| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Raptor
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 8:28 pm Post subject: Sina's Challenge - I receive many emails from angry Muslims, |
 |
|
Sina's Challenge - I receive many emails from angry Muslims, who
sometimes beg me, and sometimes order me to remove this site. I consider
both, pleading and bullying, signs of psychopathology. Argumentum ad
baculum and argumentum ad misericordiam are both logical fallacies.,,If
you do not like this site and want me to remove it, instead of acting as
a bully or as a victim, disprove my charges against Muhammad logically.
Not only will I remove the site, I will publicly announce that Islam
is a true religion. I will also pay ,,$50,000 U.S. dollars ,,to anyone
who can disprove any of the dozen of the accusations that I have made
against Muhammad. I accuse Muhammad of being:,a narcissist a
misogynist a rapist,a pedophile a lecher a torturer -
http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge.htm |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
juanjo
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:34 pm Post subject: Re: Setback for Prop 8 (same-sex marriage ban) |
|
|
On Aug 17, 8:54 am, "Wayne" <mygarbage...@verizon.net> wrote:
| Quote: | "juanjo" <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:cc0955c1-8763-44e4-9be2-6d89724258e2@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 10, 6:43 pm, "Gary Eickmeier" <geick...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
"(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome
Agendas:Extinction!" <xanadu2...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:4o5r94lqj0lpe34vkm1t20cpd185asr7jl@4ax.com...
On 08 Aug 2008 13:27:27 -0700,
Since NO FACTS even ESIST that support their loathsome
agendas against gays (with respect to ANY *equal* rights,
including the right to marry their partners of choice; SSM in NO
way threatens the marriages of ANY opposite-sex couples; that
is a very BLATANT lie!) andagainst girls and women (with respect
to their right to choose safe and legal abortion, unimpeded), the
ONLY weapens in their arsenal against those tens of millions of
people are:
-- LIES
-- Propaganda that targets the ignorant
-- Disinfomation
-- Weasel-wording
-- Dishonest semantic word-games
-- Emotional appeals
... and absolutely NO **FACTS**.
They are America's home-grown version of the TALIBAN.
Hateful, selfish, vile, control-freakish. obnoxious, bigoted, and
as DISHONEST as people can possibly be.
The truth is not in them.
And America will be a VASTLY BETTER country after their
agendas of hate and ignorance have become EXTINCT. (See SIG.)
FACT: Gay couples require a third party to reproduce.
True. However it is equally true of many heterosexual couples who use
a variety of options now available ot those who wish to raise a child.
FACT: Marriage is an institution for the procreation and nurturing of
children in families of their natural parents.
Horsepucky of the largest order. Marriage has nothing to do with
procreation. Humans have been procreating since they first came into
existence and show no sign of stopping merely because they do not have
a piece of paper from the State. Marriage was devised as a method of
determining property rights and inheritance within a society.
Initially because women were considered property, marriage was a
method whereby the father of the woman transferred his ownership to
her husband and was relieved of any responsibilities and liabilities
for her or her actions. Marriage as an institution existed in the
wealthy and political classes. Eleanor of Aquitaine married Henry II
of England for example. She may have loved Henry, the record is mixed
on that but Henry certainly loved the Aquitaine which he obtained
possession of leaving him in control of more French territory than the
King of France. Peasants living on the land in the Aquitaine did not
get married as they first could not afford to pay the priest for the
ceremony, second typically had no access to such noble institutions
and third had no property worth squabbling about. Marriage for a
peasant typically was "jumping the broom" and having a party in the
village followed by cohabitation. There were no dowries, no bride
price and no bother. This lead to that wonderful institution of
common law marriage which most American states abolished in the 19th
century only to have it return in the 20th under various guises like
"palimony" etc.
Marriage as an institution far predates Christianity or Judaism.
Ancient babylonian texts reveal that middle class and upper class
Babylonians would engage the services of a scribe who would documetn a
meeting between the parents of the couple in which an exchange of
certain items would be arranged and a declaration of the marriage
made. All this was recoded on a clay tablet and a copy of the
marriage contract was deposited with the priests in one of the local
temples. The ancient Israelites had their own version of this which
carries on to this present day in the drawing up of the "Ketubbah" or
marriage contract by the rabbi. The Romans and Greeks also had their
forms of marriage and even distinguished between certain types of
marriage. With the Romans in particular the concept of divorce and
remarriage to cement political or business alliances was common.
Equally common was the concept of adoption of an heir, particularly by
patricians who wished to see that their property remained in patrician
hands. They might do this even though they already had children but
say of a publican wife or concubine or of a slave or freed woman.
Their own blood related children thus were disinherited in favor of an
adopted child who was of noble lineage. So much for the nurturing of
natural children.
The idea of modern marriage is a construct of the Victorians who
while giving lip service to it, observed it in the abstract rather
than following it for the most part. They might marry but they fooled
around on the side with "loose" women since chaste women supposedly
did not have sex unless absolutely necessary. But even for the
Victorians, marriage was very much about property and respectability,
not love and nurture.
FACT: Gays cannot have children.
Equally untrue because gay couples can and do adopt or have children
through surrogates just as heterosexual couples do.
FACT: If they do have children, those children will be deprived of knowing
their natural parents.
This statement is one of ultimate absurdity. First of all there is no
absolute certainty that a child of a gay couple will not know his
"natural" parents. Indeed one of his "natural" parents is likely one
of the couple raising him or her. Secondly depending on the wishes of
the people involved, the child may know who was the sperm or egg donor
and that person may have some involvement in the life of the child.
Third the idea of "natural" parent is raised as an ideal by the OP but
there is nothing to guarantee that this is true. "Natural" parents of
a child are not always good people. If they were we would not have
the issues we have in this country with abused and neglected children
that we do. Many children in this country who are adopted and raised
in loving families would tell you that the people who raised them are
their "natural" parents.
CONCLUSION: Gays cannot marry.
Your conclusion does not logically follow from your points. Indeed
your points are simply nonsense.
Gary Eickmeier
**********************************
The interesting fact of your long narrative on the history of marriage is
that there was always a man and woman involved.
|
The simple response to that comment is that it was not germane to the
rebuttal of the comment made by Gary. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
juanjo
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:31 pm Post subject: Re: Setback for Prop 8 (same-sex marriage ban) |
|
|
On Aug 15, 4:59 am, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> decided to
share his rare wit:
| Quote: | On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:55:21 -0700, "Dennis Kemmerer"
d...@suespammers.org> spake thusly:
I told Gary in a response to one of his ingorant posts that fertility wasn't
a requirement for obtaining a marriage license. Since he's still spewing
the same red herring, I can only conclude that he's simply incapable of
understanding that.
The red herring is on the part of the homosexuals.
It doesn't matter if there are infertile couples.
The fact is, the human race would stop if it were
homosexuals who had sex.
|
Speaking of red herrings. Dancing Dave to so called pastor has jumped
feet first on one here. No one is advocating that homosexuality
should replace heterosexuality and indeed there will always be a
majority of heterosexuals in the world. So there is no danger in the
human race becoming extinct because of homosexuals having sex any more
than there is from armadillos having sex. The statement is absurd in
the extreme.
| Quote: |
Marriage does have the idea of procreation behind it.
But that does not mean it is a sin for two heterosexuals
who cannot have children to marry. Nor does their
infertility mean that it is okay for homosexuals to marry.
|
The above statement is one of those almost true statements which at
first seems correct but isn't really. Procreation does not require
the parties to the act to be married. History is of course filled
with examples of people who were not married and who were busy
procreating. Popular culture is also filled with such examples, both
approving and disapproving. Procreation is not required for marriage
but in many places the inability to procreate has been grounds for
divorce where one of the two parties to the marriage entered into the
marriage with the assumption that production of offspring would
occur. However over history and fora large variety of reasons, people
have become married without the slightest intention of producing
offspring and sometimes being aware that offspring would not or could
not issue from the marriage union. So marriage does no have the idea
of procreation behind it as a functional component. Procreation
exists alongside of marriage but independent of it and dependent on
the will of the parties as well as their physical abilities to
reproduce.
| Quote: |
As I said, it is the homos who raise the red herring
and if they had any real case to make, they wouldn't
bother with such nonsense.
nonsense is the idea of marriage being some romanticized concept of |
marriage for love and production of children when historically it has
not been that all.
Marriage, as we know it in our Western civilization today, has a long
history with roots in several very different ancient cultures, of
which the Roman, Hebrew, and Germanic are the most important. Western
marriage has further been shaped by the doctrines and policies of the
medieval Christian church, the demands of the Protestant Reformation,
and the social impact of the Industrial Revolution.
When we look at the marriage customs of our ancestors, it is obvious
that they have evolved considerably. For example, for the most of
Western history, marriage was not a personal matter concerning only
husband and wife, but rather the business of their two families which
brought them together. Marriages were arranged. The wife typically had
few rights vis a vis her husband and was subservient to him. There
was little room for romantic love, and even simple affection was not
considered essential. Marriage as an institution was primarily focused
on the property rights between the parties and by parties initially
this means the families involved. A noble family would conduct a
negotiation with another noble family to cement an alliance favorable
to both. This could be an alliance between powerful men in a a
society such as Julius Caesar giving one of his daughter to Pompey to
cement an alliance with Pompey concerning control of the Roman state.
Eleanor of Aquitaine's marriage to Henry II provided Henry with
physical control of 2/3rds of what is now France. History is filled
with such examples where sons and daughters were married off in order
to provide military, political and/or financial advantages to the
families involved.
In ancient Greece marriage was seen as a fundamental social
institution. Indeed, the great lawgiver Solon once contemplated making
marriage compulsory, and in Athens under Pericles bachelors were
excluded from certain important public positions. Sparta, while
encouraging sexual relationships between men, nevertheless insisted on
their marrying and producing children. Single and childless men were
treated with scorn.
However, while marriage was deemed important, it was treated as a
practical matter without much romantic significance. A father arranged
the most advantageous marriage for his son and then had a contract
signed before witnesses. Shortly thereafter a wedding celebration was
held and the young couple (who typically never had met before) was
escorted to bed. All marriages were monogamous. As a rule, the
bridegroom was in his thirties and the bride was a teenager. Women
were considered inferior to men and remained confined to the home.
They typically were uneducated and had no political role in the
society in general. Their function was to produce children and to
manage the household while their husbands tended to public affairs.
For their erotic needs, men typically turned to prostitutes and
concubines. As Demosthenes, the orator, explained it: "We have
prostitutes for our pleasure, concubines for our health, and wives to
bear us lawful offspring." Many men also cultivated intense emotional
and sexual relationships with male adolescents (paiderastia).
The marriage laws and customs of ancient Rome are more complex. They
were varied and underwent significant changes in the course of time.
Still, without simplifying the issue too much, marriage and divorce
were always personal, civil agreements between the participants and
did not need the stamp of governmental or religious approval. Early in
Roman history, a husband had considerable power over his wife and
children, whom he could punish, sell, or even kill as he saw fit.
Eventually women came to enjoy a better legal position and gained more
and more control over their lives and property. In imperial times
husband and wife approached marriage as equals. Ironically, among the
nobility, there was also a decline in marriage and birth rates, so the
emperor Augustus found it necessary to pass drastic laws compelling
people to marry and penalizing those who remained single. There were
several forms of marriage, the first of which (by usus) involved no
ceremony at all. It was established simply by the couple's living
together for one year. Divorce was just as informal. A more formal
kind of marriage (by coemptio) began with a ceremony in front of
witnesses and was also dissolved with a ceremony. Members of the upper
classes usually preferred an elaborate ceremony and thus married by
confarreatio in front of ten witnesses and a priest. In the case of a
divorce, another great ceremony was required. However, all three forms
of marriage and divorce were equally valid. All marriages were
monogamous. Both men and women usually entered their first marriage in
their late teens.
While the Romans tolerated prostitution and concubinage, and had no
qualms about homosexual relationships, their marriage laws were
remarkably fair to women and thus greatly contributed to their
emancipation. Women could and did own property in their own right
although it was typical for their husbands to manage it for them
during the marriage.
As we can learn from the Bible, the ancient Israelites had a
patriarchal family structure. The status of women was low—they were
regarded as the property of their fathers or husbands and could do
nothing without their consent. The main purpose of marriage was
procreation and the perpetuation of a man's name. Every healthy person
was expected to marry. Single men and women were despised. A man could
have several wives and concubines. (Jacob married two sisters, Leah
and Rachel, and Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.)
The Bible indicates that the marriage laws and customs of Israel
changed somewhat in the course of time. Thus, divorces were
increasingly frowned upon, and there was a general trend toward
monogamy. Another change concerned the so-called levirate (i.e., the
man's obligatory marriage to his brother's widow). This kind of
marriage was at times required (Deuteronomy 25:5) and at other times
prohibited (Leviticus 20:21). This change was probably related to
changing economic conditions.
It was usually the patriarch who selected a bride for his son and who
paid a "bride price" to her father. The acceptance of this bride price
constituted a legally binding betrothal, which was followed by some
wedding celebration when the bride took up residence with her new
family. Both males and females married in their early teens, shortly
after puberty. Theoretically, therefore, neither sex was subjected to
any lengthy period of sexual frustration. Still, because of an
unquestioned sexual double standard, men had a far greater opportunity
for sexual fulfillment than women.
The rise of Christianity produced a profound change in European
marriage laws and customs, although this change came about only
gradually. The first Christian emperors were more or less content with
the traditional Roman law. However, under varying political and
religious pressures, they alternately broadened and restricted the
divorce regulations. They also repealed older laws which had penalized
the unmarried and childless, since the new Christian asceticism
favored virginity and sexual abstinence over marriage. In most other
respects they resisted change. Marriage and divorce continued to be
civil and private matters.
As time went on, however, marriage came more and more under the
influence of the church. Compared to Rome, the newly Christianized
countries of Northern Europe had rather barbaric marriage customs and
treated women little better than domestic slaves. In Germanic law, for
example, marriage was essentially a business deal between the
bridegroom and the bride's father ("sale marriage"). The symbol of a
successful "bride sale" was the ring (a form of down payment) which
was given to the bride herself. Acceptance of the ring constituted
betrothal. The full payment of the "bride price" was made on delivery,
i.e., when the actual wedding took place. (Since then, the ring has
acquired many other symbolic meanings and, indeed, is still used in
our modern marriage ceremonies.) The civilizing influence of the
church soon refined these primitive customs. According to Roman law
and Christian belief, marriage could be built only on the free consent
of both partners, and this doctrine was bound to raise the status of
women.
Unfortunately, at the same time the church created two new problems:
It abolished divorce by declaring marriage to be insoluble (except by
death) and greatly increased the number of marriage prohibitions. Now
there were three basic impediments to marriage: "consanguinity",
"affinity", and "spiritual affinity". Consanguinity (i.e.,
relationship by blood) was interpreted very broadly up to the 6th or
even 7th degree. This meant that nobody could marry anyone more
closely related than a third cousin. Affinity referred to a mysterious
closeness between the two families of husband and wife. Since the
latter were seen as having become "one flesh", all relatives on both
sides also became related to each other, a circumstance which made
marriage between any of them impossible. Spiritual affinity was said
to exist between godparents and godchildren with their families.
As a result of these new regulations, the influence of the church on
marriage was greatly strengthened. Very often extensive clerical
investigations were necessary to prove or disprove the existence of
impediments. For example, marriages that had been entered in ignorance
or defiance of such impediments were considered null and void. In
these cases the church was therefore willing to pronounce an
"annulment". Since divorce was no longer permitted, an annulment was
the only way of dissolving a marriage, and thus many married couples
who had tired of each other sooner or later conveniently discovered
some previously overlooked marriage impediment. The church also began
to post so-called banns before each wedding, inviting anyone with
knowledge of an impediment to come forward. The growing church
involvement in marriage could further be seen in the development of a
special religious wedding ceremony. In the first Christian centuries
marriage had been a strictly private arrangement. As late as the 10th
century, the essential part of the wedding itself took place outside
the church door. It was not until the 12th century that a priest
became part of the wedding ceremony, and not until the 13th century
that he actually took charge of the proceedings. Nevertheless, it
remained understood that, even as a sacrament, marriage sprang from
the free consent of the two partners, and that therefore neither the
parents nor the priest nor the government could affect its validity.
It thus became possible for couples to get married secretly if they
could not obtain anyone else's approval. It also became possible for
very young children to be married, if their parents could coax the
necessary consent out of them. Especially aristocratic families often
took advantage of this possibility when they found a politically
advantageous match for their little sons or daughters. On the average,
however, males married in their mid-twenties, and females in their
early teens (i.e., soon after their first menstruation).
It may be tempting to see medieval marriage in the light of certain
lofty religious doctrines and the poetry of the troubadours. However,
throughout most of the Middle Ages and for the greater part of the
population marriage remained a practical, economic affair. Romantic
love hardly had any place in it. Moreover, the social and legal status
of women, while somewhat improved in some countries, continued to be
very low. Indeed for the serfs, the idea of marriage in a church was
virtually impossible. They did not have the money to pay for such
ceremonies and they did not own property to require such ceremonies.
As a result a form of the ancient Roman marriage "ursus" was the
common practice and became eventually the institution of common law
marriage found in Anglo Saxon law and which required only cohabitation
and a public declaration of intent.
The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century rejected the prevailing
concept of marriage along with many other Catholic doctrines. Martin
Luther declared marriage to be "a worldly thing . . . that belongs to
the realm of government", and a similar opinion was expressed by
Calvin. The English Puritans in the 17th century even passed an Act of
Parliament asserting "marriage to be no sacrament" and soon thereafter
made marriage purely secular. It was no longer to be performed by a
minister, but by a justice of the peace. The Restoration abolished
this law and reverted to the old system, but the Puritans brought
their concept of marriage to America where it survived. Luther and
other Protestants also reduced the number of marriage impediments.
Affinity and spiritual affinity were no longer considered obstacles,
and consanguinity was interpreted much more narrowly than before.
Thus, even marriages between first cousins became possible.
The Catholic church, in response to the Protestant challenge, took its
stand in the Council of Trent and, in 1563, confirmed its previous
doctrines. Indeed, it now demanded that all marriages take place
before a priest and two witnesses. Among other things, this virtually
eliminated not only secret marriages, but also the formerly common
informal marriages. These, similar to the old Roman marriages by usus,
were based simply on mutual consent without formal ceremony. In
England they came to be called "common law marriages", and since Henry
VIII had broken with Rome, they continued to be permitted until 1753,
when the Church of England was put in charge of all marriages
(including those of Catholics, but excluding those of Quakers and
Jews). This development did not affect the English colonies, however,
and thus common law marriages remained possible in America. (As
recently as 1970 they were still recognized in several states.)
In most of Europe marriages continued to require a religious ceremony
until the French Revolution in 1792 introduced the compulsory civil
marriage. Germany followed suit in the 19th century when Bismarck
diminished the influence of the Catholic church. Eventually, marriage
before some magistrate or government official became the only valid
form of marriage in most of the Western world. Religious weddings were
still permitted, but only after the civil ceremony had taken place.
Today, outside the United States, the concept of civil marriage exists
and does not involve the requirement of a religious ceremony. In fact
some countries continue to specifically prohibit and will not
recognize religious marriage as legally valid. In Mexico for example,
only civil marriage ceremonies are recognized by the government. One
can have a religious ceremony if one chooses but it had no legal
effect. Variatios on this theme on found in much of Europe where the
Napoleonic Code was once the law. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
ProfQ
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:58 pm Post subject: Re: Setback for Prop 8 (same-sex marriage ban) |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
[big snip]
| Quote: |
As I said, it is the homos who raise the red herring
and if they had any real case to make, they wouldn't
bother with such nonsense.
Which is why I do not bother answering this "Pastor Dave" because of his |
cynicism and arrogance. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
stoney
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:58 pm Post subject: Re: Wisconsin Sheriff Has No Right To Impose Religion On Emp |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 23:56:44 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net>, Message ID:
<jhachmann-18C05B.23564326072008@news.giganews.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
| Quote: | In article <8o6i84lptu1i3vhppmt3khhffdv79o3dbm@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 04:24:28 -0500, Midwinter
zvqjvagre_z@tbbtyrznvy.pbz>, Message ID:
Xns9ABE6A879D1E2zvqjvagrez@216.196.109.145> wrote in alt.atheism;
buckeye <buckeyeelo@nospam.net> wrote :
U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman ruled in September of 2007 that
Clarke's actions
amounted to a coercive promotion of religion. Clarke later filed an
appeal before the 7th
Circuit.
The question is not only how this guy could have imagined this sort of
thing would be acceptable, but how he could be such an idiot as to then
appeal the decision.
Astonishing.
He's following the examples set by the federal government.
"Compassionate Theofascism."
|
Freeze and/or starve.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish} |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Alex W.
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:58 pm Post subject: Re: Why should religion and education be seperate? |
|
|
"Peter Franks" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:Hooqk.33050$KZ.3153@newsfe03.iad...
| Quote: |
If we didn't have the right to life, we wouldn't be here.
The right to life comes from Nature/the Creator, and we
now exercise that right.
|
The right to life is a human construct of pretty recent
origin. Early civilisations and even Western civilisation
until well after the Middle Ages would have had no idea what
you are talking about. The notion quite simply did not
exist.
Moreover, it is a right we ourselves qualify, hedge and
limit. We define exceptions and limits, and as a principle
we restrict it to our species alone. This alone is evidence
that it's neither universal nor divine. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Anlatt the Builder
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:36 am Post subject: Re: Setback for Prop 8 (same-sex marriage ban) |
|
|
On Aug 15, 4:59 am, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
The red herring is on the part of the homosexuals.
It doesn't matter if there are infertile couples.
The fact is, the human race would stop if it were
homosexuals who had sex.
Marriage does have the idea of procreation behind it.
But that does not mean it is a sin for two heterosexuals
who cannot have children to marry. Nor does their
infertility mean that it is okay for homosexuals to marry.
As I said, it is the homos who raise the red herring
|
You know, it's really funny to read this stuff. Or it WOULD be funny,
if people like Pastor Dave weren't so busy denying other people equal
rights.
Here's what these conversations go like:
ANTI-GAY BIGOT: "Marriage is about procreation. Gays can't have kids,
so they can't get married."
PRO-EQUALITY PERSON: "That's doesn't make sense. Lots of straight
couples can't procreate either. So does it follow that THEY can't get
married?"
AGB: "Why do homos raise this RED HERRING about infertility and
marriage?"
Homos don't. They would never suggest that people who can't have kids
shouldn't be allowed to get married. It was YOUR argument.
I remember an older version of this same sort of illogic.
AGB: "Homosexuality is wrong. Even animals don't do it."
PEP: "Actually, many animals engage in homosexual behavior."
AGB: "What difference does that make? You want us all to act like
animals?!!?"
Hey, it was your argument. Can't you keep track of your own point for
three sentences?
As for
| Quote: | The fact is, the human race would stop if it were
homosexuals who had sex.
|
that's obviously wrong on so many levels that I'm not sure I should
even dignify it with the term "non sequiter." Homosexuals do have sex,
and the human race hasn't stopped. But even ignoring that, consider
this:
(1) If every woman was an unmarried spinster who remained a virgin
until she died, then the human race would die out. Therefore it is
immoral to be an unmarried spinster who remains a virgin until you
die. Right?
(2) If every man lived like a Catholic priest who followed the rules
of the Church, the human race would die out. Therefore it is immoral
to be a Catholic priest who follows the rules of the Church. Right?
(3) If every woman married a man who was infertile (and the woman
never committed adultery), then the human race would die out.
Therefore it is immoral to marry a man who is infertile (and for to
never commit adultery). Right?
People immediately see how absurd, insulting, and wrong those
statements are. But some of those same people will accept, without
thinking, the statement:
(4) If everybody human being had gay sex (and only gay sex), the human
race would die out. Therefore it is immoral for to have gay sex! I
proved it!
Anybody with a 7th-grade education should be able to see that if the
first three statements are not valid logic, then neither is the
fourth.
Are these people genuinely stupid, or are they lying, or does hatred
override intelligence every time? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Reverend Mother Tucker
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:53 am Post subject: Re: Foreskins in General Are Disgusting! |
|
|
On Aug 17, 6:40�pm, Satan LIED again thru his eager bottom lust puppy
Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.orgy>:
| Quote: | And it's just that sort of thinking that makes him a pervert.
|
I don't think so. He's good people. God obviously didn't want him a
wasting his superior seed on his first wife Katybelle. That's why he
struck her barren. In the fullness of time God led Thurgood to a
virtuous, fertile women that's also got plenty a good seed - me. He
blessed and cleansed Sister Sunshine's sullied womb by inseminating
her. That ain't perverted. That's an act of True Christian
Compassion.
| Quote: | The fact that you think that makes it a Satanic cult.
|
Nope. That's just a stupid lie from the pit of hell - YOUR future
home.
| Quote: | Satanists love to control others like that.
|
God wants us to keep people's fleshly nature under control. Just
looky what all happen when people's allowed to run wild and do what
ever they wanna. They lie and kill and steal and screw around. Summa
you even goes to wild orgy's.
I was a hoping you could see what I mean. You can't tell me it ain't
nasty and degrading to have fingers in your various holes. Do you
know what "ATM" means in queer lingo? It's a TOTALLY disgusting
concept - but one the rimming queers are all into.
| Quote: | If that's the only reason, then that's more proof that Satan has taken over
your mind.
|
How do you reach THAT idiotic conclusion? God doesn't never make no
kinda mistakes when it comes to people's sex. If'n your weenie is
teenie or your booby's are all shriveled up - then it's God's will and
you need to kerep your legs shut and stay outa the gene pool.
| Quote: | Except when you post here.
|
No, Bill. I don't NEVER lie - not ever. I'm PURE!
| Quote: | For some lesbians, but certainly not all. �
|
Just most of 'em.
| Quote: | It happens to straight couples, too.
|
Only if'n they ain't church going Christians. We know how God wants
us to make love - and how often and when.
| Quote: | That's what Satan wants you to believe.
|
That's what A'mighty God revealed to the saintly leaders of our Holy
Church. Holy Prince Hubert doesn't never lie neither.
| Quote: | Neither do most gays.
|
Mosta your queers does exactly that. They wanna suck spooge outa
people and recruit straights. The lezbo's want menstrual blood. They
target house wives so's they can break up marriages and get women to
burn their bra's, screw around and practice witchcraft.
| Quote: | The fact that you think that further indicates your deep association with
Satan.
|
I ain't associated with Satan is ANY way, shape nor form. I got Jesus
Christ's special seal of approval.
| Quote: | Except when you post here.
|
No. Not EVER!!!
| Quote: | More proof that you're an unrepentant liar.
|
Since I don't never lie I don't got no lie's to repenta.
| Quote: | I wouldn't know, since I keep myself clean.
|
You only think that old cheese bag is clean. I can tell it REEKS!
| Quote: | And yet he can't reveal whether I'm gay or straight. �
|
You're queer! Wouldn't no woman put her mouth on no cheesy weenie.
| Quote: | More proof that you worship Satan.
|
That proves exactly the opposite.
| Quote: | Plenty of places. �If Thurgood ever lets you off your leash go try to find
some.
|
I ain't on no leash. Every queer I know takes some kinda dope. Mosta
your kind is into the deadly crystal meth. There's signs all over the
Castro that says so.
| Quote: | That proves to me that you're a liar and a Satanist.
|
Only a totally confused sex prvert would EVER think any such thing
about such a Holy Woman as I am.
| Quote: | That's what Satan wants you to believe.
|
No. That's what's 100% true. You'll see when you get the thumbs down
from the Lord Jesus. The trap door will open and your butt will go
SPLAT in molten lava. Hahahahaha! Don't say I didn't warn you
before!
He was a secular doctor when he did the tests. I witnessed to him and
he surrendered to Jesus. Now he donates a lot to our cause. Why
won't you, friend?
I don't think you love me though. You don't never send me no pictures
to show me what you really look like.
| Quote: | Nope. �I don't send money to people to prove I don't hate them. �
|
Send it cause God wants me to have it then. Any reason is OK with me
as long as you keep them contributions a coming.
| Quote: | Especially those people like you who worship Satan.
|
But I don't NEVER worship Satan. You know I don't. You just like to
tell ugly lie's. The Bible says ALLA you liars will burn in the Lake
of Fire. I don't wannas go there none so I don't NEVER lie about
nothing.
| Quote: | That's just Satan in disguise.
|
No way! I know the Lord Jesus personally. I can also discern Satan
in people. I am a good woman - true and pure.
| Quote: | He looks on with approval.
|
Of your ugly blasphemy maybe. He's AFEAREDA me on accounta I cast the
demons outa the queers mouth and butt hole.
| Quote: | That's what Satan wants you to believe.
|
Nope. That's what's absolutely True. Jesus saves! Too late for you
though. Sorrrry!
| Quote: | Only obvious to a Satanist like yourself.
|
I can discern the lust demons that possess your soul. There's at
least a legion of 'em up your dirty butt.
| Quote: | I'm aware of what you think your Satanic church
|
God's One TRUE Church AIN'T Satanical. It's the Lord's OWN TRue
Church.
We got study's to back up our findings. Homo sexuals burn and bubble
in filthy heathen lust.
| Quote: | The long list of lies is all yours.
|
No it ain't neither. You just don't understand nothing - so you just
lie about pert near everything. That's just one reason you're a gonna
go to ETERNAL hell!
| Quote: | More fantasizing about my body just like Satan wants you to.
|
It was you that said men get prostate thrills from ding-a-ling's.
Doesn't no straight man think that.
| Quote: | That's what Satan wants you to believe.
|
No. That's what the Lord REVEALS to True Believers in the Christian
Way.
| Quote: | Obviously not, since you worship Satan.
|
I ain't never worshipped Satan. You got demons stuck up your nasty
old butt.
| Quote: | One that runs through a nuclear facility, that is.
|
Don't nunna them do that. Looky how you lie!
| Quote: | I'm sure that's what Satan wants you to think, but nothing of the sort has
ever happened to me.
|
You won't let me prove it. I can cast the demons outa your smelly
butt hole any day. Alla the probing would probably turn you on.
| Quote: | Sure sounds like you're sexually frustrated to me.
|
That's just your sick imagination - which is influenced by demonic
activity.
| Quote: | Is that a grunt of pleasure?
|
No way! I am DISGUSTED by all cheesy foreskins - which I know is an
oxymoron. They're all cheesy.
| Quote: | It figures you sickos would "review" pornography.
|
I don't. Only Brother Phinehas does - and he does it as a duty to
determine how smut is poisoning the popular media.
| Quote: | He must not take care of himself, then.
|
Just like all uncircumcised men, HUH?
| Quote: | Some people do like that sort of thing. �
|
Do you?
| Quote: | People in your church included, it seems.
|
No way. We BURNT the DVD on Sunday. One less smegmatical chunk to
worry about. Praise Jesus!
| Quote: | That's good that she's not following your path.
|
I don't follow Satan's path. She was still a having heretical idea's
after Thurgood laid hands on her - so he wrote her a prescription for
the Holiness Pain Center. That'll flush them doubts right outa
her.
| Quote: | Too bad. �That might make her follow Satan again.
|
Thurgood is a trying to drive her AWAY from Satanic theory and toward
Holy Circumcision and Exorcism. Her church doesn't even got no
healing ministry for the queers. She wouldn't even testify that they
were evil!
| Quote: | So she is following Satan now.
|
No way! She had a glimpse of the Truth - but then she turnt away from
it and lost sight of God's Kingdom of Purity.
| Quote: | It's not even mentioned in the Bible. �More proof that you worship Satan.
|
Smegma ain;t mentioned but Holy Circumcision sure is.
I don't never lie.
| Quote: | They're very possible to keep clean as I well know. �
|
A licking 'em off doesn't make 'em clean. That just adds more germs
to the mix.
| Quote: | And there is no such thing as smegma pollution in pools.
|
My nose knows better. They pour gallons of chlorine into the pool to
kill the smeggy odor of foreskinned swimmers.
| Quote: | Many doctors think that circumcision is unnecessary. �
|
Ask a Jewish doctor then.
If'n you die uncircumcised you'll have that stench to deal with for
all eternity. Are you turned on by your own smegma?
| Quote: | That's what Satan wants you to believe.
|
Satan can't fool me none!
What do you go to gay bars for then? To pick up tricks?
| Quote: | That's better than being an unrepentant liar like you.
|
But I don't NEVER lie.
| Quote: | Nothing wrong with saying that.
|
It's a SIN!
| Quote: | I only "scoff" at your Satanic religion.
|
My religion ain't Satanical.
| Quote: | I've never posted hate speech, unless it was written by someone else.
|
What about the racist stuff you posted about Princess Keesha on the
anti-Black hate site? HUH? HUH? HUH?
I man besides the queer "church". It doesn't count. It's the
SINagogue of Satan!
| Quote: | Typical Satanic behavior.
|
How is a helping sex perverts overcome their illness in ANY way
Satanical? It AIN'T!
| Quote: | The fact that you think those two things makes you closer to God is more
proof of your Satan worship.
|
I'm a doing the Lord's will. I'm pregnant with a boy right now. We
got his Holy Circumcision all planned out. Why don't you sign up and
be next in line?
| Quote: | Except when you post here.
|
No - not EVER!!!
| Quote: | Yes, you do share Satanism with others.
|
I do not! I am PURE!
| Quote: | A Satanic church, that is.
|
No. The Only TRUE Christian Church.
No. It's YOU! You ain't circumcised neither.
| Quote: | You worship Satan every day.
|
I NEVER!!
| Quote: | That's what Satan wants you to believe.
|
It's what's true!
| Quote: | Satan would probably make you think something was there.
|
I KNOW something's there. Satan fingers your prostate and controls
your mind thru it.
| Quote: | Your own words in every post on Usenet prove that you worship Satan.
|
No. You're just all confused.
| Quote: | No, it proves that I don't want to be in the same room with a dirty Satan
worshiper like you.
|
I don't worship Satan. I KNOW I could find smegma in your ding-a-ling
and demons up your butt. Give me a chance and I will! Circumcision
not required.
| Quote: | The Satanic "gospel," that is.
|
No! The Lord Jesus' TRUE Gospel.
| Quote: | And you worship Satan.
|
I NEVER!
| Quote: | No, I just tell the truth about Satanists like yourself.
|
I ain't no Satanist - so that's another LIE on your part right there!
You lie alla the time!
No way! Demons have got their fingers up there right now!
| Quote: | It couldn't be because I heard it somewhere, right?
|
Yeah - from the demons up your butt!
| Quote: | When did I ever talk about my pleasures?
|
Why say it lessen you've felt it yourself?
| Quote: | Satan wants you to think that.
|
God REVEALED that Truth from heaven a'ready.
| Quote: | Bushism 7-26:
"If the East Timorians decide to revolt, I'm sure I'll have a statement."
--As quoted by Maureen Down in the New York Times; June 16, 1999
|
Don't you mean Maureen Dowd?
Jesus saves all but blasphemers like YOU -
Reverend Mother Tucker
A True Christian and NOT a Satanist |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:57 am Post subject: Re: The Jihad Candidate |
|
|
DUDE, have you gone mad ? The ZIONIST MEDIA never barked that it was a
jew or a yank bastard when those fake anthrax letters were mailed. 911
was an
inside job. Thermate cutter charges were used by yank bastards
themselves.
The media never did their job for the people or truth. It did it for
the corporations.
Dont worry, McCain will win. Its the corporations who have supported
your
OBAMA. They have played a very CLEVER game this time. TO make McCain
win, they made him look like a weakling in the initial stages and put
all support
behind OBAMA so he can DEFEAT HILLARY. She could have defeated McCain
but this B-L-A-C-K who can be SLANDERED in a million ways:
Moslem
Black
Nigger
by yank bastards and jews like you is not going to win against McCain.
McCain has
said that we will start winning BEFORE the elections. This means there
will be a
BLITZKREIG of SLANDER and MALICE and ACCUSATIONS just BEFORE the
ELECTIONS. Even if OBAMA wins, he is nigger. He did not make himself.
He was
made by CORPORATIONS. He is their stooge. Still he may be better than
McCain
by a hair.
BTW, I use nigger word to emphasize how OTHERS think of him. I am not
racist.
On Aug 18, 10:30 am, "Running With Scissors" <R...@Reservation.org>
wrote:
| Quote: | (X-posted)
Whether liberals are too arrogant or too subversive, they will read this (or
not) and buff up like cutworms and start throwing up strawman defenses in
order to conceal their own ignorance or perfidy. I think both.
The Jihad Candidate
by Rich Carroll
http://www.chronwatch-america. com/blogs/ 988/The-Jihad- Candidate. html
Conspiracy theories make for interesting novels when the storyline is not
so absurd that it can grasp our attention.
'The Manchurian Candidate' and 'Seven Days in May' are examples of
plausible chains of events that captures the reader's imagination at
best-seller level. 'What if' has always been the solid grist of fiction.
Get yourself something cool to drink, find a relaxing position, but before
you continue, visualize the television photos of two jet airliners smashing
into the Twin Towers in lower Manhattan and remind yourself this cowardly
act of Muslim terror was planned for eight years.
How long did it take Islam and their oil money to find a candidate for
President of the United States? As long as it took them to place a Senator
from Illinois and Minnesota? The same amount of time to create a large
Muslim enclave in Detroit? The time it took them to build over 2,000 mosques
in America? The same amount of time required to place radical wahabbist
clerics in our military and prisons as 'chaplains'?
Find a candidate who can get away with lying about their father being a
'freedom fighter' when he was actually part of the most corrupt and violent
government in Kenya's history. Find a candidate with close ties to The
Nation of Islam and the violent Muslim overthrow in Africa, a candidate who
is educated among white infidel Americans but hides his bitterness and anger
behind a superficial toothy smile. Find a candidate who changes his American
name of Barry to the Muslim name of Barack Hussein Obama, and dares anyone
to question his true ties under the banner of 'racism'. Nurture this
candidate in an atmosphere of anti-white American teaching and surround him
with Islamic teachers. Provide him with a bitter, racist, anti-white,
anti-American wife, and supply him with Muslim middle east connections and
Islamic monies. Allow him to be clever enough to get away with his
anti-white rhetoric and proclaim he will give $834 billion taxpayer dollars
to the Muslim controlled United Nations for use in Africa.
Install your candidate in an atmosphere of deception, because questioning
him on any issue involving Africa or Islam would be seen as 'bigoted
racism'; two words too powerful to allow the citizenry to be informed of
facts.
Allow your candidate to employ several black racist Nation of Islam Louis
Farrakhan followers as members of his Illinois Senatorial and campaign
staffs.
Where is the bloodhound American 'free press' who doggedly overturned
every stone in the Watergate case?
Where are our nation's reporters that have placed every Presidential
candidate under the microscope of detailed scrutiny; the same press who
pursue Bush's 'Skull and Bones' club or ran other candidates off with
persistent detective and research work? Why haven't 'newsmen' pursued the 65
blatant lies told by this candidate during the Presidential primaries? Where
are the stories about this candidate's cousin and the Muslim butchery in
Africa?
Since when did our national press corps become weak, timid, and silent?
Why haven't they regaled us with the long list of socialists and communists
who have surrounded this 'out of nowhere' Democrat candidate or the fact
that his chur ch re-printed the Hamas Manifesto in their bulletin, and that
his 'close pastor friend and mentor' met with Middle East terrorist Muammar
Qaddafi, (Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist
People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)? Why isn't the American press telling us
this candidate is supported by every Muslim organization in the world?
As an ultimate slap in the face, be blatant in the fact your candidate has
ZERO interest in traditional American values and has the most liberal voting
record in U.S. Senate history. Why has the American mainstream media clammed
up on any negative reporting on Barak Hussein Obama? Why will they print
Hillary Rodham Clinton's name but never write his middle name? Is it not his
name? Why, suddenly, is ANY information about this candidate not coming from
mainstream media, but from the blogosphere by citizens seeking facts and the
truth?
Why isn't our media connecting the dots with Islam? Why do they focus on
'those bad American soldiers' while Islam slaughters non-Muslims daily in 44
countries around the globe? Why does our media refer to Darfur as 'ethnic
cleansing' instead of what it really is: Muslims killing non-Muslims! There
i s enough strange, anti-American activity surrounding Barack Hussein Obama
to pique the curiosity of any reporter. WHERE IS OUR INVESTIGATIVE MEDIA!?
A formal plan for targeting America was devised three years after the
Iranian revolution in 1982. The plan was summarized in a 1991 memorandum by
Mohammed Akram, an operative of the global Muslim Brotherhood. 'The process
of settlement' of Muslims in America, Akram explained, 'is a civilization
jihad process.' This means that members of the Brotherhood must understand
that their work in 'America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and
destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable
house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated
and Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions.'
There is terrorism we can see, smell and fear, but there is a new kind of
terror invading The United States in the form of Sharia law and finance.
Condoning it is civilization suicide. Middle East Muslims are coming to
America in record numbers and building hate infidel mosques, buying our
corporations, suing us for our traditions, but they and the whole subject of
Islam is white noise leaving uninformed Americans about who and what is
really peaceful. Where is our investigative press? Any criticism of Islam or
their intentions, even though Islamic leaders state their intentions daily
around the globe, brings forth a volley of 'racist' from the left-wing
Democrat crowd.
Lies and deception behind a master plan - the ingredients for 'The
Manchurian Candidate' or the placement of an anti-American President in our
nation's White House? Is it mere coincidence that an anti-capitalist run for
President at the same time Islamic Sharia finance and law is trying to make
advancing strides into the United States? Is it mere coincidence this same
candidate wants to disarm our nuclear capability at a time when terrorist
Muslim nations are expanding their nuclear weapons capability? Is it mere
coincidence this candidate wants to reduce our military at a time of global
jihad from Muslim nations?
Change for America? What change? To become another 'nation of Islam'?
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
Bruce Porter Wrote:
You may google the author and/or the title of this article to verify if
you wish. I once spoke at B.H. Obama's High School in Hawaii, (Punahou
School) and found an enclave of far-left teachers, administrators, and
pro-Islamic apologists throughout the school faculty. (I was also fired from
the week-long engagement when it was discovered that I had written articles
critical of radical Islam in the past.) None of the information in this
article surprises me.
It only confirms what I have long-suspected. God save America!
--Bruce Porter |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Damned-Virus-Data Miner p
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 4:32 am Post subject: Re: The Jihad Candidate |
|
|
On Aug 20, 10:57 am, therma...@india.com wrote:
| Quote: | DUDE, have you gone mad ? The ZIONIST MEDIA never barked that it was a
jew or a yank bastard when those fake anthrax letters were mailed. 911
was an
inside job. Thermate cutter charges were used by yank bastards
themselves.
The media never did their job for the people or truth. It did it for
the corporations.
Dont worry, McCain will win. Its the corporations who have supported
your
OBAMA. They have played a very CLEVER game this time. TO make McCain
win, they made him look like a weakling in the initial stages and put
all support
behind OBAMA so he can DEFEAT HILLARY. She could have defeated McCain
but this B-L-A-C-K who can be SLANDERED in a million ways:
Moslem
Black
Nigger
by yank bastards and jews like you is not going to win against McCain.
McCain has
said that we will start winning BEFORE the elections. This means there
will be a
BLITZKREIG of SLANDER and MALICE and ACCUSATIONS just BEFORE the
ELECTIONS. Even if OBAMA wins, he is nigger. He did not make himself.
He was
made by CORPORATIONS. He is their stooge. Still he may be better than
McCain
by a hair.
BTW, I use nigger word to emphasize how OTHERS think of him. I am not
racist.
On Aug 18, 10:30 am, "Running With Scissors" <R...@Reservation.org
wrote:
(X-posted)
Whether liberals are too arrogant or too subversive, they will read this (or
not) and buff up like cutworms and start throwing up strawman defenses in
order to conceal their own ignorance or perfidy. I think both.
The Jihad Candidate
by Rich Carroll
http://www.chronwatch-america. com/blogs/ 988/The-Jihad- Candidate. html
Conspiracy theories make for interesting novels when the storyline is not
so absurd that it can grasp our attention.
'The Manchurian Candidate' and 'Seven Days in May' are examples of
plausible chains of events that captures the reader's imagination at
best-seller level. 'What if' has always been the solid grist of fiction..
Get yourself something cool to drink, find a relaxing position, but before
you continue, visualize the television photos of two jet airliners smashing
into the Twin Towers in lower Manhattan and remind yourself this cowardly
act of Muslim terror was planned for eight years.
How long did it take Islam and their oil money to find a candidate for
President of the United States? As long as it took them to place a Senator
from Illinois and Minnesota? The same amount of time to create a large
Muslim enclave in Detroit? The time it took them to build over 2,000 mosques
in America? The same amount of time required to place radical wahabbist
clerics in our military and prisons as 'chaplains'?
Find a candidate who can get away with lying about their father being a
'freedom fighter' when he was actually part of the most corrupt and violent
government in Kenya's history. Find a candidate with close ties to The
Nation of Islam and the violent Muslim overthrow in Africa, a candidate who
is educated among white infidel Americans but hides his bitterness and anger
behind a superficial toothy smile. Find a candidate who changes his American
name of Barry to the Muslim name of Barack Hussein Obama, and dares anyone
to question his true ties under the banner of 'racism'. Nurture this
candidate in an atmosphere of anti-white American teaching and surround him
with Islamic teachers. Provide him with a bitter, racist, anti-white,
anti-American wife, and supply him with Muslim middle east connections and
Islamic monies. Allow him to be clever enough to get away with his
anti-white rhetoric and proclaim he will give $834 billion taxpayer dollars
to the Muslim controlled United Nations for use in Africa.
Install your candidate in an atmosphere of deception, because questioning
him on any issue involving Africa or Islam would be seen as 'bigoted
racism'; two words too powerful to allow the citizenry to be informed of
facts.
Allow your candidate to employ several black racist Nation of Islam Louis
Farrakhan followers as members of his Illinois Senatorial and campaign
staffs.
Where is the bloodhound American 'free press' who doggedly overturned
every stone in the Watergate case?
Where are our nation's reporters that have placed every Presidential
candidate under the microscope of detailed scrutiny; the same press who
pursue Bush's 'Skull and Bones' club or ran other candidates off with
persistent detective and research work? Why haven't 'newsmen' pursued the 65
blatant lies told by this candidate during the Presidential primaries? Where
are the stories about this candidate's cousin and the Muslim butchery in
Africa?
Since when did our national press corps become weak, timid, and silent?
Why haven't they regaled us with the long list of socialists and communists
who have surrounded this 'out of nowhere' Democrat candidate or the fact
that his chur ch re-printed the Hamas Manifesto in their bulletin, and that
his 'close pastor friend and mentor' met with Middle East terrorist Muammar
Qaddafi, (Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist
People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)? Why isn't the American press telling us
this candidate is supported by every Muslim organization in the world?
As an ultimate slap in the face, be blatant in the fact your candidate has
ZERO interest in traditional American values and has the most liberal voting
record in U.S. Senate history. Why has the American mainstream media clammed
up on any negative reporting on Barak Hussein Obama? Why will they print
Hillary Rodham Clinton's name but never write his middle name? Is it not his
name? Why, suddenly, is ANY information about this candidate not coming from
mainstream media, but from the blogosphere by citizens seeking facts and the
truth?
Why isn't our media connecting the dots with Islam? Why do they focus on
'those bad American soldiers' while Islam slaughters non-Muslims daily in 44
countries around the globe? Why does our media refer to Darfur as 'ethnic
cleansing' instead of what it really is: Muslims killing non-Muslims! There
i s enough strange, anti-American activity surrounding Barack Hussein Obama
to pique the curiosity of any reporter. WHERE IS OUR INVESTIGATIVE MEDIA!?
A formal plan for targeting America was devised three years after the
Iranian revolution in 1982. The plan was summarized in a 1991 memorandum by
Mohammed Akram, an operative of the global Muslim Brotherhood. 'The process
of settlement' of Muslims in America, Akram explained, 'is a civilization
jihad process.' This means that members of the Brotherhood must understand
that their work in 'America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and
destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable
house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated
and Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions.'
There is terrorism we can see, smell and fear, but there is a new kind of
terror invading The United States in the form of Sharia law and finance..
Condoning it is civilization suicide. Middle East Muslims are coming to
America in record numbers and building hate infidel mosques, buying our
corporations, suing us for our traditions, but they and the whole subject of
Islam is white noise leaving uninformed Americans about who and what is
really peaceful. Where is our investigative press? Any criticism of Islam or
their intentions, even though Islamic leaders state their intentions daily
around the globe, brings forth a volley of 'racist' from the left-wing
Democrat crowd.
Lies and deception behind a master plan - the ingredients for 'The
Manchurian Candidate' or the placement of an anti-American President in our
nation's White House? Is it mere coincidence that an anti-capitalist run for
President at the same time Islamic Sharia finance and law is trying to make
advancing strides into the United States? Is it mere coincidence this same
candidate wants to disarm our nuclear capability at a time when terrorist
Muslim nations are expanding their nuclear weapons capability? Is it mere
coincidence this candidate wants to reduce our military at a time of global
jihad from Muslim nations?
Change for America? What change? To become another 'nation of Islam'?
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
Bruce Porter Wrote:
You may google the author and/or the title of this article to verify if
you wish. I once spoke at B.H. Obama's High School in Hawaii, (Punahou
School) and found an enclave of far-left teachers, administrators, and
pro-Islamic apologists throughout the school faculty. (I was also fired from
the week-long engagement when it was discovered that I had written articles
critical of radical Islam in the past.) None of the information in this
article surprises me.
It only confirms what I have long-suspected. God save America!
--Bruce Porter- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
jihaddist.....a slain of sex about humans.......
alkwrejfaeoifjerojfieroasjafaf |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 5:58 am Post subject: Re: Are you a terrorist? why bush blair and howard , and the |
|
|
On Aug 18, 9:07 am, Qahir Al-Ashrar <alrajul_almona...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 17, 11:34 pm, kangarooistan <een...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 18, 12:07 pm, John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Someone mentioned arresting the real terrorists.
Knew it wouldn't talke long for the Kanga- to show up
Torture Team
The backgroundhttp://www.tortureteam.com/
On December 2, 2002 the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld,
signed his name at the bottom of a document that listed eighteen
techniques of interrogation - techniques that defied international
definitions of torture. The Rumsfeld Memo authorized the controversial
interrogation practices that later migrated toGuantanamo,
Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, as part of the policy of
extraordinary rendition.
The book
From a behind-the-scenes vantage point, leading international lawyer
Philippe Sands investigates how the Rumsfeld Memo set the stage for a
divergence from the Geneva Convention and the Torture Convention and
holds the individual gatekeepers in theBushadministration
accountable for their failure to safeguard international law.
The Torture Team delves deep into theBushadministration to reveal:
* How the policy of abuse originated with Donald Rumsfeld, Dick
Cheney and George W.Bush, and was promoted by their most senior
lawyers
* Personal accounts, through interview, of those most closely
involved in the decisions
* How the Joint Chiefs and normal military decision-making
processes were circumvented
* How Fox TV's 24 contributed to torture planning
* How interrogation techniques were approved for use
* How the new techniques were used on Mohammed Al Qahtani, alleged
to be "the 20th hijacker"
* How the senior lawyers who crafted |
| |
