Guest Al Klein Posted November 4, 2007 Posted November 4, 2007 On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 13:45:10 +0100, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >Your quote explicitly states that there is no evidence that the C4 was >made in Iran. It simply states that two sources think that Iran is the >main suspect. And one source thinks this is just a guess. >Hardly a basis to start killing people. Unless you're a rabid Christian fundamentalist, in which case it's two statements and one guess more than is needed. What God wants (as revealed by the person claiming to know what God wants) is more important than mere "evidence". -- Al at Webdingers dot com "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted November 4, 2007 Posted November 4, 2007 On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 22:20:29 -0700, cactus <cactus@nonespam.com> wrote: >Jason wrote: >> In article <rftpi359m74fv6vjn826cqhvt0s22gbonk@4ax.com>, Al Klein >> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 11:03:12 +0100, Tokay Pino Gris >>> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> Have you heard of the free exercise clause? >>>> Just read about it. And? What does that have to do with having stone >>>> tablets of any religion in a court house (i.e. governmental building)? >>>> He can put those tablets in his front lawn, as many as he likes.... >>> Many of the God-soaked think that "free" means "license", and they can >>> do anything at all as long as they invoke "free exercise". As witness >>> Westboro Baptist Church demonstrating at funerals. They've just been >>> hit with an ELEVEN MILLION DOLLAR judgment for disrupting a funeral, >>> regardless of their claims of religious freedom and free speech. >> >> It was a private funeral. They violated those people's "right to privacy". >> >> Did you know that many of the people that campaign at abortion clinics >> have been sued? They now have to campaign far away from the entrance of >> abortion clinics. >> >> >I hope at least 5 miles away. If it's good enough for the president, it's good enough for abortion clinics. Let's put up fenced-in 'protest zones' a few blocks away, and around a few corners, from clinics. -- Al at Webdingers dot com "In matters of faith never trust your own judgment, but always humbly submit to the decisions of the Holy Church." (page 77, _A Full Catechism of the Catholic Religion_, Fr. Joseph De Harbe, S.J.) Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted November 4, 2007 Posted November 4, 2007 On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 07:31:47 -0500, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >Al Klein wrote: >> On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:22:58 -0400, Christopher A.Lee >> <calee@optonline.net> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:18:17 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> I did not save that report. I found it by conducting a google search for >>>>> "Anal Sex Africa" and got lots of hits. The report indicated that it's >>>>> common for African men to have anal sex with women. >>>> No, it didn't, Jason. Please don't lie. It said that they MIGHT have >>>> more anal sex and that MIGHT be why they have a higher rate of AIDS. The >>>> report, like you, offered nothing in the way of evidence to support >>>> this, how-ever. >>> Heterosexual anal sex is a form of birth control that was used before >>> more modern methods like condoms, IUDs, the pill etc became available. >>> It wouldn't surprise me if it is still used that way in many third >>> world countries. > ><piggybacking> > >Whether or not anal sex really is more prevalent or not is not the >issue. Whether or not the article that Jason cited claimed that as being >FACT is. The article said it MIGHT be and Jason jumps on that like it >was claimed to be gospel truth. Just as Jason claims that a Google hit on "doctor mercy killing daily" proves that doctors perform mercy killing every day. Or that "an educated guess" is evidence. To Jason, and to most evangelicals, when it comes to something that impinges, no matter how slightly, on their religion, belief (or even desire) = fact. -- Al at Webdingers dot com "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." - Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted November 4, 2007 Posted November 4, 2007 On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 09:54:04 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote: >Christians are so humble that laws and Constitutions they've sworn to >defend and uphold do not apply to them. The Christian oath of office, if you can read between the lines, is "I swear before almighty God to uphold those parts of the Constitution that, in MY SOLE belief, do not go against anything I might think God might not want." -- Al at Webdingers dot com "In matters of faith never trust your own judgment, but always humbly submit to the decisions of the Holy Church." (page 77, _A Full Catechism of the Catholic Religion_, Fr. Joseph De Harbe, S.J.) Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted November 4, 2007 Posted November 4, 2007 On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 12:27:56 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote: >On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:38:23 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> >wrote: > >>On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:50:11 +0100, Tokay Pino Gris >><tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >> >>>Jason wrote: >>>> In article <l79hi3tc5n5ncp4440nt82vhvijdm0pqgj@4ax.com>, Al Klein >>>> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:32:06 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> If you believe that the president of Iran is making nuclear materials to >>>>>> be used for peaceful purposes >>>>> The SCIENTISTS who have inspected the facilities KNOW he is. >>>> >>>> Nuclear materials can be used to make nuclear weapons. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>weeeell. No, not that easy. Plutonium can. Uranium 295 can. Uranium 298 >>>can't. Well, not fission bombs anyway. >>> >>>Plutonium has to be created. In a special reactor. Uranium 295 has to be >>>collected.... rather tedious process.... >> >>None of which Iran is even working toward today. >> >>But, what the hell, let's nuke them anyway, just to make sure that >>they don't get any ideas. It's better that Christians kill everyone >>than that Moslems kill anyone. >> >>(And for his next act in the Rubber Room, Jason will ...) > >embrace the lady with the strap-on dildo..... Like he's been embracing the man with the strap-on dildo all his life. -- Al at Webdingers dot com "You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." - George W. Bush, interview with CBS News' Katie Couric, Sept. 6, 2006 Quote
Guest Christopher A.Lee Posted November 4, 2007 Posted November 4, 2007 On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 17:07:57 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: >On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 13:45:10 +0100, Tokay Pino Gris ><tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >>Your quote explicitly states that there is no evidence that the C4 was >>made in Iran. It simply states that two sources think that Iran is the >>main suspect. And one source thinks this is just a guess. > >>Hardly a basis to start killing people. > >Unless you're a rabid Christian fundamentalist, in which case it's two >statements and one guess more than is needed. What God wants (as >revealed by the person claiming to know what God wants) is more >important than mere "evidence". It's because they can't think for themselves. When somebody they trust says something that makes it so - whether it is C4 made in Iran, WMDs(WsMD?) in Iraq, Noah's flood or the Garden of Eden. They're all true because somebody said so. Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 4, 2007 Posted November 4, 2007 In article <fgkpmf$8le$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <fgf89f$93i$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> Iran is the problem since they have a religious nut case as a president. > >> Jason, you've already sat there and admitted that you'd rather see > >> 8,000,000 people definitely die in NYC rather than blow up a sub full of > >> "religious nut case" and some kids when those "religious nut case" > >> are definitely armed with multiple nukes and ready, willing and able to > >> use them in a matter of hours. Now you want to blow up the "religious > >> nut case" as well as possibly thousands of innocent people in order > >> to POSSIBLY save several million when you don't know if these "religious > >> nut case" even HAVE any nukes at all yet, much less the authority or > >> will to use them. > >> > >> Can you get any MORE deranged? > > > > 55% of Americans agree with me related to this issue. > > So? That doesn't make you any less deranged. If you was president of America and the director of the CIA showed you a satellite photo of people in Iran loading warheads on two long range missiles-- Would you order the military to destroy the nuclear facilites in Iran and also destroy the long range missiles? Quote
Guest Richard Clayton Posted November 4, 2007 Posted November 4, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <fgkpmf$8le$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <fgf89f$93i$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> Iran is the problem since they have a religious nut case as a president. >>>> Jason, you've already sat there and admitted that you'd rather see >>>> 8,000,000 people definitely die in NYC rather than blow up a sub full of >>>> "religious nut case" and some kids when those "religious nut case" >>>> are definitely armed with multiple nukes and ready, willing and able to >>>> use them in a matter of hours. Now you want to blow up the "religious >>>> nut case" as well as possibly thousands of innocent people in order >>>> to POSSIBLY save several million when you don't know if these "religious >>>> nut case" even HAVE any nukes at all yet, much less the authority or >>>> will to use them. >>>> >>>> Can you get any MORE deranged? >>> 55% of Americans agree with me related to this issue. >> So? That doesn't make you any less deranged. > > If you was president of America and the director of the CIA showed you a > satellite photo of people in Iran loading warheads on two long range > missiles-- Would you order the military to destroy the nuclear facilites > in Iran and also destroy the long range missiles? The last time the President and cherry-picked CIA spokespeople insisted a country had weapons of mass destruction, it turned out to be a lie. Why should anybody trust them a second time? -- [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.] Richard Clayton "Freedom is the right of all sentient beings." Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 4, 2007 Posted November 4, 2007 In article <1re105-ou2.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 11:25:30 -0800, Jason wrote: > > >> About the same as any other nation (except those that already have > >> nukes - LIKE THE US). > > > > They have already modified their long range missiles so that nuclear > > warheads can be mounted on them. > > Goodie. And the US has several thousand nukes ready to go and the > "distinction" of being the only nation in the world to actually have used > nukes in combat. Oh, and they're led by a religious nut case. > > You persist in ignoring this, for some reason. Oh, right - because a > religious nut case is fine, as long as he's _your_ religion. I have no trust in the president of Iran since he clearly stated: "Israel must be wiped off from the map of the world." You may have total trust in the president of Iran but please do not ask me to have trust in the president of Iran. Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 4, 2007 Posted November 4, 2007 In article <opasi3hqmhdu1rp948jeligvfhu20f21nb@4ax.com>, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote: > On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:38:23 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> > wrote: > > >On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:50:11 +0100, Tokay Pino Gris > ><tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > > > >>Jason wrote: > >>> In article <l79hi3tc5n5ncp4440nt82vhvijdm0pqgj@4ax.com>, Al Klein > >>> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:32:06 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> If you believe that the president of Iran is making nuclear materials to > >>>>> be used for peaceful purposes > >>>> The SCIENTISTS who have inspected the facilities KNOW he is. > >>> > >>> Nuclear materials can be used to make nuclear weapons. > >>> > >>> > >> > >>weeeell. No, not that easy. Plutonium can. Uranium 295 can. Uranium 298 > >>can't. Well, not fission bombs anyway. > >> > >>Plutonium has to be created. In a special reactor. Uranium 295 has to be > >>collected.... rather tedious process.... > > > >None of which Iran is even working toward today. > > > >But, what the hell, let's nuke them anyway, just to make sure that > >they don't get any ideas. It's better that Christians kill everyone > >than that Moslems kill anyone. > > > >(And for his next act in the Rubber Room, Jason will ...) > > embrace the lady with the strap-on dildo..... It will have to be a VERY large room since 55 percent of Americans agree with me related to this issue. Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 4, 2007 Posted November 4, 2007 In article <g4gsi3toa9k4i74pir6rsosspl5u1rhnpq@4ax.com>, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 18:29:34 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> >The story may be over two years old but the missles > >> > >> That they didn't have? > >> > >> > could still be used > >> >once they finish work on the nuclear warheads. > >> > >> Which they aren't developing? > >> > >> >My Honda Accord is now 9 years old and still runs great. 2 or 3 old > >> >missiles still work great. > >> > >> Your Honda Civic doesn't run, though, does it? Or the Bughatti you're > >> not planning on buying? > > > >Iran proudly displayed their long range missiles during a major parade. I > >saw a picture of them on a website. > > > If it's justified to attack any nation with missiles, only a few > third-world nations can be allowed to survive. If it's not, attacking > Iran just because they have missiles isn't justified. The nuclear warheads that will eventually mounted on those long range missiles are the problem. Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 4, 2007 Posted November 4, 2007 In article <lue105-ou2.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 11:30:34 -0800, Jason wrote: > > > It's much easier to fire cruise missles at the nuclear facilities in Iran > > or use our bombers to drop bunker buster bombs on their nuclear > > facilities. > > Far-reaching technical operations in which any of a thousand things can go > wrong, and in which even if everything goes right, collateral damage is > significant. > > > I don't have the skills needed to assassinate any person. > > Beating someone over the head with a stick does not require significant > skill. A long range sniper rifle would be needed and it would be difficult to smuggle that sort of rifle from America into Iran. Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 4, 2007 Posted November 4, 2007 In article <fgkptb$8le$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <jdtpi31jp62epc1ccrturfpdgtjiqng65v@4ax.com>, Al Klein > > <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > >> Many people (the majority of human beings, in fact) believe that Jesus > >> WAS NOT the son of any god. I guess that means that you'll be giving > >> up Christianity, right? > > > > You might let those people know that they were not alive when Jesus was on > > this earth so how would they know. > > Neither were you. So how deep is that hole that you're digging, anyways? I trust the testimony of the witnesses that were alive during that time period. Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 4, 2007 Posted November 4, 2007 In article <4cgsi3h77bddt6dfee98r7src8pcpf3l4k@4ax.com>, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 18:33:22 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >In article <jdtpi31jp62epc1ccrturfpdgtjiqng65v@4ax.com>, Al Klein > ><rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 23:28:14 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > >> >In article <oj8ni35kmascj57bq46b1h1fehcq1s5hd7@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:27:40 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism > >> >> Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in > >> >> <u02ni3pguo2b7p0oig1u04vidms269sr16@4ax.com>: > >> >> >On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 11:31:31 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >>google "USS Cole Iran" > >> >> > > >> >> >Why don't you just post the link to the article with the ACTUAL > >> >> >EVIDENCE that Iran was involved? > >> >> > >> >> Cause he doesn't have any, of course. > >> > > >> >The only evidence that I could find was that many people believe that Iran > >> >may have been the country that made the C4. > >> > >> Many people (the majority of human beings, in fact) believe that Jesus > >> WAS NOT the son of any god. I guess that means that you'll be giving > >> up Christianity, right? > > > >You might let those people know that they were not alive when Jesus was on > >this earth so how would they know. > > > Neither were you, so how would you know? (Reading it in a book isn't > knowledge that it happened.) Have you ever taken a history course? Most of the info. in history book is based on the testimony of people that were alive hundreds or thousands of years ago. Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 4, 2007 Posted November 4, 2007 In article <v7gsi3ddancgq75k6p64qkmqrg4uo35ua5@4ax.com>, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 18:31:59 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >In article <rbtpi35q3qu5jjt9pldcje1pkletqbjs37@4ax.com>, Al Klein > ><rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 23:01:42 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > >> >In article <h9pni35dqntdgaie6rug1quf011jqm71n4@4ax.com>, Al Klein > >> ><rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 20:13:25 GMT, cactus <cactus@nonespam.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >Jason wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >> They will have to be responsible for their own souls. I read that > >doctors > >> >> >> commit mercy killings every day--mainly by over doses of certain drugs. > >> >> > >> >> >Source? > >> >> > >> >> He probably did a Google search on 'mercy killings', got over 2 > >> >> million hits, and concluded that doctors do mercy killings every day. > >> > > >> >Close--I recall reading an article about it in a magazine. > >> > >> Which you can't quote, or even give us a reference to. And we're > >> supposed to trust the memory of someone who claimed, for weeks, that > >> he has drug-induced memory problems? > > > >Are you stating that doctors do not conduct any mercy killings? > > No, I'm stating that you've offered no evidence to back up your > assertion that doctors commit mercy killings every day. > > > In one state, it is now legal for doctors to conduct mercy killings. > > ONLY if the patient requests it. > > > Ask any > >nurse if they know about any mercy killings. I know two local nurses. > > I know dozens of nurses, That has nothing to do with your failure to > provide evidence to back up your claim. If you choose to believe that doctors do not conduct mercy killings on a regular basis--so be it. Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 4, 2007 Posted November 4, 2007 In article <2td105-ou2.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 18:41:53 -0800, Jason wrote: > > > Did you know that many of the people that campaign at abortion clinics > > have been sued? They now have to campaign far away from the entrance of > > abortion clinics. > > Based on certain past incidents, one might argue anywhere within sniper > range is too close. Keep 'em back, oh, five miles. Those same rules should apply to people that campaign at the funerals of soldiers. Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 4, 2007 Posted November 4, 2007 In article <1wsXi.16271$Rg1.8897@trnddc05>, Richard Clayton <pockZIGetnZIGerd@verizon.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <fgkpmf$8le$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <fgf89f$93i$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>> Iran is the problem since they have a religious nut case as a president. > >>>> Jason, you've already sat there and admitted that you'd rather see > >>>> 8,000,000 people definitely die in NYC rather than blow up a sub full of > >>>> "religious nut case" and some kids when those "religious nut case" > >>>> are definitely armed with multiple nukes and ready, willing and able to > >>>> use them in a matter of hours. Now you want to blow up the "religious > >>>> nut case" as well as possibly thousands of innocent people in order > >>>> to POSSIBLY save several million when you don't know if these "religious > >>>> nut case" even HAVE any nukes at all yet, much less the authority or > >>>> will to use them. > >>>> > >>>> Can you get any MORE deranged? > >>> 55% of Americans agree with me related to this issue. > >> So? That doesn't make you any less deranged. > > > > If you was president of America and the director of the CIA showed you a > > satellite photo of people in Iran loading warheads on two long range > > missiles-- Would you order the military to destroy the nuclear facilites > > in Iran and also destroy the long range missiles? > > The last time the President and cherry-picked CIA spokespeople insisted > a country had weapons of mass destruction, it turned out to be a lie. > Why should anybody trust them a second time? You failed to answer a simple question. Quote
Guest Richard Clayton Posted November 4, 2007 Posted November 4, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1wsXi.16271$Rg1.8897@trnddc05>, Richard Clayton > <pockZIGetnZIGerd@verizon.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <fgkpmf$8le$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <fgf89f$93i$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>> Iran is the problem since they have a religious nut case as a president. >>>>>> Jason, you've already sat there and admitted that you'd rather see >>>>>> 8,000,000 people definitely die in NYC rather than blow up a sub full of >>>>>> "religious nut case" and some kids when those "religious nut case" >>>>>> are definitely armed with multiple nukes and ready, willing and able to >>>>>> use them in a matter of hours. Now you want to blow up the "religious >>>>>> nut case" as well as possibly thousands of innocent people in order >>>>>> to POSSIBLY save several million when you don't know if these "religious >>>>>> nut case" even HAVE any nukes at all yet, much less the authority or >>>>>> will to use them. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you get any MORE deranged? >>>>> 55% of Americans agree with me related to this issue. >>>> So? That doesn't make you any less deranged. >>> If you was president of America and the director of the CIA showed you a >>> satellite photo of people in Iran loading warheads on two long range >>> missiles-- Would you order the military to destroy the nuclear facilites >>> in Iran and also destroy the long range missiles? >> The last time the President and cherry-picked CIA spokespeople > insisted >> a country had weapons of mass destruction, it turned out to be a lie. >> Why should anybody trust them a second time? > > You failed to answer a simple question. The answer was implicit, but since you seem to have missed it, here's the simple version: No. The President lacks credibility. -- [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.] Richard Clayton "Freedom is the right of all sentient beings." Quote
Guest 655321 Posted November 5, 2007 Posted November 5, 2007 In article <Jason-0211072259340001@67-150-126-149.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <4pNWi.3546$nN3.1176@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, 655321 > <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > > > See how popular Bush was when he attacked Iraq? What facts did 55% of > > the American people "know" in 2002-03 that led them to support the > > foolhardy invasion of an autonomous country that was nowhere near a > > threat to the U.S. or its allies? How many of those "facts" turned out > > to be actual FACTS? > > Even less people support the members of Congress. Your response is another lame attempt to change the subject. It doesn't even make any sense. I asked about what "facts" about Iraq turned about to be actual facts , and you made another reference to public opinion. Do you not know the difference between public opinion and facts? Again: What you call knowledge is exactly not knowledge. -- 655321 "We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi Quote
Guest 655321 Posted November 5, 2007 Posted November 5, 2007 In article <lepni3p9ulrnehsl5gorjed0qebea2jon6@4ax.com>, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > You're talking to one of that 55% of the American public that doesn't > hear facts that contradict their feelings. Sad, but true. -- 655321 "We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi Quote
Guest 655321 Posted November 5, 2007 Posted November 5, 2007 In article <Jason-0211072258140001@67-150-126-149.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <IdNWi.3543$nN3.2807@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, 655321 > <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > > > Al Klein wrote: > > > On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 22:00:09 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > >> The president of Iran is a religious nut case. > > > > > > So is the president of the US. > > > > > >> Why do you trust him with nuclear-capable missiles > > > > > > Why do you trust Bush with nuclear-capable missiles or nuclear > > > materials? > > > > > >> or nuclear materials? > > > > > > What's wrong with nuclear materials? As long as you stay far enough > > > away from them (a mile is MORE than far enough), they're totally > > > harmless. (Ever have a coronary stress test? What they inject into > > > your IV is "nuclear material".) > > >> Read this CBS news story: > > >> > > >> > > >> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/31/world/main1460846.shtml > > >> > > >> Iranian Shahab-3 ballistic missiles roll past during a military parade > > >> last September > > > > > > PROPAGANDA that's OVER TWO YEARS OLD. and proves NOTHING! > > > > It's all he has. It's all the Iran-hawks have. > > The story may be over two years old but the missles could still be used > once they finish work on the nuclear warheads. Could be? You want to go to war over a "could be"? > My Honda Accord is now 9 years old and still runs great. 2 or 3 old > missiles still work great. The passage of time has not, on the other hand, been kind to your brain. -- 655321 "We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi Quote
Guest 655321 Posted November 5, 2007 Posted November 5, 2007 In article <Jason-0311071836260001@66-53-219-100.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > You appear to be a fan of a religious nut case. That you, a known fan of liars and distorters, would write this is no surprise. -- 655321 "We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 5, 2007 Posted November 5, 2007 In article <hSsXi.2201$b%1.2036@trnddc01>, Richard Clayton <pockZIGetnZIGerd@verizon.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <1wsXi.16271$Rg1.8897@trnddc05>, Richard Clayton > > <pockZIGetnZIGerd@verizon.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <fgkpmf$8le$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>> In article <fgf89f$93i$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >>>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>>>> Iran is the problem since they have a religious nut case as a president. > >>>>>> Jason, you've already sat there and admitted that you'd rather see > >>>>>> 8,000,000 people definitely die in NYC rather than blow up a sub full of > >>>>>> "religious nut case" and some kids when those "religious nut case" > >>>>>> are definitely armed with multiple nukes and ready, willing and able to > >>>>>> use them in a matter of hours. Now you want to blow up the "religious > >>>>>> nut case" as well as possibly thousands of innocent people in order > >>>>>> to POSSIBLY save several million when you don't know if these "religious > >>>>>> nut case" even HAVE any nukes at all yet, much less the authority or > >>>>>> will to use them. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Can you get any MORE deranged? > >>>>> 55% of Americans agree with me related to this issue. > >>>> So? That doesn't make you any less deranged. > >>> If you was president of America and the director of the CIA showed you a > >>> satellite photo of people in Iran loading warheads on two long range > >>> missiles-- Would you order the military to destroy the nuclear facilites > >>> in Iran and also destroy the long range missiles? > >> The last time the President and cherry-picked CIA spokespeople > > insisted > >> a country had weapons of mass destruction, it turned out to be a lie. > >> Why should anybody trust them a second time? > > > > You failed to answer a simple question. > > The answer was implicit, but since you seem to have missed it, here's > the simple version: No. The President lacks credibility. I did not ask you what President Bush would do. I asked you what YOU would do if YOU were president. So let's try again. Here is the question: If you was president of America and the director of the CIA showed you a satellite photo of people in Iran loading warheads on two long range missiles-- Would you order the military to destroy the nuclear facilites in Iran and also destroy the long range missiles? Quote
Guest Virgil Posted November 5, 2007 Posted November 5, 2007 In article <Jason-0411071612530001@67-150-124-217.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <hSsXi.2201$b%1.2036@trnddc01>, Richard Clayton > <pockZIGetnZIGerd@verizon.net> wrote: > > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <1wsXi.16271$Rg1.8897@trnddc05>, Richard Clayton > > > <pockZIGetnZIGerd@verizon.net> wrote: > > > > > >> Jason wrote: > > >>> In article <fgkpmf$8le$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Jason wrote: > > >>>>> In article <fgf89f$93i$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > >>>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Jason wrote: > > >>>>>>> Iran is the problem since they have a religious nut case as a > president. > > >>>>>> Jason, you've already sat there and admitted that you'd rather see > > >>>>>> 8,000,000 people definitely die in NYC rather than blow up a sub > full of > > >>>>>> "religious nut case" and some kids when those "religious nut > case" > > >>>>>> are definitely armed with multiple nukes and ready, willing and > able to > > >>>>>> use them in a matter of hours. Now you want to blow up the > > >>>>>> "religious > > >>>>>> nut case" as well as possibly thousands of innocent people in > > >>>>>> order > > >>>>>> to POSSIBLY save several million when you don't know if these > "religious > > >>>>>> nut case" even HAVE any nukes at all yet, much less the > authority or > > >>>>>> will to use them. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Can you get any MORE deranged? > > >>>>> 55% of Americans agree with me related to this issue. > > >>>> So? That doesn't make you any less deranged. > > >>> If you was president of America and the director of the CIA showed you > > >>> a > > >>> satellite photo of people in Iran loading warheads on two long range > > >>> missiles-- Would you order the military to destroy the nuclear > > >>> facilites > > >>> in Iran and also destroy the long range missiles? > > >> The last time the President and cherry-picked CIA spokespeople > > > insisted > > >> a country had weapons of mass destruction, it turned out to be a lie. > > >> Why should anybody trust them a second time? > > > > > > You failed to answer a simple question. > > > > The answer was implicit, but since you seem to have missed it, > > here's > > the simple version: No. The President lacks credibility. > > I did not ask you what President Bush would do. I asked you what YOU would > do if YOU were president. So let's try again. Here is the question: > > If you was president of America and the director of the CIA showed you a > satellite photo of people in Iran loading warheads on two long range > missiles-- Would you order the military to destroy the nuclear facilites > in Iran and also destroy the long range missiles? When Cuba got such from the USSR, did we destroy Cuba? Or the USSR? There are better ways. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted November 5, 2007 Posted November 5, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <fgkptb$8le$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <jdtpi31jp62epc1ccrturfpdgtjiqng65v@4ax.com>, Al Klein >>> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: >>>> Many people (the majority of human beings, in fact) believe that Jesus >>>> WAS NOT the son of any god. I guess that means that you'll be giving >>>> up Christianity, right? >>> You might let those people know that they were not alive when Jesus was on >>> this earth so how would they know. >> Neither were you. So how deep is that hole that you're digging, anyways? > > I trust the testimony of the witnesses that were alive during that time period. > > Name one... Tokay -- This fellow Charles Lindbergh will never make it. He's doomed. Harry Guggenheim, millionaire aviation enthusiast. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.