D
B
bvallely@aol.com
Guest
> Furthermore, the only way to stop religious freaks like you from lying
> to promote your sick, twisted faith and wrecking our country is to gun
> you down.
Is this an official death threat?
D
David Hartung
Guest
Richardson-Obama in 08 wrote:
> "David Hartung" <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in message
> news
JadnTAoCI3xwkDbnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Richardson-Obama in 08 wrote:
>>> "David Hartung" <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4tSdnaP9iIqDykDbnZ2dnUVZ_uSgnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>> kyldltn@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> More like the Boy who Cried Wolf. You dumb tards have tried to pin
>>>>> fake scandal after fake scandal on the Clintons since the early 90's
>>>>> and they've ALL turned out to be a bunch of bogus charges. Why on
>>>>> earth would anyone listen to you retards now? Seriously!
>>>> If they were all fake, why did Bill Clinton loose his law license for 5
>>> years?
>>>> If they were all fake, how was Ken Starr able to get 15 major
> convictions?
>>>> http://members.tripod.com/~GOPcapitalist/starr.html
>>>> Over 15 major convictions including a governor and a dozen of Clinton's
>>> closest
>>>> friends, the 2nd impeachment of a president in history, a contempt of
>>> court
>>>> charge found against that president for lying under oath, and justice
>>> brought to
>>>> the most corrupt president in the history of the United States.
>>> How many of those 15 major convictions were against the Clintons
> themselves?
>> As many as have been against president Bush, but that hasn't stopped you
> from
>> calling him corrupt.
>
> Let's compare:
>
> The Clintons faced eight years of wild accusations from the right including
> six years of investigation, re-investigation and probing by a belligerent,
> partisan and adversarial Republican Congress and a Special Investigator who
> left absolutely no stones unturned, even if the stones were well outside of
> the scope of what he was directed to investigate. After millions of
> taxpayer dollars spent on the witch hunt, the end result, for the Clintons
> themselves, was nothing more than a Contempt of Court citation for the
> President for claiming to have not had extramarital sex. And you feel that
> justifies calling Clinton "the most corrupt president in the history of the
> United States".
Yes let's do compare. Star got 15 major convictions, there has not even been
anything to investigate for Bush.
> By comparison, Bush enjoyed a six-year absolutely free ride from a
> sycophantic press and an even more sycophantic Congress, which would have
> turned a blind eye to him raping Mother Theresa on the White House lawn.
> The new Democratic Congress hasn't been quite so generous, but virtually
> every request for information they make of the White House is met with
> claims of Executive Privilege . . . more in the eight months that this
> Congress has existed than any other President has made in an entire term . .
> . invocation of the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination
> and/or outright refusal to testify. And you provide the lack of a
> conviction for anything in only eight short months as evidence that Bush is
> as pure as the driven snow.
You have destroyed whatever credibility you may have had. Bush has faced a
hostile media ever since day 1.
> "David Hartung" <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in message
> news
JadnTAoCI3xwkDbnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@comcast.com...>> Richardson-Obama in 08 wrote:
>>> "David Hartung" <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4tSdnaP9iIqDykDbnZ2dnUVZ_uSgnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>> kyldltn@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> More like the Boy who Cried Wolf. You dumb tards have tried to pin
>>>>> fake scandal after fake scandal on the Clintons since the early 90's
>>>>> and they've ALL turned out to be a bunch of bogus charges. Why on
>>>>> earth would anyone listen to you retards now? Seriously!
>>>> If they were all fake, why did Bill Clinton loose his law license for 5
>>> years?
>>>> If they were all fake, how was Ken Starr able to get 15 major
> convictions?
>>>> http://members.tripod.com/~GOPcapitalist/starr.html
>>>> Over 15 major convictions including a governor and a dozen of Clinton's
>>> closest
>>>> friends, the 2nd impeachment of a president in history, a contempt of
>>> court
>>>> charge found against that president for lying under oath, and justice
>>> brought to
>>>> the most corrupt president in the history of the United States.
>>> How many of those 15 major convictions were against the Clintons
> themselves?
>> As many as have been against president Bush, but that hasn't stopped you
> from
>> calling him corrupt.
>
> Let's compare:
>
> The Clintons faced eight years of wild accusations from the right including
> six years of investigation, re-investigation and probing by a belligerent,
> partisan and adversarial Republican Congress and a Special Investigator who
> left absolutely no stones unturned, even if the stones were well outside of
> the scope of what he was directed to investigate. After millions of
> taxpayer dollars spent on the witch hunt, the end result, for the Clintons
> themselves, was nothing more than a Contempt of Court citation for the
> President for claiming to have not had extramarital sex. And you feel that
> justifies calling Clinton "the most corrupt president in the history of the
> United States".
Yes let's do compare. Star got 15 major convictions, there has not even been
anything to investigate for Bush.
> By comparison, Bush enjoyed a six-year absolutely free ride from a
> sycophantic press and an even more sycophantic Congress, which would have
> turned a blind eye to him raping Mother Theresa on the White House lawn.
> The new Democratic Congress hasn't been quite so generous, but virtually
> every request for information they make of the White House is met with
> claims of Executive Privilege . . . more in the eight months that this
> Congress has existed than any other President has made in an entire term . .
> . invocation of the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination
> and/or outright refusal to testify. And you provide the lack of a
> conviction for anything in only eight short months as evidence that Bush is
> as pure as the driven snow.
You have destroyed whatever credibility you may have had. Bush has faced a
hostile media ever since day 1.
S
Sanders Kaufman
Guest
bvallely@aol.com wrote:
>> Furthermore, the only way to stop religious freaks like you from lying
>> to promote your sick, twisted faith and wrecking our country is to gun
>> you down.
>
> Is this an official death threat?
Do you feel threatened?
See this is one of the reasons why religious nuts are so ill-equipped to
fight against terrorism - because everything terrifies you.
It's called a self-fulfilling prophecy.
You start by claiming the Iraqis are some kind of threat - nuquluure or
anthrax, for example. So you go into debt, to hire people to kill them.
But the thing is that they weren't a threat.... until you made your own
prophecy come true by slaughtering them and looting their country and
torturing them and raping their women and mauling their children.
Now - you've got NEW things to be afraid of, and NO CREDIT.
>> Furthermore, the only way to stop religious freaks like you from lying
>> to promote your sick, twisted faith and wrecking our country is to gun
>> you down.
>
> Is this an official death threat?
Do you feel threatened?
See this is one of the reasons why religious nuts are so ill-equipped to
fight against terrorism - because everything terrifies you.
It's called a self-fulfilling prophecy.
You start by claiming the Iraqis are some kind of threat - nuquluure or
anthrax, for example. So you go into debt, to hire people to kill them.
But the thing is that they weren't a threat.... until you made your own
prophecy come true by slaughtering them and looting their country and
torturing them and raping their women and mauling their children.
Now - you've got NEW things to be afraid of, and NO CREDIT.
S
Sanders Kaufman
Guest
David Hartung wrote:
> bvallely@aol.com wrote:
>
>> First off, I'm not an evangelist, I'm a Lutheran.
>
> ELCA, LCMS, or WELS?
It seems that the Iraqis are not the only people whose nation is in
crisis because of sectarian divisiveness.
> bvallely@aol.com wrote:
>
>> First off, I'm not an evangelist, I'm a Lutheran.
>
> ELCA, LCMS, or WELS?
It seems that the Iraqis are not the only people whose nation is in
crisis because of sectarian divisiveness.
S
Sid9
Guest
David Hartung wrote:
> bvallely@aol.com wrote:
>
>> First off, I'm not an evangelist, I'm a Lutheran.
>
> ELCA, LCMS, or WELS?
What does ELCA stand for?
I guess it depends on the flavor
> bvallely@aol.com wrote:
>
>> First off, I'm not an evangelist, I'm a Lutheran.
>
> ELCA, LCMS, or WELS?
What does ELCA stand for?
I guess it depends on the flavor
G
GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Ut
Guest
Sid9 wrote:
> David Hartung wrote:
>> bvallely@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> First off, I'm not an evangelist, I'm a Lutheran.
>>
>> ELCA, LCMS, or WELS?
>
> What does ELCA stand for?
>
>
> I guess it depends on the flavor
Evangelical Lutheran Church of America.
--
There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.
> David Hartung wrote:
>> bvallely@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> First off, I'm not an evangelist, I'm a Lutheran.
>>
>> ELCA, LCMS, or WELS?
>
> What does ELCA stand for?
>
>
> I guess it depends on the flavor
Evangelical Lutheran Church of America.
--
There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.
R
Richardson-Obama in 08
Guest
"David Hartung" <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in message
news:UrWdnZ_-G8edXUDbnZ2dnUVZ_qHinZ2d@comcast.com...
> Richardson-Obama in 08 wrote:
> > "David Hartung" <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in message
> > newsJadnTAoCI3xwkDbnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >> Richardson-Obama in 08 wrote:
> >>> "David Hartung" <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in message
> >>> news:4tSdnaP9iIqDykDbnZ2dnUVZ_uSgnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >>>> kyldltn@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> More like the Boy who Cried Wolf. You dumb tards have tried to pin
> >>>>> fake scandal after fake scandal on the Clintons since the early 90's
> >>>>> and they've ALL turned out to be a bunch of bogus charges. Why on
> >>>>> earth would anyone listen to you retards now? Seriously!
> >>>> If they were all fake, why did Bill Clinton loose his law license for
5
> >>> years?
> >>>> If they were all fake, how was Ken Starr able to get 15 major
> > convictions?
> >>>> http://members.tripod.com/~GOPcapitalist/starr.html
> >>>> Over 15 major convictions including a governor and a dozen of
Clinton's
> >>> closest
> >>>> friends, the 2nd impeachment of a president in history, a contempt of
> >>> court
> >>>> charge found against that president for lying under oath, and justice
> >>> brought to
> >>>> the most corrupt president in the history of the United States.
> >>> How many of those 15 major convictions were against the Clintons
> > themselves?
> >> As many as have been against president Bush, but that hasn't stopped
you
> > from
> >> calling him corrupt.
> >
> > Let's compare:
> >
> > The Clintons faced eight years of wild accusations from the right
including
> > six years of investigation, re-investigation and probing by a
belligerent,
> > partisan and adversarial Republican Congress and a Special Investigator
who
> > left absolutely no stones unturned, even if the stones were well outside
of
> > the scope of what he was directed to investigate. After millions of
> > taxpayer dollars spent on the witch hunt, the end result, for the
Clintons
> > themselves, was nothing more than a Contempt of Court citation for the
> > President for claiming to have not had extramarital sex. And you feel
that
> > justifies calling Clinton "the most corrupt president in the history of
the
> > United States".
>
> Yes let's do compare. Star got 15 major convictions, there has not even
been
> anything to investigate for Bush.
But Starr got NOTHING on the Clinton's . . . his primary targets. He gets a
few "effort" points for at least hitting the backstop, but he missed the
targets completely. As far as not having anything to investigate for Bush
goes, you never know until you're able to peel away the multiple layers of
stonewalling, bogus claims of Executive Privilege, invocations of the Fifth
Amendment and outright groundless refusals to appear during the
investigations of Bush underlings who quite obviously DID have things to
investigate. Was Bush directly involved in the outing of Valerie Plame?
Only a handful of people know for sure, and they aren't talking. Did he
know he was lying about the WMD when he was trying to justify an invasion of
Iraq? Did he personaly authorize violation of the Geneva Accords by saying
it was all right to torture the detainees, or was that all Gonzo and Rummy?
How about the illegal voter caging? Did he know about that, or was that
strictly a Rove deal. And the warrantless wiretapping in violation of the
FISA law brings up other unanswered questions. There are so many questions
to be answered, and every time Congress tries to ask them the White House
finds a way to evade them. That amount of evasion alone is cause for
investigation.
> > By comparison, Bush enjoyed a six-year absolutely free ride from a
> > sycophantic press and an even more sycophantic Congress, which would
have
> > turned a blind eye to him raping Mother Theresa on the White House lawn.
> > The new Democratic Congress hasn't been quite so generous, but virtually
> > every request for information they make of the White House is met with
> > claims of Executive Privilege . . . more in the eight months that this
> > Congress has existed than any other President has made in an entire term
.. .
> > . invocation of the Fifth Amendment protection against
self-incrimination
> > and/or outright refusal to testify. And you provide the lack of a
> > conviction for anything in only eight short months as evidence that Bush
is
> > as pure as the driven snow.
>
> You have destroyed whatever credibility you may have had. Bush has faced a
> hostile media ever since day 1.
BWAH!!! This administration has the press so cowed that anything negative
that they actually DO dare to write about it get's relegated to page 17,
while Bush's comments about how "it's hard work protectin' 'merica" get's
page one coverage. Reporters who actually ask tough questions, like Helen
Thomas, get moved to the back of the room and get called on once in a blue
moon, while those who suck up to the Shrub get moved to the front and get to
ask their softball questions all they like. This White House has
manipulated the press with large doses of fear of reprisals. They may, or
may not, be internally hostile. But what they report has been far, far
kinder to Bush than he's deserved.
news:UrWdnZ_-G8edXUDbnZ2dnUVZ_qHinZ2d@comcast.com...
> Richardson-Obama in 08 wrote:
> > "David Hartung" <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in message
> > news
JadnTAoCI3xwkDbnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@comcast.com...> >> Richardson-Obama in 08 wrote:
> >>> "David Hartung" <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in message
> >>> news:4tSdnaP9iIqDykDbnZ2dnUVZ_uSgnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >>>> kyldltn@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> More like the Boy who Cried Wolf. You dumb tards have tried to pin
> >>>>> fake scandal after fake scandal on the Clintons since the early 90's
> >>>>> and they've ALL turned out to be a bunch of bogus charges. Why on
> >>>>> earth would anyone listen to you retards now? Seriously!
> >>>> If they were all fake, why did Bill Clinton loose his law license for
5
> >>> years?
> >>>> If they were all fake, how was Ken Starr able to get 15 major
> > convictions?
> >>>> http://members.tripod.com/~GOPcapitalist/starr.html
> >>>> Over 15 major convictions including a governor and a dozen of
Clinton's
> >>> closest
> >>>> friends, the 2nd impeachment of a president in history, a contempt of
> >>> court
> >>>> charge found against that president for lying under oath, and justice
> >>> brought to
> >>>> the most corrupt president in the history of the United States.
> >>> How many of those 15 major convictions were against the Clintons
> > themselves?
> >> As many as have been against president Bush, but that hasn't stopped
you
> > from
> >> calling him corrupt.
> >
> > Let's compare:
> >
> > The Clintons faced eight years of wild accusations from the right
including
> > six years of investigation, re-investigation and probing by a
belligerent,
> > partisan and adversarial Republican Congress and a Special Investigator
who
> > left absolutely no stones unturned, even if the stones were well outside
of
> > the scope of what he was directed to investigate. After millions of
> > taxpayer dollars spent on the witch hunt, the end result, for the
Clintons
> > themselves, was nothing more than a Contempt of Court citation for the
> > President for claiming to have not had extramarital sex. And you feel
that
> > justifies calling Clinton "the most corrupt president in the history of
the
> > United States".
>
> Yes let's do compare. Star got 15 major convictions, there has not even
been
> anything to investigate for Bush.
But Starr got NOTHING on the Clinton's . . . his primary targets. He gets a
few "effort" points for at least hitting the backstop, but he missed the
targets completely. As far as not having anything to investigate for Bush
goes, you never know until you're able to peel away the multiple layers of
stonewalling, bogus claims of Executive Privilege, invocations of the Fifth
Amendment and outright groundless refusals to appear during the
investigations of Bush underlings who quite obviously DID have things to
investigate. Was Bush directly involved in the outing of Valerie Plame?
Only a handful of people know for sure, and they aren't talking. Did he
know he was lying about the WMD when he was trying to justify an invasion of
Iraq? Did he personaly authorize violation of the Geneva Accords by saying
it was all right to torture the detainees, or was that all Gonzo and Rummy?
How about the illegal voter caging? Did he know about that, or was that
strictly a Rove deal. And the warrantless wiretapping in violation of the
FISA law brings up other unanswered questions. There are so many questions
to be answered, and every time Congress tries to ask them the White House
finds a way to evade them. That amount of evasion alone is cause for
investigation.
> > By comparison, Bush enjoyed a six-year absolutely free ride from a
> > sycophantic press and an even more sycophantic Congress, which would
have
> > turned a blind eye to him raping Mother Theresa on the White House lawn.
> > The new Democratic Congress hasn't been quite so generous, but virtually
> > every request for information they make of the White House is met with
> > claims of Executive Privilege . . . more in the eight months that this
> > Congress has existed than any other President has made in an entire term
.. .
> > . invocation of the Fifth Amendment protection against
self-incrimination
> > and/or outright refusal to testify. And you provide the lack of a
> > conviction for anything in only eight short months as evidence that Bush
is
> > as pure as the driven snow.
>
> You have destroyed whatever credibility you may have had. Bush has faced a
> hostile media ever since day 1.
BWAH!!! This administration has the press so cowed that anything negative
that they actually DO dare to write about it get's relegated to page 17,
while Bush's comments about how "it's hard work protectin' 'merica" get's
page one coverage. Reporters who actually ask tough questions, like Helen
Thomas, get moved to the back of the room and get called on once in a blue
moon, while those who suck up to the Shrub get moved to the front and get to
ask their softball questions all they like. This White House has
manipulated the press with large doses of fear of reprisals. They may, or
may not, be internally hostile. But what they report has been far, far
kinder to Bush than he's deserved.
B
bvallely@aol.com
Guest
On Sep 4, 2:24 pm, Sanders Kaufman <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
> bvall...@aol.com wrote:
> >> Furthermore, the only way to stop religious freaks like you from lying
> >> to promote your sick, twisted faith and wrecking our country is to gun
> >> you down.
..
> > Is this an official death threat?
..
> Do you feel threatened?>
>From the likes of you? God, no - you're a clown. I just wanted to
point out just how crazy you've become.
I repeat - are you now issuing death threats to people for the sin of
disagreeing with you? Of course the threats are meaningless as, well,
you are. But the fact that you're so frustrated by discussion is very
telling indeed.
Is that the person you want to be? Because it's the person you
deserve to be.
> bvall...@aol.com wrote:
> >> Furthermore, the only way to stop religious freaks like you from lying
> >> to promote your sick, twisted faith and wrecking our country is to gun
> >> you down.
..
> > Is this an official death threat?
..
> Do you feel threatened?>
>From the likes of you? God, no - you're a clown. I just wanted to
point out just how crazy you've become.
I repeat - are you now issuing death threats to people for the sin of
disagreeing with you? Of course the threats are meaningless as, well,
you are. But the fact that you're so frustrated by discussion is very
telling indeed.
Is that the person you want to be? Because it's the person you
deserve to be.
B
bvallely@aol.com
Guest
> > First off, I'm not an evangelist, I'm a Lutheran.
> ELCA, LCMS, or WELS?
ELCA. The largest denomination of Lutherans in the USA.
S
Starkiller
Guest
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 18:38:16 -0700, "bvallely@aol.com"
<bvallely@aol.com> wrote:
>On Sep 4, 2:24 pm, Sanders Kaufman <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
>> bvall...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> Furthermore, the only way to stop religious freaks like you from lying
>> >> to promote your sick, twisted faith and wrecking our country is to gun
>> >> you down.
>.
>> > Is this an official death threat?
>.
>> Do you feel threatened?>
>
>>From the likes of you? God, no - you're a clown. I just wanted to
>point out just how crazy you've become.
>
>I repeat - are you now issuing death threats to people for the sin of
>disagreeing with you? Of course the threats are meaningless as, well,
>you are. But the fact that you're so frustrated by discussion is very
>telling indeed.
>
>Is that the person you want to be? Because it's the person you
>deserve to be.
Always crack me up to read a post by an anti gun, anti war liberal
saying that they want to gun down people based upon politics or
religion. Kinda blows that "open minded" thing they always preach out
of the water don't it?
Regards
Starkiller
<bvallely@aol.com> wrote:
>On Sep 4, 2:24 pm, Sanders Kaufman <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
>> bvall...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> Furthermore, the only way to stop religious freaks like you from lying
>> >> to promote your sick, twisted faith and wrecking our country is to gun
>> >> you down.
>.
>> > Is this an official death threat?
>.
>> Do you feel threatened?>
>
>>From the likes of you? God, no - you're a clown. I just wanted to
>point out just how crazy you've become.
>
>I repeat - are you now issuing death threats to people for the sin of
>disagreeing with you? Of course the threats are meaningless as, well,
>you are. But the fact that you're so frustrated by discussion is very
>telling indeed.
>
>Is that the person you want to be? Because it's the person you
>deserve to be.
Always crack me up to read a post by an anti gun, anti war liberal
saying that they want to gun down people based upon politics or
religion. Kinda blows that "open minded" thing they always preach out
of the water don't it?
Regards
Starkiller
B
bvallely@aol.com
Guest
> > bvall...@aol.com wrote:
> >> First off, I'm not an evangelist, I'm a Lutheran.
> > ELCA, LCMS, or WELS?
> It seems that the Iraqis are not the only people whose nation is in
> crisis because of sectarian divisiveness.
Yeah, the Lutherans are a real threat to world peace, aren't they?
Here's the web page to the church I belong to. Take a look, and tell
me what you find most odious...
http://hopelutheranchurch.net/
S
Sid9
Guest
bvallely@aol.com wrote:
>>> First off, I'm not an evangelist, I'm a Lutheran.
>
>> ELCA, LCMS, or WELS?
>
> ELCA. The largest denomination of Lutherans in the USA.
Evangelicals...it's in their name.
>>> First off, I'm not an evangelist, I'm a Lutheran.
>
>> ELCA, LCMS, or WELS?
>
> ELCA. The largest denomination of Lutherans in the USA.
Evangelicals...it's in their name.
B
bvallely@aol.com
Guest
> >> First off, I'm not an evangelist, I'm a Lutheran.
> > ELCA, LCMS, or WELS?
> What does ELCA stand for?
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA)
S
Starkiller
Guest
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 18:45:24 -0700, "bvallely@aol.com"
<bvallely@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> > bvall...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> >> First off, I'm not an evangelist, I'm a Lutheran.
>
>> > ELCA, LCMS, or WELS?
>
>> It seems that the Iraqis are not the only people whose nation is in
>> crisis because of sectarian divisiveness.
>
>Yeah, the Lutherans are a real threat to world peace, aren't they?
>
>Here's the web page to the church I belong to. Take a look, and tell
>me what you find most odious...
>
>http://hopelutheranchurch.net/
>
I was married in a Lutheran Church.
Ya'll some cheerful folks ain't ya?
Went there for a while 'cause of the wife. Preacher was always
talking up beat and positive. Never heard any of the hellfire and
brimstone that you get with the Baptists and Pentecostals.
Regards
Starkiller
<bvallely@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> > bvall...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> >> First off, I'm not an evangelist, I'm a Lutheran.
>
>> > ELCA, LCMS, or WELS?
>
>> It seems that the Iraqis are not the only people whose nation is in
>> crisis because of sectarian divisiveness.
>
>Yeah, the Lutherans are a real threat to world peace, aren't they?
>
>Here's the web page to the church I belong to. Take a look, and tell
>me what you find most odious...
>
>http://hopelutheranchurch.net/
>
I was married in a Lutheran Church.
Ya'll some cheerful folks ain't ya?
Went there for a while 'cause of the wife. Preacher was always
talking up beat and positive. Never heard any of the hellfire and
brimstone that you get with the Baptists and Pentecostals.
Regards
Starkiller
D
David Hartung
Guest
Sid9 wrote:
> David Hartung wrote:
>> bvallely@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> First off, I'm not an evangelist, I'm a Lutheran.
>> ELCA, LCMS, or WELS?
>
> What does ELCA stand for?
>
>
> I guess it depends on the flavor
ELCA: Evangelical Lutheran Church in America(Liberal)
LCMS: Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod(conservative)
WELS: Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Church(Ultra Conservative)
> David Hartung wrote:
>> bvallely@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> First off, I'm not an evangelist, I'm a Lutheran.
>> ELCA, LCMS, or WELS?
>
> What does ELCA stand for?
>
>
> I guess it depends on the flavor
ELCA: Evangelical Lutheran Church in America(Liberal)
LCMS: Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod(conservative)
WELS: Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Church(Ultra Conservative)
D
David Hartung
Guest
bvallely@aol.com wrote:
>>> First off, I'm not an evangelist, I'm a Lutheran.
>
>> ELCA, LCMS, or WELS?
>
> ELCA. The largest denomination of Lutherans in the USA.
And the most liberal.
>>> First off, I'm not an evangelist, I'm a Lutheran.
>
>> ELCA, LCMS, or WELS?
>
> ELCA. The largest denomination of Lutherans in the USA.
And the most liberal.
D
David Hartung
Guest
bvallely@aol.com wrote:
>>> First off, I'm not an evangelist, I'm a Lutheran.
>
>> ELCA, LCMS, or WELS?
>
> ELCA. The largest denomination of Lutherans in the USA.
Thank you.
>>> First off, I'm not an evangelist, I'm a Lutheran.
>
>> ELCA, LCMS, or WELS?
>
> ELCA. The largest denomination of Lutherans in the USA.
Thank you.
S
Sanders Kaufman
Guest
bvallely@aol.com wrote:
> I repeat - are you now issuing death threats to people for the sin of
> disagreeing with you?
What a stupidly insincere question!
> Of course the threats are meaningless as, well,
> you are. But the fact that you're so frustrated by discussion is very
> telling indeed.
> Is that the person you want to be? Because it's the person you
> deserve to be.
I see you're done talking about politics.
It's unfortunate that you low-life neochristians tire so easily of
intellectual pursuits, always lowering the discussion to such petty
personal attacks.
But I feel your pain.
For 7 years now you've supported a War Against Islam that is now a
near-total failure. Your prophecies all came to nothing. Your
evangelical leaders are being exposed for the perverted, corrupt
bastards they are.
Now, stand witness as the Kharmic pendulum swings back atcha.
BTW- Kharma is a word that comes from eastern religions. Get used to
that kind of stuff becoming more prevalent in the US, as the ranks of
the pseudo-Christians continue to dwindle.
> I repeat - are you now issuing death threats to people for the sin of
> disagreeing with you?
What a stupidly insincere question!
> Of course the threats are meaningless as, well,
> you are. But the fact that you're so frustrated by discussion is very
> telling indeed.
> Is that the person you want to be? Because it's the person you
> deserve to be.
I see you're done talking about politics.
It's unfortunate that you low-life neochristians tire so easily of
intellectual pursuits, always lowering the discussion to such petty
personal attacks.
But I feel your pain.
For 7 years now you've supported a War Against Islam that is now a
near-total failure. Your prophecies all came to nothing. Your
evangelical leaders are being exposed for the perverted, corrupt
bastards they are.
Now, stand witness as the Kharmic pendulum swings back atcha.
BTW- Kharma is a word that comes from eastern religions. Get used to
that kind of stuff becoming more prevalent in the US, as the ranks of
the pseudo-Christians continue to dwindle.
S
Sanders Kaufman
Guest
bvallely@aol.com wrote:
>>> bvall...@aol.com wrote:
>> It seems that the Iraqis are not the only people whose nation is in
>> crisis because of sectarian divisiveness.
>
> Yeah, the Lutherans are a real threat to world peace, aren't they?
>
> Here's the web page to the church I belong to. Take a look, and tell
> me what you find most odious...
That's a nice web page.
But it doesn't mention the last chapter of your bible - the part you
believe that all the dead christians will be reincarnated into a great
Xian army to wipe out the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and others.
Do you not believe that part of your bible, or do you just not like to
speak openly about that part of your apocalyptic faith?
>
> http://hopelutheranchurch.net/
>
>
>>> bvall...@aol.com wrote:
>> It seems that the Iraqis are not the only people whose nation is in
>> crisis because of sectarian divisiveness.
>
> Yeah, the Lutherans are a real threat to world peace, aren't they?
>
> Here's the web page to the church I belong to. Take a look, and tell
> me what you find most odious...
That's a nice web page.
But it doesn't mention the last chapter of your bible - the part you
believe that all the dead christians will be reincarnated into a great
Xian army to wipe out the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and others.
Do you not believe that part of your bible, or do you just not like to
speak openly about that part of your apocalyptic faith?
>
> http://hopelutheranchurch.net/
>
>