country of the self-described
religious
attacking/isolating/discriminating against those whose beliefs
differ
from theirs, a history that began long before anyone noticed we
have
Muslims here.

Such religious bigotry is as American as apple pie.

What is the difference between those who have a religious axe to
grind
and those with a political axe to grind.

Exactly! When the Ayatollah Santorum has his way, we'll be a
theocracy
just like that.

Do you want to be a Catholic theocracy or a Muslim theocracy?

Neither. And neither did our founding fathers.

Read the declaration of independence again. We were founded with an
acknowledgment of God's grace and that everyone could practice their
religion without interference by others. Contrary to popular belief
there is not separation of church and state.


snerk



Yeah, we know the constitution is a joke to you.. We get it..


No, silly...I'm giggling at the Santorumism, that we live in a
theocracy...and there *is* separation of church and state.

On 3/3/12 10:47 AM, BAR wrote:
In article0cOdnXcYyP1yqc_SnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on-
says...

On 3/3/12 9:54 AM, BAR wrote:
In articleyKadnQGdHZuEt8_SnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on-
says...


Do you want to be a Catholic theocracy or a Muslim theocracy?


What's the difference?

The problem is that you lefties are willing to lay down and be walked
all over by the Muslims but, when it is any form of Christianity you
freak out.




Really? I don't recall saying or implying that I am "willing to lay down
and be walked all over by Muslims." You should cut back on those magic
'shrooms.

Don't start projecting your recreational activities onto me or others.

As a student of history (actual history, not the "conservative" view of
history), I don't see the difference between being slaughtered by
christian zealots or by muslim zealots, the two religious groups under
discussion in this thread. Both religions have a long and bloody history
of slaughter in the name of the faith.

Actions speak louder than words Harry. Your actions and your fellow
lefty's action's belie your words.


My actions? What actions of mine in preferring to being slaughtered
by christian or muslim zealots? I don't see the difference. If you are
killed by a religious fanatic, you are just as dead, whether that
fanatic be christian or muslim. Or are you trying to contend that
muslims kill in the name of religion and christians don't? That's nonsense.



I also don't "freak out" about christianity. To me, it's just another
superstition-based collection of beliefs. My objections arise when its
practitioners attempt to force their religious beliefs onto my secular
society. I'm having many good laughs these days watching the "christian"
political zealots fall on their swords over womens' reproductive health
issues.

We don't have a secular society. Never have and never will.

Yeah, we do. You just don't understand what the word means.



Women's reproductive health? This is a joke and most people can see
right through the "issue." The poor student Ms. Fluke is a 30 year old
woman who is going to Georgetown Law on a "public interest"
(http://www.law.georgetown.edu/pils/) scholarship. Her whole "beef" is
that someone else isn't paying for her birth control pills. Her argument
falls apart when it comes down to the low cost of condoms.

When a 30 year old woman stands up and says I want someone else to pay
for my birth control pills while I attend law school on a scholarship,
she doesn't garner sympathy from the majority of the country.


Ahh. You read Limbaugh's explanation of her testimony, not her
testimony. Lights out. Good night.


http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politic...etterhead-2nd%
20hearing.pdf

"When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected,
and I have
heard more and more of their stories. . On a daily basis, I hear from
yet another
woman from Georgetown or other schools or who works for a religiously
affiliated employer who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical
burdens
because of this lack of contraceptive coverage. And so, I am here to
share their
voices and I thank you for allowing them to be heard."

"Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000
during
law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest
scholarships,
that?s practically an entire summer?s salary. Forty percent of female
students at
Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy.
One told
us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at
the
pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn?t
covered,
and had to walk away because she couldn?t afford it. Women like her have
no
choice but to go without contraception. Just last week, a married female
student
told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn?t afford
it any longer. Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive
coverage face
the same choice."

Ms. Fluke needs to understand that her employer or school is not
responsible for the cost of her birth control pills. Nor is that
employer responsible for the cost of condoms. If she doesn't want to get
pregnant she can stopping ****ing guys and start studying. It is her
choice and she should be responsible for paying for her choices.

If Ms. Fluke doesn't like the policies of Georgetown University than she
is free to attend another school.


Her insurer is responsible. Don't like it? Move to a religious state.

On 3/3/12 10:48 AM, BAR wrote:
In aweb.com,
says...

On 3/2/2012 8:31 PM, Happy John wrote:
On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 17:30:49 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 17:20:22 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:
On 3/2/12 4:32 PM, Happy John wrote:
I hope this is not taken as a 'political' post. There is no
intention that it be political. I
received the link in an email and thought it was pretty scary.

http://downloads.cbn.com/cbnnewsplay....swf?aid=17933




From CBN and it's not political?


Hehehe.


Right.

Can,t get the link to work.

Try this: http://tinyurl.com/29ghyhx

Got it. And the cops were ordered to do nothing? That's the french for you.

Cheese eating surrender monkeys.




The United States hasn't won a serious shooting war against a serious
opponent since World War II, and that war required many allies.

In article , dump-on-
says...

On 3/3/12 10:32 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 3/3/2012 10:13 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 3/3/12 10:10 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

In ,
says...

In ,
says...

In ,
says...

In ,
says...

On 3/2/12 5:49 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 3/2/2012 5:20 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 3/2/12 4:32 PM, Happy John wrote:
I hope this is not taken as a 'political' post. There is no
intention
that it be political. I
received the link in an email and thought it was pretty scary.

http://downloads.cbn.com/cbnnewsplay....swf?aid=17933


From CBN and it's not political?

Hehehe.

Right.

It has already started he

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-dismisse...204051912.html





We have a long history in this country of the self-described
religious
attacking/isolating/discriminating against those whose beliefs
differ
from theirs, a history that began long before anyone noticed we
have
Muslims here.

Such religious bigotry is as American as apple pie.

What is the difference between those who have a religious axe to
grind
and those with a political axe to grind.

Exactly! When the Ayatollah Santorum has his way, we'll be a
theocracy
just like that.

Do you want to be a Catholic theocracy or a Muslim theocracy?

Neither. And neither did our founding fathers.

Read the declaration of independence again. We were founded with an
acknowledgment of God's grace and that everyone could practice their
religion without interference by others. Contrary to popular belief
there is not separation of church and state.


snerk



Yeah, we know the constitution is a joke to you.. We get it..


No, silly...I'm giggling at the Santorumism, that we live in a
theocracy...and there *is* separation of church and state.

What does the 1st amendment state? I'll help you and post it here for
you.

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