Seahawks

That's what brought up the "harboring terrorists" dilemma, right. How do you get a country to go after internal criminals that are just as likely to bite the hand that feeds them? How about the US put some men in the woods somewhere in the USA who job it is to go after other countries and say to the other countries, we can't do anything about them becuase the might do what Timoth Mcvey did.

I guess I should have allowed for the same on my point with you. didn't have your reading glasses on.

Kind of like you proposing putting jews in ash trays? you have a bad memory. unless you believe me to own the avatar of V7 Sorry, my bad, your right. You two are so much alike.

Give them a geopolitical identity and let them police themselves. To have a government throw up there arms and say we can't do anthing about them is bullshit.

Kind of like you proposing putting jews in ash trays?

Knew that be hard one for you to accept.

Figures you'd be in favor of "bad ideas" if only because it's the only idea you've got. Didn't say I was in favor of it Mr. assumption.

Let them police there own people. Just do what you did in the cold war. Mutual destuction if a bomb goes off here. take out lets say the top 50 muslim holy cities. Bad idea but how else?

I think it was quite an eye-opener to many, if not most, of the people in this country to see on their televisions mobs of people in Islamic cities rejoicing at the news and images of the World Trade Towers collapsing. Not a shock, they have wanted us all dead for decades. If you didn't know that you had your head buried in the sand.

There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm’s way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade… And the very difficult question for all of us is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment if not an obsession with weapons of mass destruction. And I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn’t believe should be in any way a part this decision. And it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we not only had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein and a willingness on his part to disarm and account for his chemical and biological storehouses, but that if we had a much broader alliance and coalition. But we are in a very difficult position right now… With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein. I just do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for the United States leadership. I am willing to take a very difficult step for me to say we have to disarm this man --- Hillary Clinton

and your a fucking hater. i dont hate you one iota , i am however offended by your cluelessness-arrogance-talk. What was Clueless and what was arrogance that I said??? You just hate. Becuase I beleive something different than you , you label me clueless and I don't know where in the hell you get the arrogance. Just makes you look like an idiot.

and your a fucking hater.

I completely agree. But that goes equally for GWB and company as it does for those we call the terrorists. Our man George described our campaign as a Crusade, and has used the "clash of civilizations" metaphor repeatedly. He's amped up the religious zealots on both sides (to the extent there are really just two sides). I think our pal Selkirk might argue that a good old fashioned fascist could have / would have done the same thing. And he is right. But the religious component is certainly dangerous. Don't you realize they don't care if your zealous or not. They are going to take the fight to you here. They will not stop becuase we do. Do you understand this?

seems to me the people who translated what they say was said is who says jesus said his way was the only way If I knew what that meant I might respond. To read any religious text literally is a recipe for conflicting statements. Not to mention that they should always be taken with a grain of salt. And of course there were errors in translation. Haven't you ever played the game where you all sit in a circle and one person whispers "the black dog bit the policeman in blue" and by the time it gets back to you it's a dirty limerick? And of course books were lost, and of course sections were intentionally left out by those compiling and distributing the text to meet their own purposes. Which is why you should always go back to my first statement. Don't read any religious text literally, and always take them with a grain of salt. Ever hear of the dead sea scrolls??? There weren't any errors in copying the texts.

Never heard that. Have heard of the Apocryphal but that not the reason the were not included in the final version of the bible. Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible. Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin. None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to Godly inspiration. The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the Christian church (prior to corruption from the Roman Empire). The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but also themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places. The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

seems to me the people who translated what they say was said is who says jesus said his way was the only way If I knew what that meant I might respond. the biblical stories have been told and translated so many times it is like a game of telephone... who knows what Jesus REALLY said. Not true. It been proven that there are almost zero errors in translation. Now you could argue that the translation from Hebrew or greek to english has translation errors but original version of Greek and Hebrew has not.

seems to me the people who translated what they say was said is who says jesus said his way was the only way If I knew what that meant I might respond.

Certainly that is true. We've seen a highly motivated group of conservative Christians gain an extraordinary impact on American politics for the last several years, and a substantial part of their success has been motivated by some very clear expressions of intolerance, but that certainly does not mean that to be Christian is to be intolerant. It means you beleive in right and wrong and some people view that as intolerant.

Are you some kind of Unitarian or something? As the guy was arguing last night: either you believe Jesus was the son of god or you don't. If you do believe that, you must also believe that those who do not believe it are wrong. You must believe that you have an important knowledge of the truth that they are lacking. We see nuance and variation within a given sect, but whether you are a Tibetan Buddhist or an Evangelical Christian, there are certain core beliefs that you have accept as "true," no? (I could be wrong, as I never went to divinity school, but I think that is how it works.) Jesus does not refer to Himself in the Bible as the Son of God, but as the Son of Man. And no, one who believes this does not have to believe others to be wrong about their beliefs. That's where the handy, "I don't know the ways and intentions of God" comes in handy. I do believe in Christ, but I don't believe that God necessarily came to everyone in the same guise. This isn't much of a stretch, is it? I mean, if someone is willing to believe that a person was raised from the dead and asked others to eat of His flesh, is it really that much harder to believe that maybe God sent Buddha to some folks and Shiva to others? Disagree - Jesus did say he was the only way. "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12) "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all ..." (1 Timothy 2:5) "There is one body and one Spirit ... one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." (Ephesians 4:4) Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6) "I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and find pasture ... I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly." (John 10:9) Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life, he who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die." (John 11:25) Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, "I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life." (John 8:12) And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger and he who believes in Me shall never thirst." (John 6:35) "I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world." (John 6:51) "... whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:15-16) "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." (John 3:36) "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." (John 8:24) "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life." (John 5:24) "... And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; He who does not have the Son of God does not have life." (1 John 5:11) "And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God." (1 John 4:14)

Not really. Anytime I post anything you come back to it. So you have developed a pattern, so don't try to explain it away.

LOL

Excuse me? You presume to know what you're talking about in regard to what? In regards to your crap aimed at me. and I felt that "Furthermore, those who attack all religious people, and faiths with a broad-brush are exhibiting the same disrespect, dismissiveness, ignorance, and outright arrogance that they claim to be rallying against." summed you up pretty good.

Why in the hell do you think you know everything??? Look at page two at the top. It is DC and I do know what I'm talking about. So just sit back and shut up sometimes.

No I will agree with you on that. They are the same.

The Dems are two faced. Only out for the political vote.