🚀 go-pugleaf

"Frans" <phasysn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:12ca5hhg6q41vd3@corp.supernews.com...
> A king is a king. A king is king by birthright. A president is not, not 
> even when his father was president before him, and when his brother is 
> governor of Florida. He was still ELECTED. Now you could debate about the 
> fairness of the election in Florida (the plot thickens!) but it still 
> doesn't make him KING. You would think that in such an important book as 
> the bible, that they would get a simple word like "king" right. They might 
> have said "leader of people" which would have put things in a different 
> perspective, but they said "king" clearly. Bush is not king. Not yet 
> anyway, har har.

Damn you're annoying.   I'm not saying that I agree with you or that you 
won, just that you are too fucking annoying to talk to.

> Why did god need an angel? Can't god speak for himself? What language does 
> god speak in? Or what language did that angel speak in? Which angel was 
> it?

Maybe you should ask him.   I'm sure God can do whatever the hell he wants, 
including sending an angel, or manifesting himself in such a way that the 
one viewing believes he/she is witnessing an angel.   Or by inscribing 
memories in a sleeping individual so that they believe that they saw an 
angel . . etc. etc. etc.   Your questions are narrow - and don't really make 
much sense.

It isn't logically sound to choose what you want to believe, and then ask a 
question trying to imply that there is some kind of inconsequential 
incongruence.

Scenario: You have a missed a day of university class (french class) , and 
your friend tells you that the teacher's assistant announced a new 
assignment and tries to give you the details - but instead you just start 
ranting saying BS like, "Why did the TA announce it?  Can't the professor 
speak for himself?  Did they announce it in English or French?   Which TA 
was it?"

> Was it the same one (Gabriel, i believe) that read the "holy" quran to 
> Mohammed?

Perhaps :)

> That "Iron breasted dragon" of yours is just an object of fantasy, just 
> like people can imagine "real" dragons, gryphons, medusas, unicorns, and 
> other mythical creatures that you've probably heard of and seen pictures 
> from. I mean, you gotta be seriously on crack if you think that a nuclear 
> bomb would be described as fucking locusts. It's just biblical bullshit, 
> and you are just seeing things that you want to see.

You're dismissing it altogether - and yet you're not really saying 
anything - so it confuses me.   What is your religious affiliation?

> You could compare my ass to the parting of the red sea, with enough 
> imagination, but it doesn't make it similar.

That is one of those things that was symbolic *wink*

> Witnessed? OMG yes! That's what those jehova's "witnesses" also tell me 
> sometimes, when i take a few moments to listen to their bullshit, and then 
> state that I do not believe in talking animals, because that's stuff from 
> Disney, and therefore do not even believe the first chapter in the bible, 
> and then they point out to me that it's all about "symbolism" and I ask 
> them how the hell they know which parts are symbolic and which parts are 
> not and they leave blabbering about "not questioning the holy book". A 
> king usually wears a crown. Does Bush wear a crown? How the fuck else 
> would this John know (or "see" rather) that he was seeing a king? Bush 
> doesn't wear a crown, doesn't wear any fancy robes, he works out, he does 
> not live in a castle, how the fuck could he be mistaken for a king?

You remind me of my old atheist  room mate.   There are many reasons not to 
believe Christianity (or any religion) but non sequitur argumentation and 
nit picking do not classify.  I suggest you read from my favorite 
homosexual, Canadian, atheist's website. 
http://www.mindprod.com/religion/religion.html for some inspiration.

I mean seriously - do you even think that you make sense?   "I don't believe 
in X because that's stuff from Disney."    Do you have any idea how many 
things [in life] that reasoning would invalidate?

>> OMG why am I arguing with you?   Ever heard of Fallujah?   Even if you 
>> believed the theories that chemical weapons were not used against the 
>> Iraqi people - being completely ignorant of the conspiracy surrounding it 
>> tells me a lot about your interest and knowledge about the these things 
>> that you are choosing to argue with me.
>
> I think that other posters cleared the whole "chemical weapon" thing up.

 Here is an interview with a soldier who was there 
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5114136081876371815&q=fallujah

Honestly - I am less concerned with the classification of white 
phosphorous - and more with the motive in dropping it.    Even those who 
defend the US admit that WP will penetrate the skin and kill a person.

> He's not deciding anything. As I said, it's all about the country's best 
> interest.

Ha!   That's almost as funny as Disney thing.

> And what is this bullshit about an "illegal war"?

We are a member of the United Nations - and as such we need UN approval to 
attack another country.   (There may be exceptions, but I am pretty sure 
that a pre-emptive strike based on phony evidence of R&D is not one of 
those.)

Bush KNEW that Sadaam did not have WMD or an "advanced nuclear weapons 
program" so he knew that under investigation his pretense for war would 
fail.    That is why he was so speedy about attacking.

> Are there any LEGAL wars?

I believe wars waged in defense of an attacking country are legal - and at 
least justifiable.   I do not object historically to the decision of the US 
to enter into the World Wars.   I'm not sure that dropping 2 nuclear bombs 
on Japan was necessary (an undersea explosion could have created a massive 
tidal wave and not left cities badly contaminated with radiation - or a 
single drop would have probably been sufficient to demonstrate our 
abilities)

>> Bush LIED to start a war against a helpless country - causing hundreds of 
>> thousands of Iraqis to die - something he dismisses as collatoral 
>> dammage, and says the war was justified because they "ousted a bad 
>> leader" (ignoring lies about a Sadaam funded nuclear weapons program, 
>> hundreds of billions of wasted dollars).     But if 10 Americans die from 
>> a suicide bomber he has a fucking conniption fit.   I cannot hold in high 
>> esteem someone that feels he has the right to judge that one person's 
>> life is more valuable than another person's life.
>
> All politics lie. Grow up.

Most politicians lie to promote their career.  He lied to kill hundreds of 
thousands of people.

Plus - IIRC Clinton got into a lot more trouble for lying about receiving 
oral sex.   It seems a little . . . odd.    Of course - I could have told 
you that American fundamentalists will unite to tell you that Oral sex truly 
is worse than genocide.   That a hundred Iraqis can die - which is fine, but 
if a tiny lump of 100 fetus cells die then it is murder.   They will start 
an anti-AIDS campaigne but then try to prevent sex workers from being able 
to benefit from it.   Don't get me started on the issue of abstinence only 
sex education replacing comprehensive sexual education in schools.

I did not choose my political affiliation - everything that conservatives 
say doesn't make any sense, and everything that liberals say at least has a 
logical argument behind it.   This is an opinion I developed over the course 
of many years.  On many occassions I tried to give the opposition a fair 
shot, reading their media, listening to speeches - but it was all pointless 
idiotic rhetoric - just like you are giving me.   It seems to all be based 
on fear, especially fear of sexuality (especially underage sexuality and 
homosexual sexuality) and more recently fear of terrorists.  Before that it 
was fear of communists, fear of blacks (or racial intermingling).    What is 
interesting is that the agendas created by the fear do no typically have the 
result of eliminating the basis of fear at all.   It is just an extra 
measure of control - and in the end the goal remains glory, status and 
money.

>> The right to vote doesn't mean a whole lot when your entire country's 
>> infrastructure has gone to shit.  There are looters, rioters, violence. 
>> Bagdad and Fallujah are under occupation, and there is still fighting 
>> going on everywhere.    It is hard to get gas, people who have 
>> electricity at all, don't have it for 24 hours a day.
>
> Do you think that the infrastructure was so much better BEFORE the US 
> invaded Iraq? I sure as hell don't.

Well you are wrong.

They had power - they had food and they had gas, even while the war was 
going on.

>> I have seen various news sources of independant reporters going around 
>> talking to people, and the consensus seems to be that life was better 
>> under Sadaam than it is now.
>
> "Independant" huh? Hah! I bet you could find just as many people saying 
> completely the opposite.

Well I found you

> And bullshit.

I don't see what you have against Christianity as defined in the bible. 
Paul said we are not under law, but we establish law that we might have a 
basis to be judged.   The entire premise as I understand it, is that we 
simply need to love one another, and love god - and if the love is true, 
then we will be righteous people.

> First, Jerusalem will have to "begin to fall". How exactly will this 
> happen?

I'm sorry I don't know exactly how it will happen.   I am not endowed with 
infinite forsight such as yourself.

20 thousand suicide bombers would be a bit of a damper in their plans.  A 
really big bomb or many smaller rockets (wouldn't even have to be nuclear, 
but definitely better than the bullshit that has been being fired on them).

But it's cute that you think Isreal and Jerusalem are impervious to defeat.

> Hahaha, right, Osama didn't think that "things would get out of hand" by 
> destroying a landmark building with thousands of civilians in it. Right. 
> And you believe all that crap. Oh guys, we just bombed this stupid 
> business building and only killed 3000 people, no reason to get all worked 
> up over THAT.

Osama Bin Laden wanted war with the US - but he knew that war would come to 
Arab countries - he had to know that.

Osama Bin Laden and Bush are quite alike.   They both have soldiers on the 
front lines who are ready to die for them.   They are both hated the world 
around except in little niche groups.  They both consider themselves 
religious icons, empowered by God with some sort of a mission to fulfilll. 
They are both responsible for countless Arab and American deaths.  And most 
importantly - they both believe that their respective God is going to give 
them victory eventually.

Neither side thinks it is beneficial to create vast areas of uninhabitable 
terrain that could last for hundreds of years.   I doubt either side thinks 
it is beneficial for people 20 years from now to be dying of cancer, that 
cannot directly be traced back to one particular event.

> And I think that if the 'arabs' actually had a suitcase bomb, they would 
> have used it already. But they are dumb ignorant shits, so they fuck up 
> their assaults with lame ass equipment. Which is a good thing, ofcourse.

That really would depend on which "arabs" had it.   Although (and I may be 
wrong) I am sensing a massive over generalization of the arab people in 
general.

>> Iran is rich and powerful - not to mention, Syria will fight alongside 
>> Iran - and they are a powerful ally.
>
> Syria got their asses kicked in the six day war, along with Egypt, Jordan, 
> and Iraq. In six days. SIX DAYS, and Egypt could have been completely 
> annihilated.

Did you part your ass and consume the armies of Egypt?  (Symbolically)

> Do you know every soldier in the Israelian army?

What I meant was that there is no way to even substantiate the claim.

>> Iran.   If Iran rallies troops and tries to attack Isreal, or whether 
>> Isreal flies into Iran and starts a fight is inconsequential
>
> Israel will need some incentive to attack Iran. Like the surgical strike 
> they performed years ago on a nuclear plant. They wont just go all out 
> screaming and wielding guns. That's what arabs usually do. That's why 
> arabs usually lose too.

Israel's war against Lebanon would seem to indicate otherwise.

> Do you remember the video from "land of confusion" by Genesis? Apparently, 
> there are people who always think that ANY president will use nukes, just 
> because he has them. Except ofcourse pussy Clinton, the big man who let 
> Arafat and Rabin shake hands. Look how far it got them.

So . . . trying to find peace is bad?   What ARE you talking about?   You 
believe that the whole world should be under US occupation?

> Humanity is always in danger, and I'm glad to have the US on our side to 
> fight for it.

Too bad there are pussies out there that think that finding peace - and 
ending killing is a bad thing.

--
LTP

:)