| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
John Baker
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:34 am Post subject: Re: The Truth About Islam And Why It Is Completely Incompati |
 |
|
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:12:05 -0800 (PST), Carl <saints@nettally.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | Here are some recommended books showing how and why Islam is
completely incompatible with Christianity and why the God of the Bible
is not nor ever has been the Allah of Islam include, but are not
limited to:
|
So what, moron? You're living proof that religion of *any* kind is
completely incompatible with intelligence. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Judge Piglet
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:37 am Post subject: Re: Bush to automakers - "Good luck, suckers! I'm outta here |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 23:12:45 GMT, Bluuuue Rajah <Bluuuuue@Rajah.>
wrote:
| Quote: | TigerLuck <TigerLuck@wild_kingdom.com> wrote in
news:ZUZUk.7441$x%.6107@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com:
WASHINGTON – Top Senate Democrats suggested Wednesday that a bill to
rescue Detroit's Big Three automakers was stalled and challenged the
Bush administration to take steps to save the industry if
congressional efforts falter. *The White House quickly rebuffed the
suggestion*.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gbjFY-o07QeryRxtFR3oC
1w_v1PwD94I5MKG0
He won't stop destroying American cities until Innauguration Day.
|
Ain't that the truth! 1/20 can't come soon enough.
One thing to watch for is that he will probably pardon all his cronies
connected with the firings of those attorneys. Some have been
subpoened but what do you bet Bush lets them and himself off the hook?
"Jeezus is the coolest of ALL the gods....."
The Semi-Honorable Judge Pontius Pigglesworth, presiding |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Patrick
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:53 am Post subject: Re: Catholic Priests still mad that Obama won |
|
|
"Dan Listermann" <dan@listermann.com> wrote
| Quote: | Do you want to make abortions illegal?
|
Now that is the first intelligent thing you've written in months.
I congratulate you on your ability to climb out of your hole.
Making abortions illegal is not on my list of priorities.
Getting the federal government out of the business of state's business
is much higher. Forcing hospitals to provide abortions is not the
business of government. Forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions
by welfare recipients should not be the government's business.
This is not another "RIGHT" of the liberal left. If a military
woman wants an abortion, it shouldn't be a right that she gets
it done in a military hospital. Health officials should be in the
health business, .... not the death business.
Again, I am speaking ONLY about women who have abortions for
their own convenience. If an abortion will protect or save the mother,
this is a whole different situation.
I want each state to decide if they wish to hand out death
to its citizens for free..... The feds should get out of this business. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
TigerLuck
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:36 am Post subject: Re: America chose Bill Ayers over Sarah Palin |
|
|
Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
| Quote: | haterofneocons@yahoo.com wrote in news:22cb1019-ad64-48c5-adb2-
a7689282fc05@f13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
On Nov 19, 2:17 pm, TigerLuck <TigerLuck@wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
Damn, that's got to hurt...
Yes, that is true. Bill Ayers has said repeatedly that he is sorry
for his activities from the 60s and 70s. Meanwhile Sarah Palin still
has many scandals at home she must deal with. Anyone who is unaware
of the current list, please ask and a copy of the list can be sent to
you.
People have forgotten how bad things were during The Vietnam War. There
was rioting across America and the National Guard shot down students in
cold blood on one college campus. The Pentagon effectively had a
license to murder both Americans and foreigners.
Just imagine how bad things were during the first year after Baghdad
fell, but that the problems had lasted for six years. That was how bad
things were during the Vietnam War.
|
This is beyond gross exaggeration and has entered the realm of total
bullshit.
| Quote: | If it were happening today,
ordinary people would again be planting pipe bombs them in federal
buildings.
Conservatives incapable of learning the Lessons of History, because they
are dumb as hammers. Because conservatives are unbelievably stupid,
they will continue to repeat the mistakes of the past. |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
default
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:42 am Post subject: Re: Catholic Priests still mad that Obama won |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:16:42 -0500, "Patrick" <barker_pb@erinot.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | "default" <default@defaulter.net> wrote
"Patrick" <barker_pb@erinot.com>> wrote:
No that is just political posturing. The "do it for the children"
mantra. "The children are our future." "We can't ignore the education
of our children" (so we must increase taxes) "Children are preyed
upon." (we must censor the Internet)
Stop plagarizing.
you did note the quote marks?
not around the "political posturing..."
A little explanation: quotes aren't necessary around phrases in the
common American lexicon.
Why?
They are words spoken by others before.
They are just as common as: Children are our future.
Quote marks around "political posturing" are
not needed as there are some 170,000 hits in Google - unlike your
single hit quotes of whole paragraphs.
Children are our future: Google search: 23 MILLION Hits.
Children are preyed upon: Google Search: 174,000 hits.
We can't ignore the education of our children: Search: 1,260,000 hits.
Likewise "the children are our
future," gets quoted by every scum sucking politician that comes down
the pike - common usage.
Then why did you put it in quotes?
|
Jeesh! Thou art dense as darkest night.
Quotes are also used to delineate phrases. Makes the whole phrase
stand out as a phrase.
| Quote: | Make up my mind....
We pay lip service to the idea and it is a great campaign speech since
no one will utter a word against children - you'd be branded an evil
monster baby killing monster and your political career is kaput.
Stop plagarizing?
Opinion
"Evil Monster" has been used thousands of times by better men than you.
You are grasping at straws trying to infer plagiarizing where none
exists. If I were to quote a story out of the Times or Newsweek or
web site it would be a different matter.
I agree.
As long as it was copywriten.
|
No. If I quoted a blog by joe shmo verbatim I'd also need quotes, and
should attribute it to its source - joe shmo.
| Quote: |
Are you really this stupid?
Nope.
Just showing you to be always looking to criticize rather than looking
for ways we can agree.
Pointing out the stupidity of championing the idea that every zygote
must be defended - even when doing so means the death of people
already alive.
I have never defended every zygote.
I merely defend the idea that children should not be disposed
of when it is an inconvenience to the mother.
Sure life begins with conception long before there is a viable fetus
is your position.
Yes.
You don't know what is viable.
That line moves every year.
If you mean spending millions of dollars to keep a 6 month fetus alive
so that it will need care for the rest of its life in a vegetative
state? That is what you advocate by making sweeping statements.
Do you actually believe what you say?
|
YES
| Quote: | 6 month old fetus aborted because of harelip BIG BLUE WAVE Aug 23, 2006,
9:04 am Abortion of harelip foetus condemned
By Kang Yi (chinadaily.com.cn)
Updated: 2006-08-23 16:11
http://www.encyclocentral.com/Picture_Of_A_6_Month_Old_Fetus-tags.html
You feel that strongly? How many have you adopted?
More than one.
It isn't about me.
|
Sure it is. You want to tell other people how to live yet don't have
any of your own capital in the game. Easy to talk big and be generous
when you aren't the one suffering.
If you aren't in the game you don't have a say in the umpires call or
get to set the rules of the game.
| Quote: |
I have no problems with you killing your baby
when you have raped a 13 year old.
I don't think it is right.
And I think you should be punished for your actions of rape.
Then,... you should be punished for killing your child.
You have no problem with terminating a fetus in the case of 13 year
old rape? That's what I'm inferring from your statement. So it
wouldn't be murder in that case?
I personally don't care what you do.
I just don't want it permitted in society.
|
I want people to deal with their own problems. Joe Shmo has a better
idea of what is right for Joe Shmo than I do. I not competent to
judge anyone but myself.
| Quote: | Of course it would be murder.
Plus the rape.
Why not tell it like it is. You mean to say "taking human life." I
think we humans are scum for wreaking the environment for other
animals. All life is sacred or no life is sacred.
OK.
I suppose you are a vegetarian then.
I'm not.
|
No I'm a carnivore. I believe in taking life so that I may live. I
don't think I should be taking life so that I can play at some
diversion.
| Quote: |
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/business/15union.html?_r=1
G.M., which said this week that it lost $38.7 billion last year, can
hire a maximum of about 16,000 workers into so-called non core jobs,
at wages of $14 to $16 an hour, compared with the $28 an hour that
assemblers make now.
28 dollars an hour - they've been taking some pay cuts the last
several years
So what?
Do you think all people should make $28,00 an hour?
What is minimum wage in your state?
No idea what minimum is. Too low to live on unless I lived at the |
"Y." I can scrape by with about $10/hr as long as I didn't hit a
major snag.
Live in a tent and not pay rent and taxes walk to work etc.. and I
could scrape by on $3/hr.
| Quote: |
The top five execs alone at GM pulled down 45-50 million last year.
Their salaries went up about 25% from the previous year while their
sales went down by 50%, and they suffered a $39 billion dollar loss.
So the guy sweating and risking his life on the assembly floor gets
56K/year. Pay ratio between the top and assembly line ~270:1
Cut the CEO's pay by 90 percent.
Cut the assembly guy to $ 20.00 an hour.
And then the product will be competititve in the world.
Until then, they will continue to lose business, lose their competitive
edge, and will lose customers and product.
It is up to them to get adult leadership to figure this out.
|
OK. Instead, we are going to pay them to keep on making mistakes.
Congress is already drowning in letters by anti bailout and anti auto
bail out constituents. But this is not a democracy.
| Quote: |
Yet to augment your politics you don't mention the CEO's when you sing
the praises of the Republicans. The head of GM went from 10 million
dollars in 2006 to 15 million in 2007, and he wants a bailout for 2008
plus his 15 million plus plus salary. When asked if he would take the
Lee Iacocca pledge of $1 a year until the problem was fixed, he went
into a speech about how salaries must be commensurate with the rest of
the industry to attract the best people.
Then the industry needs to go bankrupt.
As President Bush is pushing for.
The architect of the bail out is pushing for no bail out? No. What |
has Bush and Paulson upset is the idea that the money they earmarked
for their banker buddies might be snatched by the corporations.
Paulson said as much.
Talk about incongruous . . . watching large private corporate jets
delivering auto execs to Washington so they can beg for money - "to
save the jobs of poor working Americans."
| Quote: |
The rest of his industry was sitting at the same table with him during
the hearings and the Chrysler CEO was the only one that said he'd
defer compensation until the problem was solved, if he could get a
bailout. The other two just went into weasel mode.
They merely need to go bankrupt then.
You just need to watch CSPAN once in awhile.
Channel 10 and 22..
Guess what? Almost no integrated circuits are made in the US, no
LEDs, very few power tools or bicycles, or hand tools, etc.. I can
pay an American electronics distributor $11 for a high power led. or
pay a Chinese one <$2 for the exact same part made in the same
factory. And they ship for free.
Yup.
That is why Americans are going out of business.
We are not competitive.
OR we are globalizing and encouraging companies to move overseas for a
quick buck and avoiding US corporate taxes? We don't have to be
competitive to live well - we do need to do something about our super
rich executives and unbalanced pay structures.
Yup. I agree.
The unions aren't the only problem you know. You really like the one
track, one issue, mind set don't you?
I can only address one problem at a time.
Right now, I am addressing corrupt unions.
We'll get to you in a few minutes.
Check your facts first idiot.
Gee, do ya think?
GM Ford and Chrysler made junk compared to the quality of Japanese
cars. They were concerned with short term corporate profit and not
the long term viability of their respective companies. Executive
compensation only rewards on the instantaneous price of the stock -
not how well a company survives for decades.
Yup.
Whose fault is that?
The executives and board of directors and the use of "financial
instruments" that separate the investor from the companies invested
in, and 401/IRA and mutual funds that do essentially the same things.
This is another problem.
It will get solved quickly when we allow GM to go bankrupt.
Their stock has pretty much tanked, but the active and retired workers
still need money to live on - thanks to the unions.
Will we allow them to go bankrupt?
I hope so.
I really do.
If they don't go bankrupt this year, they will do it next year.
Why should we throw money down a gopher hole and then
watch them go bankrupt afterwards? Throwing good money
after bad.
We agree there.
Looks to me like all the posturing
going on in the Senate is so that politicians can say they "tried to
find another solution" before they hand over ~50 billion to the big
three.
I hope that congress wakes up. Or the president vetoes it.
And the big three are just quoting what they always say about
improving fuel efficiency, quality, and corporate efficiency. Nothing
new, no great plan they just want to hang in and milk the cow till it
runs dry.
Yup.
I say to dry it up earlier than later.
It will be cheaper for the taxpayer.
Deregulation too
The deregulation was meant to make it easier for a small
business to get started. However, the real culprits turned out to
be the wall street bankers, leverage firms, hedge funds. These
people took advantage and screwed the financial system of America.
The deregulation allowed all of that - allowed small loan companies
and banks to repackage and sell the loans to investors as secured
assets.
Yup. We trusted the bankers to do the right thing.
Instead, they found a way to make more money for themselves.
At the expense of the American public.
Always "trust" that people will act in their own self interest, or |
what they perceive to be their self interest.
--
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Judge Piglet
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:42 am Post subject: Re: GOOD News! California Supreme Court Could KILL Proposit |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:33:41 GMT, "(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilt•n ¸.·´¯) •• NO
FACTS Support RRR Cult's Hate-Agendas! •• " <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
California's State Supreme Court to Hear Challenges to Prop. 8
[[[ This is VERY good news, because it things go well, Proposition
Hate could be history by June or July of next year. (And, of
course, ALL same-sex couples, no matter WHERE they live,
can CIRCUMVENT the hateful referendum by simply going to
either MA or CT, get married, and then return to their homes,
MARRIED. IF the state's Supreme Court had NOT agreed to
hear the challenges, the process could have taken YEARS,
instead of a few months, to be resolved. HOWEVER it ultim-
ately turns out in the end, though, it'll be good for same-sex
couples EVERYWHERE to remember that they can give the
finger to California's BIGOTS by simply going to Massachusetts
or Connecticut to get married. Neither of those states has a
residency prerequisite. ]]]
(11-19-0 14:38 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- The state Supreme Court
plunged back into the same-sex marriage wars today, agreeing to decide
the legality of a ballot measure that repealed the right of gay and lesbian
couples to wed in California.
At the urging of both sponsors and opponents of Proposition 8, the just-
ices voted 6-1 to grant review of lawsuits challenging the Nov. 4 initia-
tive, with Justice Joyce Kennard dissenting.
However, the court refused, 6-1, to let same-sex marriages resume while
it considers Prop. 8's constitutionality. Justice Carlos Moreno cast the
dissenting vote.
Approved by 52 percent of voters, Prop. 8 restored the definition of
marriage - a union of a man and a woman - that the court had overturned
May 15. Both Kennard and Moreno were in the majority of that 4-3 ruling.
In its order today, the court asked for arguments on whether Prop. 8, if
constitutional, would nullify 18,000 same-sex marriages performed between
when the ruling took effect in mid-June and Nov. 4. Attorney General Jerry
Brown, who will defend Prop. 8 as the state's chief lawyer, contends those
marriages are legal, but sponsors of the initiative disagree.
The justices asked for written arguments to be submitted by Jan. 15. The
court could hold a hearing as early as March, with a ruling due 90 days
later.
If the court had dismissed the suits, they could have been refiled in a
county Superior Court, where most cases begin. They could still have
reached the state's high court, but only after appeals that might have
taken years.
The lawsuits that the court agreed to review were filed by two groups of
same-sex couples, a gay-rights organization and a group of local
governments led by the city of San Francisco. Civil rights, religious and
feminist organizations have since filed separate suits challenging Prop. 8
that the justices may add to their docket.
All the suits argue that Prop. 8, drafted as a state constitutional amend-
ment, makes such drastic changes that it amounts to a revision of the
Constitution.
Unlike constitutional amendments, which can qualify for the ballot with
signatures on initiative petitions, revisions can be placed on the ballot
only by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or a state constitutional
convention.
The state's high court has defined a constitutional revision as a
fundamental change in government structure and has struck down only
two initiatives as revisions. The last time was in 1991, when the court
overturned provisions of a measure that would have required California
courts to follow federal standards on criminal defendants' rights rather
than relying on the state Constitution to grant broader rights.
Opponents of Prop. 8 argue that it is a revision because it deprives a
historically persecuted minority of fundamental rights and leaves courts
powerless to intervene. A ruling upholding the measure would leave any
minority group vulnerable to repeal of its rights by majority vote, the
lawsuits argue.
Supporters of Prop. 8 say it is merely a constitutional amendment
restor-ing the traditional definition of marriage and leaves the structure
of state government unaffected. They contend a ruling overturning the
measure would strike a blow at the people's power to change their
Constitution by initiative.
In today's order, the court said it would also consider whether Prop. 8
violates the constitutional separation of powers. That was an apparent
reference to opponents' arguments that the initiative interferes with
judges' authority to apply the constitutional guarantee of equal rights.
In its 4-3 ruling legalizing same-sex marriages, the court said
California's ban on such unions - enacted by the Legislature in 1977 and
reaffirmed by the voters in 2000 - violated gays' and lesbians' right to
marry the partner of their choice and to be free of arbitrary
discrimination.
The court also said laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual
orientation are presumed to be unconstitutional, in the same category as
bias based on race or sex. That part of the ruling is unaffected by Prop.
8.
The lead case in today's order is Strauss vs. Horton, S168047.
E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.
-- (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯)
xanadu222@mchsi.com -- To E-Mail me.
http://www.roadrat.com -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL.
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Great TACTICS to Fight Bigotry.
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Christianity *vs.* Bigotry.
|
It's a good start.
"It's not hard to do the right thing....
though sometimes it's hard to know what the right thing is.."
The Semi-Honorable Judge Pontius Pigglesworth, presiding |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Dan Listermann
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:47 am Post subject: Re: Catholic Priests still mad that Obama won |
|
|
"Patrick" <barker_pb@erinot.com> wrote in message
news:X-WdnV0xvPN5O7nUnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@posted.localnet...
| Quote: | "Dan Listermann" <dan@listermann.com> wrote
Do you want to make abortions illegal?
Now that is the first intelligent thing you've written in months.
I congratulate you on your ability to climb out of your hole.
Making abortions illegal is not on my list of priorities.
Getting the federal government out of the business of state's business
is much higher. Forcing hospitals to provide abortions is not the
business of government. Forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions
by welfare recipients should not be the government's business.
This is not another "RIGHT" of the liberal left. If a military
woman wants an abortion, it shouldn't be a right that she gets
it done in a military hospital. Health officials should be in the
health business, .... not the death business.
Again, I am speaking ONLY about women who have abortions for
their own convenience. If an abortion will protect or save the mother,
this is a whole different situation.
I want each state to decide if they wish to hand out death
to its citizens for free..... The feds should get out of this business.
|
OK, do you want your state to outlaw abortions? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
default
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:52 am Post subject: Re: Catholic Priests still mad that Obama won |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:27:09 -0500, "Patrick" <barker_pb@erinot.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | Part 2
"default" <default@defaulter.net> wrote
Crack mothers lose their babies to the social programs.
Other mothers who don't act as parents also lose their kids.
That is fine with me.
I am angry at those females who kill their kids for convenience.
Death is forever.
You're not angry with parents who abuse their children though?
Of course I am.
We have programs set up to minimize this crime.
We have no program to minimize murder of your fetus.
|
A fetus is just some un live stuff that may or may not become
something else. We aren't talking about killing something with
thoughts or awareness.
| Quote: |
Look no further than Ronnie Reagan and Bubba Clinton for most of what
we are experiencing today.
I agree that clintoon was a bad president.
Ronnie was merely stupid. He had a great vision.
He wasn't able to find trustworthy people.
Clinton deliberately hired ass wipes to screw the American public.
Ronnie did lead the deregulation charge. Clinton didn't do much of |
anything except sell military and industrial secrets to the Chinese,
and allow that skanky virago cow of his get in front of TV cameras.
Both of his cows.
| Quote: |
So how does a mental deficient like GW become president twice?
Diebold!
Because GW is consistent. He is a known quantity. People know
that he won't be taking polls to determine vacation areas for his family.
He won't be screwing young ladies in the oval office, bombing sovereign
nations to take the heat off his impeachment, or lying to the American
public.
He's probably impotent, so that's no virtue. He can't read enough to |
understand a travel brochure, so that's no virtue. He doesn't know
what a poll is. He's pretty good at bombing sovereign nations at the
behest of his cohorts in crime. Or lying to the American public -
you're joking there right? The weapons of mass destruction thing?
Atomic research in Iraq?
| Quote: |
If a short attention span is a recognized
shortcoming one should be learning to overcome it - not expect the
world to adapt to one's deficit.
I couldn't afford to waste a second of time on stupid crap.
But, the details of a coordinated plan to bomb Libya without
'assistance from Spain, France or Italy needs a lot of attention.
One of the main lessons I learned was that it is easier and much
faster to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission.
All about you isn't it. Bit of a drama queen? That last is
plagiarized too - you aren't the first one to have "learned" it, or to
have plagiarized it for that matter.
I have dozens of examples. You'll have to wait
for the book.
The government is only going to inflate the currency. Given that
pennies cost more to make than their face value, they may just have to
"Revalue" the currency. Old dollars will be worth a fraction of new
dollars 4:1 or 10:1 ratio. That is where we are headed now.
I was in Israel when their currency went from 1000 to 1.
I still have a 1000 shekel bill and one that looks exactly
like it claiming it is a 1 shekel bill. I think there is a picture
of Golda Meir on it....
If you are hoarding and have your needs met with a small farm miles
from any neighbors you'd be all set.
OK, I guess I am set.
Buy some silver bullets for that S&W and you may be onto something.
That would be the ultimate inflation hedge. For self defense a
shotgun is hard to beat.
I got on a binge once and got rid of most of my guns.
Just kept a hunting rifle, and a few pistols. (unregistered, of course)
I just keep an old carbine around. |
--
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
CB
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 7:21 am Post subject: Re: Hey American liberals: how does it feel? The Marxists be |
|
|
"Orion" <orionblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.238ddd57d9ea5dfd98baee@news.individual.net...
| Quote: | rand mair fheal <mmf@tania-che.com> wrote:
In article <4923e9bc$0$4884$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
"CB" <CB@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
his ACORN/Chicago/Black Liberation loans to the poor who couldn't pay
them
back.
Nothing racist about the truth
yes
and nothing truthful about a racist like you
God hates Bible Belters like blood sucking welfare case Charly Barta
because
they do Satan's work, and are notoriously incestuous and inbred.
|
The Dark Side is winning the war between Goodness and Evil.
You know it and I know it. The country is going to Hell and you Libs caused
it...with 'little' help from Conservitives.
| Quote: |
They are also cowards who refuse to fight for their country.
|
I regret it today but I wouldn't have been eccepted because of having flat
feet |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Lars Eighner
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:03 am Post subject: Re: The Truth About Islam And Why It Is Completely Incompati |
|
|
In our last episode,
<cff814e0-e2b4-47d7-b644-b2103adb5f13@l39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, the
lovely and talented Carl broadcast on alt.atheism:
| Quote: | Here are some recommended books showing how and why Islam is
completely incompatible with Christianity
|
All false beliefs are the same: they are false.
--
Lars Eighner *Atheist #1965* usenet@larseighner.com <http://larseighner.com/>
"Religion is comparable to a childhood neurosis."--Sigmund Freud |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
arcangel
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:14 am Post subject: Re: The Truth About Islam And Why It Is Completely Incompati |
|
|
The sect of the Zionists will be destroyed according to the prophecies
The Israel 's Sionist sect or cult is falling down:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaias%201;&version=31;
| Quote: | USE THE GOOGLE TRANSLATOR, IS FREE,
you can translate some words or a total web page: |
http://translate.google.com/translate_t?hl=es#
Use a separate tab or another window to translate any thing in many
languages.
The Sionists are a sect of Jews.
Judaism has failed in bringing peace and security to the rest of the
world. Christianity was established as the only hope for mankind.
Laws, mandates and councils in the New Testament of the Holy Bible can
change the behavior of millions to live better, in peace and
harmony ...
http://es.geocities.com/eleazarcarvajal/sionismo.html
GREAT DESTRUCTION approaches, evil sects or cults are involved
Visit some times this link with secret info that you never saw:
http://group.google.com/group/religion-politica/topics |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
John Locke
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:02 am Post subject: Re: The Truth About Islam And Why It Is Completely Incompati |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:12:05 -0800 (PST), Carl <saints@nettally.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | Here are some recommended books showing how and why Islam is
completely incompatible with Christianity and why the God of the Bible
is not nor ever has been the Allah of Islam include, but are not
limited to:
Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross by Norman Geisler
& Abdul Saleeb
The Dark Side of Islam by R. C. Sproul and Abdul Saleeb
Reasoning from the Scriptures with Muslims by Ron Rhodes
The Facts on Islam (Revised and Updated) by John Ankerberg, John
Weldon, and Dillon Burroughs
The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant
Religion by Robert Spencer
Unveiling Islam: An Insider's Look at Muslim Life and Beliefs by Ergun
Mehmet Caner and Emir Fethi Caner
May God bless,
Islam and Christianity are very compatible. They're both scams. |
___________________________________________________
"I don't think we're here for anything, we're
just products of evolution. You can say 'Gee,
your life must be pretty bleak if you don't think
there's a purpose' but I'm anticipating a good lunch."
-Dr. James Watson, American biologist, (Discoverer of DNA.) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Ray Fischer
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:02 am Post subject: Re: Catholic Priests still mad that Obama won |
|
|
Patrick <barker_pb@erinot.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "default" <default@defaulter.net> wrote
"Patrick" <barker_pb@erinot.com>> wrote:
No that is just political posturing. The "do it for the children"
mantra. "The children are our future." "We can't ignore the education
of our children" (so we must increase taxes) "Children are preyed
upon." (we must censor the Internet)
Stop plagarizing.
you did note the quote marks?
not around the "political posturing..."
A little explanation: quotes aren't necessary around phrases in the
common American lexicon.
Why?
They are words spoken by others before.
They are just as common as: Children are our future.
|
Which is why you spend your time and money posting here instead of
working to help children.
And which is why your cult is paying billions of dollars in penalties
because of protecting child molesters.
Talk is cheap. Your words are worthless trash.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Ray Fischer
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:03 am Post subject: Re: Catholic Priests still mad that Obama won |
|
|
Patrick <barker_pb@erinot.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "Dan Listermann" <dan@listermann.com> wrote
Do you want to make abortions illegal?
Now that is the first intelligent thing you've written in months.
I congratulate you on your ability to climb out of your hole.
Making abortions illegal is not on my list of priorities.
Getting the federal government out of the business of state's business
is much higher.
|
That was the argument of the racists of the 1800s who wanted to keep
slavery and objected to the federal government forcing them to abolish
that abhorrent practice.
| Quote: | Forcing hospitals to provide abortions is not the
business of government.
|
I's also a fiction, invented by immoral pro-liars.
| Quote: | Forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions
|
Is also a fiction and a lie invented by pro-liars.
| Quote: | This is not another "RIGHT" of the liberal left.
|
Jesus was a liberal.
Which shows just how far your cult has strayed from His teachings.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Judge Piglet
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:03 am Post subject: Re: GOOD News! California Supreme Court Could KILL Proposit |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:24:25 -0500, "J" <Jvisions@live.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilt.n ¸.·´¯) .. NO FACTS Support RRR Cult's Hate-Agendas! ..
" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:u1c9i41nir1uun4di04803gg24tgali8p2@4ax.com...
California's State Supreme Court to Hear Challenges to Prop. 8
[[[ This is VERY good news, because it things go well, Proposition
Hate could be history by June or July of next year. (And, of
course, ALL same-sex couples, no matter WHERE they live,
can CIRCUMVENT the hateful referendum by simply going to
either MA or CT, get married, and then return to their homes,
MARRIED. IF the state's Supreme Court had NOT agreed to
hear the challenges, the process could have taken YEARS,
instead of a few months, to be resolved. HOWEVER it ultim-
ately turns out in the end, though, it'll be good for same-sex
couples EVERYWHERE to remember that they can give the
finger to California's BIGOTS by simply going to Massachusetts
or Connecticut to get married. Neither of those states has a
residency prerequisite. ]]]
(11-19-0 14:38 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- The state Supreme Court
plunged back into the same-sex marriage wars today, agreeing to decide
the legality of a ballot measure that repealed the right of gay and
lesbian
couples to wed in California.
At the urging of both sponsors and opponents of Proposition 8, the just-
ices voted 6-1 to grant review of lawsuits challenging the Nov. 4 initia-
tive, with Justice Joyce Kennard dissenting.
However, the court refused, 6-1, to let same-sex marriages resume while
it considers Prop. 8's constitutionality. Justice Carlos Moreno cast the
dissenting vote.
Approved by 52 percent of voters, Prop. 8 restored the definition of
marriage - a union of a man and a woman - that the court had overturned
May 15. Both Kennard and Moreno were in the majority of that 4-3 ruling.
In its order today, the court asked for arguments on whether Prop. 8, if
constitutional, would nullify 18,000 same-sex marriages performed between
when the ruling took effect in mid-June and Nov. 4. Attorney General Jerry
Brown, who will defend Prop. 8 as the state's chief lawyer, contends those
marriages are legal, but sponsors of the initiative disagree.
The justices asked for written arguments to be submitted by Jan. 15. The
court could hold a hearing as early as March, with a ruling due 90 days
later.
If the court had dismissed the suits, they could have been refiled in a
county Superior Court, where most cases begin. They could still have
reached the state's high court, but only after appeals that might have
taken years.
The lawsuits that the court agreed to review were filed by two groups of
same-sex couples, a gay-rights organization and a group of local
governments led by the city of San Francisco. Civil rights, religious and
feminist organizations have since filed separate suits challenging Prop. 8
that the justices may add to their docket.
All the suits argue that Prop. 8, drafted as a state constitutional amend-
ment, makes such drastic changes that it amounts to a revision of the
Constitution.
Unlike constitutional amendments, which can qualify for the ballot with
signatures on initiative petitions, revisions can be placed on the ballot
only by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or a state constitutional
convention.
The state's high court has defined a constitutional revision as a
fundamental change in government structure and has struck down only
two initiatives as revisions. The last time was in 1991, when the court
overturned provisions of a measure that would have required California
courts to follow federal standards on criminal defendants' rights rather
than relying on the state Constitution to grant broader rights.
Opponents of Prop. 8 argue that it is a revision because it deprives a
historically persecuted minority of fundamental rights and leaves courts
powerless to intervene. A ruling upholding the measure would leave any
minority group vulnerable to repeal of its rights by majority vote, the
lawsuits argue.
Supporters of Prop. 8 say it is merely a constitutional amendment
restor-ing the traditional definition of marriage and leaves the structure
of state government unaffected. They contend a ruling overturning the
measure would strike a blow at the people's power to change their
Constitution by initiative.
In today's order, the court said it would also consider whether Prop. 8
violates the constitutional separation of powers. That was an apparent
reference to opponents' arguments that the initiative interferes with
judges' authority to apply the constitutional guarantee of equal rights.
In its 4-3 ruling legalizing same-sex marriages, the court said
California's ban on such unions - enacted by the Legislature in 1977 and
reaffirmed by the voters in 2000 - violated gays' and lesbians' right to
marry the partner of their choice and to be free of arbitrary
discrimination.
The court also said laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual
orientation are presumed to be unconstitutional, in the same category as
bias based on race or sex. That part of the ruling is unaffected by Prop.
8.
The lead case in today's order is Strauss vs. Horton, S168047.
E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.
-- (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯)
xanadu222@mchsi.com -- To E-Mail me.
http://www.roadrat.com -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL.
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Great TACTICS to Fight Bigotry.
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Christianity *vs.* Bigotry.
Of course if the California S.C. tries to overturn the will of the people,
the SCOTUS will shoot them right down.
|
Sorry, but "the will of the people" aren't involved in issues of civil
rights. This is not a bond referendum or seeking approval for a state
highway. We're talking NATIONWIDE civil rights and the people don't
have the say in it. It's a constitutional issue and not a simple
voting issue.
| Quote: | Their is no constitutional grounds to
reverse Prop.8. Gays already possess the right to get married, just not
same-sex marriage; the same as everyone else.
|
Then they can't get married and that's a violation of their rights.
Blacks could get married to, but only to other Blacks. Well that
didn't take long to change and neither will this.
This is why we have a Supreme Court. I've a suspicion the so-called
'will of the people' will have to take a back seat this time and
they'll get used to it just like they other civil rights issues.
"It's not hard to do the right thing....
though sometimes it's hard to know what the right thing is.."
The Semi-Honorable Judge Pontius Pigglesworth, presiding |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
