JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: dejavu on December 14, 2007, 03:02:05 PM
-
Ok first of all I want to start this post by explaining where my position is coming from and why I think that you guys may be looking at Ron Paul in the wrong light. Now I am a non-religious American student who is in fact a very strong Ron Paul supporter. Now I go through you tube regularly looking for more information on all of the candidates and I routinely stumble across the videos that Chaim makes with this forums title on it. Now most of the time, I laugh because he makes what I consider baseless claims with a ton of passion but I do still listen for him to say something that makes sense.
Now a while back he actually did have one of those moments where he did seemingly makes sense to me. I don’t remember the video it was on but he stated that the US giving foreign aid to Israel is the worst thing that the US can do for Israel. Now I 100% agree with this I believe that we should discontinue all aid to all countries not just Israel. The thing is that not all aid is monetary; there are also weapons and food.
You guys also state that you want to have the US take care of themselves as well and this is where our opinions may vary but I think that the only way that we can truly protect ourselves is to do it at home. That means border security being our ports and our borders north and south. Now without starting the draft and I’m fairly confident you guys are not advocating that, the only way to get the personnel home is to if not end the war atleast greatly downsize the size of the armed forces over seas.
Now for this last opinion I’m probably going to be called an anti-Semite however I disagree and let me tell you why. I’m not anti-Jewish in any way… I am anti-support for Israel.
Now with all of this in mind I think that you guys should rethink your stance on Ron Paul. Its not that he is against Israel, he just could care less and if you guys want to bomb the hell out of your neighbors and turn that section of the world into a sheet of glass… go for it he’s not going to intervene.
Now as for another issue that I think is very important for you guys the world organizations that are meddling in issues that they do not belong in. Now Ron Paul once again wants to get out of the UN, WTO, IMF and all of those other organizations that are running our country through resolutions and regulations. I’m not sure of your stance on these organizations but I think that you would be against their influence as well.
So beyond this you guys state that Paul is a Nazi which I haven’t actually seen any evidence to support and also part of the Nazi thing is socialism which he is the most non-socialist person running. You guys have also brought up the fact that he has received donations from white supremacist groups and prostitutes. As for this… he doesn’t condone their activities however he is not going to refuse free money… who would.
They may not be winning as far as deaths are concerned but this war is killing our economy and with this in mind it is very likely that the US will fall from grace if we stay the course.
For these reasons I think that you guys should maybe reconsider Ron Paul and if not then at least maybe we can have a polite conversation about why.
-
"you guys"...."you guys"...."you guys".... :D
-
Ron Paul IS against Israel. He would not even condemn Hezbollah's raid into Israeli territory and kidnapping their soldiers.
He knows NOTHING about Islam or what theologically motivates people for jihad...all he knows is blame America and "blow back, blow back, blow back." He's a moron.
-
does it matter what he thinks if he would stand back and allow for israel to handle the matters the way that they saw fit instead of having to ask the US and UN for permission to protect themselves.
-
yes, it matters. Because he would also stand back and let Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, and PLO "handle the matters as they see fit" which would mean a nuclear war and another holocaust...but hey what business is that of America's right?
-
Then why in Chaim's videos does he state that he would like for America to get out of the way so that Israel can take care of itself through Kahanist style terrorism to fight terrorism. Maybe I misunderstood his message then but he seemed to me to state that America is already a lot of the problem because they do not allow for the Israeli's to handle the problem correctly. Also how would it lead to Nuclear war unless you guys are the ones that unleash the nukes... As far as i know you and Pakistan are the only countries in that general area that have been confirmed as having them.
So my basic question then is are you trying to play both teams? You want the US to allow you to do what you think is necessary but you also want the US to back you up in all of your endevors.
If this is true how did the US gain this position as the police man and what does that make Israel if they were the ones that controlled the police?
-
Please answer yes or no to the following questions:
Do you believe the neoconservatives are pro-Israel?
Do you believe AIPAC is pro-Israel?
Please give a short response to the following:
What do you define as a pro-Israel American foreign policy?
-
Then why in Chaim's videos does he state that he would like for America to get out of the way so that Israel can take care of itself through Kahanist style terrorism to fight terrorism. Maybe I misunderstood his message then but he seemed to me to state that America is already a lot of the problem because they do not allow for the Israeli's to handle the problem correctly. Also how would it lead to Nuclear war unless you guys are the ones that unleash the nukes... As far as i know you and Pakistan are the only countries in that general area that have been confirmed as having them.
So my basic question then is are you trying to play both teams? You want the US to allow you to do what you think is necessary but you also want the US to back you up in all of your endevors.
If this is true how did the US gain this position as the police man and what does that make Israel if they were the ones that controlled the police?
Who is this you you are referring to? I'm neither Israeli or Jewish. And what do you mean by Kahanist style terrorism?
I don't want the US to prevent Israel from protecting itself through pressuring them and forcing them into suicidial "peace talks" with an enemy that wishes to destroy them. But I also don't want the US to remain neutral to Islamic terrorism. A nuclear war would be initiated by Iran who are building nuclear weapons and have vowed to use them against Israel. And Ron Paul openly says he does not care if Iran gets nukes!
A nuclear Iran is a threat to both Israel and the United States. The regime in Iran has made it clear that it also wishes to destroy America and the West. As they say "first comes saturday then comes sunday." What part about "death to America" don't you understand?
-
Do you believe the neoconservatives are pro-Israel?
No, but i think that they believe that they are, when in fact their policies are the ones that are handicapping the Israeli's by over influencing the Israeli leadership. So in the purpose of a yes or no answer i will state Yes because their intentions are pro-Israel despite failing miserably.
Do you believe AIPAC is pro-Israel?
Same answer as above but this group is causing the above problem. I disagree with all lobbyist though.
What do you define as a pro-Israel American foreign policy?
I define pro-Israel American foreign policy as anything that we do that has the desired outcome of helping Israel. However once again... I cannot think of a single pro-Israel policy that i think is actually working for Israel. The best thing that we can do for Israel is to let Israel make their own policies that are in the best interests of their citizens. Our foreign policy should not matter to Israel.
-
Do you believe the neoconservatives are pro-Israel?
No, but i think that they believe that they are, when in fact their policies are the ones that are handicapping the Israeli's by over influencing the Israeli leadership. So in the purpose of a yes or no answer i will state Yes because their intentions are pro-Israel despite failing miserably.
Do you believe AIPAC is pro-Israel?
Same answer as above but this group is causing the above problem. I disagree with all lobbyist though.
What do you define as a pro-Israel American foreign policy?
I define pro-Israel American foreign policy as anything that we do that has the desired outcome of helping Israel. However once again... I cannot think of a single pro-Israel policy that i think is actually working for Israel. The best thing that we can do for Israel is to let Israel make their own policies that are in the best interests of their citizens. Our foreign policy should not matter to Israel.
We share close to the same beliefs.
-
You are definitely anti-Jewish, even if you are Jewish yourself. And that is fine with me because you will get your share of fun.
But what the problem is with you is that your hatred towards the Jews make you blind, since you are missing an important part of what JTF is and what it stands for:
* Even though called Jewish task Force, it is majority non-Jewish and truly represents a task force of Jews and Righteous Gentiles
* The goals of our group is to save Israel, America, and Western Civilization, that is the Jews will take care of Israel and related problems, and Gentiles will save America and the West.
Therefore, we Jews can save Israel by bombing Iran despite who is in charge in America.
But our Gentile members are those who will have to protect America from the same Iran, if it decides to strike America first and not Israel.
You see? You think that if not because of Israel, America would not have been hated by Muslims. It is sheer ignorance, my little enemy!
-
Then why in Chaim's videos does he state that he would like for America to get out of the way so that Israel can take care of itself through Kahanist style terrorism to fight terrorism. Maybe I misunderstood his message then but he seemed to me to state that America is already a lot of the problem because they do not allow for the Israeli's to handle the problem correctly. Also how would it lead to Nuclear war unless you guys are the ones that unleash the nukes... As far as i know you and Pakistan are the only countries in that general area that have been confirmed as having them.
So my basic question then is are you trying to play both teams? You want the US to allow you to do what you think is necessary but you also want the US to back you up in all of your endevors.
If this is true how did the US gain this position as the police man and what does that make Israel if they were the ones that controlled the police?
Who is this you you are referring to? I'm neither Israeli or Jewish. And what do you mean by Kahanist style terrorism?
I don't want the US to prevent Israel from protecting itself through pressuring them and forcing them into suicidial "peace talks" with an enemy that wishes to destroy them. But I also don't want the US to remain neutral to Islamic terrorism. A nuclear war would be initiated by Iran who are building nuclear weapons and have vowed to use them against Israel. And Ron Paul openly says he does not care if Iran gets nukes!
A nuclear Iran is a threat to both Israel and the United States. The regime in Iran has made it clear that it also wishes to destroy America and the West. As they say "first comes saturday then comes sunday." What part about "death to America" don't you understand?
You would be referring to the group of people that i addressed in the title of this thread meaning "JTF supporters and Leadership"... however after rereading my post "you" also refers to Israel a couple of time i will try to be more consistent in the future.
Honestly if there was a fear that Iran would turn those nukes against the US then it would be a different story. Its non-interventionism. If there is an eminent threat then war would be justified but a half assed war like the one that we are fighting now does not work. If there is an eminent threat we go in there and blow the [censored] out of them. Them getting nukes is not an eminent threat for the US however i am not going to disagree that it may be for Israel but that is an issue for Israel to address not the US.
Also wishes don't make things possible.. i want to get a job that i enjoy where i make more money than i can ever spend... its not impossible but its a wish.
The Kahanist style terrorism is refering to some comments that i have seen on a few of Chaim's videos where he states that if Israel gets bombed then they should bomb their enemys even worse so that the event would not repeat itself..
Once again maybe i misunderstood what he was going for..
Neways im going to go eat some dinner and we can continue this conversation please keep posting... i will answer
-
You are definitely anti-Jewish, even if you are Jewish yourself.
I dont understand how i am anti-Jewish i want them to stand up for themselves and take control of their future. Also if you read the OP i stated that i am not a religious person. I'm not Christian, Jewish, or even god forbid muslim.
-
Dejavu, Ron Paul does in actuallity care about Israel, he hates the Jewish State as has been made clear by his former Jewish staffer, and articles he has written like neo-conned.
While it is obvious you are tailoring your answers to what we want to hear, you slipped with your referance to Kahanist terrorism, and your opening with vicious insults towards Chaim, you did not bring a single reproof of anything he said but only made a broad insult towards his arguments. As well as your hints of conspiracy with the US being the worlds policeman controlled by Israel
And Dhimmi Pride, Israel doesnt need any American aide, and we wont be wiped out without American support, in actuallity it would be the best thing the world for us, keep in mind that our greatest victories came before America was "supporting" us.
-
eh i put that in as a joke because of some of the stuff that i have seen typed on this forum but apparently the sarcasm was not realized. I was brought up in a strong Lutheran household and until the age of 13 or so i don't think we missed a single Sunday at church. The problem came when i was getting confirmed when i was studying the religion. I began to ask questions and when the people were not able to answer the questions that i was asking i had about a 2 hour conversation with my pastor and ever since then i have no longer believed in any god or higher power. Some people may call this a failure on my parents and pastors part but the truth is in American culture curiosity is fostered and when i was unable to find the answers i needed in religion i turned elsewhere like evolution and the big bang theory.
Another reason for my loss of faith was the fact that religion (by this i will mean Christianity because it is the one that i have actually been a part of) has seemingly been able to adapt to the facts of the day. An example of this is when the world was flat god was in the heavens and the devil was in the ground however once it was realized that the world was flat it became metaphorical. Or the fact that things such as Limbo used to exist until recently when the Vatican made an announcement that it did not exist.
But this is not what this argument was supposed to be about i would like to keep it somewhat focused on the foreign policy questions that i originally posed and not an argument on religion because i am a firm believer that everyone has the right to believe whatever they want and that i should not impose my religious views on others because that should be a personal relationship between yourself and whatever you consider to be a higher power. With that in mind i apologize for starting this thread so close to the sabbath i was unaware that this site went into maintenance during that period.
-
Here are a few of the reasons why I dislike Ron Paul:
http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/ron-paul-and-anti-semitism.html
Note that he had the following comment in his newsletter, whose comments, even though written by a ghostwriter, he still stood by:
"By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government."
Now I don't care for AIPAC and these other mainstream Jewish organizations. But why does Dr. Paul and others like him focus on tiny Israel, when Saudi Arabia, and the other oil rich rogue regimes use their vast oil reserves to dictate our foreign policy? Where is Paul's outrage over American ambassadors to Saudi Arabia being basically bribed by them:
http://mattwelch.com/NatPostSave/SaudiShills.htm
Another problem I have is with his refusal to support a resolution during the last Israel/Hezbollah war supporting Israel. Here's what he said:
Mr. Speaker, I follow a policy in foreign affairs called non-interventionism. I do not believe we are making the United States more secure when we involve ourselves in conflicts overseas. The Constitution really doesn't authorize us to be the policemen of the world, much less to favor one side over another in foreign conflicts. It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians. I would rather advocate neutrality rather than picking sides, which is what this resolution does.
If he wants to be a isolationist, fine. But to go whining about the "civlilian" casualties in Lebanon is stupid. Why can't people like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan get it through their heads that the reason "civilians" get killed in places like Lebanon and the fakestinian so-called territories is that the wimpy, [censored] Muslims insist on hiding behind the skirts of their women and children?
Furthermore, I have a big problem with a presidential candidate that says the reasons those moosies are acting up with because we've invaded their countries, and that we would do the same thing if we were in their shoes. First off, Jews and Christians do not strap bombs on their children in the hopes that they'll kill as many innocents as possible. We are not like that, and never will be!
And I will say what I always say on my own blog. America, as a super power and First World civilized country that respects individual rights, has EVERY RIGHT to invade rogue states IF she feels it's in the country's interest to do so. It may not always be the best idea to do so, but that that's a different issue. These barbaric countries that put human beings into shredders, rape dissidents, and chop off the clitorises of little girls, have no business whatsoever bitching about their sovereignty being violated, or that they're being "occupied."
Hope that clarifies where some of us stand on Paul.
-
Dejavu, Ron Paul does in actuallity care about Israel, he hates the Jewish State as has been made clear by his former Jewish staffer, and articles he has written like neo-conned.
While it is obvious you are tailoring your answers to what we want to hear, you slipped with your referance to Kahanist terrorism, and your opening with vicious insults towards Chaim, you did not bring a single reproof of anything he said but only made a broad insult towards his arguments. As well as your hints of conspiracy with the US being the worlds policeman controlled by Israel
And Dhimmi Pride, Israel doesnt need any American aide, and we wont be wiped out without American support, in actuallity it would be the best thing the world for us, keep in mind that our greatest victories came before America was "supporting" us.
I did not intend to offend but you are correct that i do believe that the kahanist movement is extremely militant and i am a believer in the argument that "You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar." In all honesty i consider Bush the biggest terrorist in the world at the moment for the fact that he invaded a country that in all honesty posed no threat to the US if we stayed at home. From what i understand about the kahanist theories it is strongly in favor of preemption and in that regard i do consider it terrorism.
As far as being a conspiracy theorist i don't believe that it is really a conspiracy from the fact that there is a lobby specifically made to sway people for what they consider pro-Israel legislation in the United States (AIPAC) and as far as i know there is not another country that is considered enough of a special interest in the US to have its own lobbyist.
-
So Dejavu, do you care to read my response above, and tell me why you think it's acceptable for Saudi Arabia to have America's balls in a vice, due to their vast amounts of oil? Why is it acceptable for them to bribe all the American ambassadors to that country? Why is it ok for that prince Awaleed bin Talal to buy up shares of Fox News and Citigroup? And why is ok for this same prince to pour vast amounts of money into the Middle East studies departments of our major universities?
-
Deja vu..First I appreciate the fact that you come here to make your voice heard in a civil manner, even though I really really really disagree with you BIG TIME.
Let me put this indisputable fact quite simply: "Those who bless Israel and the Jews will be blessed and those who curse Israel and the Jews will be cursed!"
So let's start with one of your good points. Isn't not giving aid to Israel, a reality a blessing in disguise? And Paul wants to withdraw that aid from Israel and everywhere else.
Well, yes, this is a good thing for Israel, but what's Paul's reasoning behind it? Is it because he loves Israel or is it because he hates Israel? I think Paul hates Israel...so what he wants to do in this aspect might be a blessing in disguise for us..however he wants to do it as a curse on to Israel since we know he blames America for the crazy way Muslims act, when we know that it's Islam which wants to forcefully spread its religion throughout the world. Paul is not a righteous person and, if anything, is the least righteous of all the candidates with his obvious intentions.
However, it would be interesting to see what happens if Paul miraculously won the elections and what would become of Israel without US aid and if she ends up changing for the better and fighting her enemies rather than commit suicide them.
-
And Dhimmi Pride, Israel doesnt need any American aide, and we wont be wiped out without American support, in actuallity it would be the best thing the world for us, keep in mind that our greatest victories came before America was "supporting" us.
I didn't say Israel did. I just don't want the US to pressure Israel into peace talks and ceasefires and to allow Iran to build a nuke which is as much a threat to the US as it is to Israel. And your right about Israels wars in the past.
-
So Dejavu, do you care to read my response above, and tell me why you think it's acceptable for Saudi Arabia to have America's balls in a vice, due to their vast amounts of oil? Why is it acceptable for them to bribe all the American ambassadors to that country? Why is it ok for that prince Awaleed bin Talal to buy up shares of Fox News and Citigroup? And why is ok for this same prince to pour vast amounts of money into the Middle East studies departments of our major universities?
Sorry i did not respond faster but it does take some time to read, think and type a thoughtful response. I plus i had to answer a phone call from my parents... But back on topic. I believe that the Saudis have far too much influence in the US government as well however they are more economic influence seeing as they control the blood of the country. On the other hand the organizations such as AIPAC have are much easier targets seeing as they are not as well hidden into our culture. Getting rid of the influence of AIPAC is fairly easy you just don't allow them any more but on the other hand getting rid of the influence of the Saudis is much more difficult as they are our primary provider of a resource. Now i am a firm believer of getting out from under the thumb of the Saudis and other Middle Eastern countries and we should move towards energy independence through opening up our Oil reserves and also making a strong push towards energy efficiency, alternative fuels and nuclear power (we gotta cut back on coal as well). This will restore the power of the US government to the people of the US rather than the sheikh's and AIPAC style lobbyist.
As far as Paul being antisemitic i disagree because he is not against the Jewish people he is against the power that the groups such as AIPAC hold in our country over our legislatures who are supposed to be our representatives who are not for sale to the highest bidder. I have a huge problem with the actions of the Saudis as well its just that they are much harder to fix as they take a complete change in the actions of our country. Also with that in mind i don't see a problem with the prince guy owning fox news and citigroup because in all honesty anyone who doesn't take what they see on television with a grain of salt deserves to be taken... Everyone has their special interests however those special interests should never affect the policies of the country.
-
Then why in Chaim's videos does he state that he would like for America to get out of the way so that Israel can take care of itself through Kahanist style terrorism to fight terrorism. Maybe I misunderstood his message then but he seemed to me to state that America is already a lot of the problem because they do not allow for the Israeli's to handle the problem correctly. Also how would it lead to Nuclear war unless you guys are the ones that unleash the nukes... As far as i know you and Pakistan are the only countries in that general area that have been confirmed as having them.
So my basic question then is are you trying to play both teams? You want the US to allow you to do what you think is necessary but you also want the US to back you up in all of your endevors.
If this is true how did the US gain this position as the police man and what does that make Israel if they were the ones that controlled the police?
Who is this you you are referring to? I'm neither Israeli or Jewish. And what do you mean by Kahanist style terrorism?
I don't want the US to prevent Israel from protecting itself through pressuring them and forcing them into suicidal "peace talks" with an enemy that wishes to destroy them. But I also don't want the US to remain neutral to Islamic terrorism. A nuclear war would be initiated by Iran who are building nuclear weapons and have vowed to use them against Israel. And Ron Paul openly says he does not care if Iran gets nukes!
A nuclear Iran is a threat to both Israel and the United States. The regime in Iran has made it clear that it also wishes to destroy America and the West. As they say "first comes saturday then comes sunday." What part about "death to America" don't you understand?
Honestly if there was a fear that Iran would turn those nukes against the US then it would be a different story. Its non-interventionism. If there is an eminent threat then war would be justified but a half assed war like the one that we are fighting now does not work. If there is an eminent threat we go in there and blow the excrement out of them. Them getting nukes is not an eminent threat for the US however i am not going to disagree that it may be for Israel but that is an issue for Israel to address not the US.
Why on earth do you believe that Iran would not use them against the United States? This is a messianic regime that has vowed for decades to destroy the United States, it is official Iranian government policy! I'll ask again what part of "Death to America" don't you understand??? This is the Iranian government slogan that has been chanted at mosques in Iran for DECADES under the orders of the mullahs who control the country. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is well on the record as saying that he believes that the return of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi is imminent which according to their theology would mean Armageddon...and they are building nuclear weapons. And this is of no concern to you or your candidate Ron Paul whom would trade with Iran, a country that has murdered thousands of Americans, and strengthen their economy which would aid their nuclear program. To believe a nuclear Iran is not a threat to the United States is just completely insane.
I don't want another Iraq war, that has been a distaster. I want an air war that would destroy their entire nuclear program, thats it, I don't believe in the idiotic notion that we can create a democracy in a muslim nation.
The Kahanist style terrorism is refering to some comments that i have seen on a few of Chaim's videos where he states that if Israel gets bombed then they should bomb their enemys even worse so that the event would not repeat itself..
Once again maybe i misunderstood what he was going for..
That's not terrorism, that is sanity.
-
So let's start with one of your good points. Isn't not giving aid to Israel, a reality a blessing in disguise? And Paul wants to withdraw that aid from Israel and everywhere else.
Well, yes, this is a good thing for Israel, but what's Paul's reasoning behind it? Is it because he loves Israel or is it because he hates Israel? I think Paul hates Israel...so what he wants to do in this aspect might be a blessing in disguise for us..however he wants to do it as a curse on to Israel since we know he blames America for the crazy way Muslims act, when we know that it's Islam which wants to forcefully spread its religion throughout the world. Paul is not a righteous person and, if anything, is the least righteous of all the candidates with his obvious intentions.
However, it would be interesting to see what happens if Paul miraculously won the elections and what would become of Israel without US aid and if she ends up changing for the better and fighting her enemies rather than commit suicide them.
Thank you i have been doing my best to keep this argument as civil as possible seeing as we have differing views but i disagree that Paul hates Israel. I don't think that he hates it i believe that he is indifferent to it because in the larger scheme of the world whether Israel falls or triumphs does not matter to the US and therefore the US should not get involved. The problem is that you are looking at this in black or white. You are either with us or against us. IMO this is a fallacy seeing as you can be for something without getting involved. If you saw someone carjacking someone with a gun are you going to go over there are risk getting shot to try and help them. I wouldn't. Does that mean that i am on the carjackers side. No that means that since i am not involved it is not worth the risk to address the situation. We still want Israel to succeed but its not worth American lives to do so.
Anyways .. seeing as i am a college student it is a Saturday night and i am going to go out with my friends, but i will come on later and check this so please keep the conversation going.
-
Dejavu, I'm no fan of AIPAC. But I think the Saudis are much worse. So I don't understand the focus on Israel or AIPAC when Saudi Arabia is using their oil as sort of Damocles sword against the West.
And one more thing. I don't think any decent person would accept money from a neo-nazi organization. Politicians HAVE returned money in the past. Actually, Hillary Clinton at one point returned a donation from a famous but shady character, whose name I don't remember right now.
-
Then why in Chaim's videos does he state that he would like for America to get out of the way so that Israel can take care of itself through Kahanist style terrorism to fight terrorism. Maybe I misunderstood his message then but he seemed to me to state that America is already a lot of the problem because they do not allow for the Israeli's to handle the problem correctly. Also how would it lead to Nuclear war unless you guys are the ones that unleash the nukes... As far as i know you and Pakistan are the only countries in that general area that have been confirmed as having them.
So my basic question then is are you trying to play both teams? You want the US to allow you to do what you think is necessary but you also want the US to back you up in all of your endevors.
If this is true how did the US gain this position as the police man and what does that make Israel if they were the ones that controlled the police?
Who is this you you are referring to? I'm neither Israeli or Jewish. And what do you mean by Kahanist style terrorism?
I don't want the US to prevent Israel from protecting itself through pressuring them and forcing them into suicidal "peace talks" with an enemy that wishes to destroy them. But I also don't want the US to remain neutral to Islamic terrorism. A nuclear war would be initiated by Iran who are building nuclear weapons and have vowed to use them against Israel. And Ron Paul openly says he does not care if Iran gets nukes!
A nuclear Iran is a threat to both Israel and the United States. The regime in Iran has made it clear that it also wishes to destroy America and the West. As they say "first comes saturday then comes sunday." What part about "death to America" don't you understand?
Honestly if there was a fear that Iran would turn those nukes against the US then it would be a different story. Its non-interventionism. If there is an eminent threat then war would be justified but a half assed war like the one that we are fighting now does not work. If there is an eminent threat we go in there and blow the excrement out of them. Them getting nukes is not an eminent threat for the US however i am not going to disagree that it may be for Israel but that is an issue for Israel to address not the US.
Why on earth do you believe that Iran would not use them against the United States? This is a messianic regime that has vowed for decades to destroy the United States, it is official Iranian government policy! I'll ask again what part of "Death to America" don't you understand??? This is the Iranian government slogan that has been chanted at mosques in Iran for DECADES under the orders of the mullahs who control the country. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is well on the record as saying that he believes that the return of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi is imminent which according to their theology would mean Armageddon...and they are building nuclear weapons. And this is of no concern to you or your candidate Ron Paul whom would trade with Iran, a country that has murdered thousands of Americans, and strengthen their economy which would aid their nuclear program. To believe a nuclear Iran is not a threat to the United States is just completely insane.
I don't want another Iraq war, that has been a distaster. I want an air war that would destroy their entire nuclear program, thats it, I don't believe in the idiotic notion that we can create a democracy in a muslim nation.
The Kahanist style terrorism is refering to some comments that i have seen on a few of Chaim's videos where he states that if Israel gets bombed then they should bomb their enemys even worse so that the event would not repeat itself..
Once again maybe i misunderstood what he was going for..
That's not terrorism, that is sanity.
Then i am insane because I do not beleive that a Nuclear Iran poses a threat to the US for the fact that it would be extremely difficult for them to get a bomb into the US. Now if they did get a bomb into the US we would loose what.. 100,000 people and then we would have the full support of the Entire US to wipe Iran off the map. This would be a completely justified cause. Look at japan in WW2 what did they say after they bombed pearl harbor. "I fear that i have have just awaken a sleeping giant." It would be suicide for them to attack the US and i think that they have the forethought to realize that despite what the retards at the helm (Amedenijad).
Just because they have a [censored] at the helm much like we do with Bush does not mean that a reasonable amount of their population agree with him.
-
Dejavu, I'm no fan of AIPAC. But I think the Saudis are much worse. So I don't understand the focus on Israel or AIPAC when Saudi Arabia is using their oil as sort of Damocles sword against the West.
And one more thing. I don't think any decent person would accept money from a neo-nazi organization. Politicians HAVE returned money in the past. Actually, Hillary Clinton at one point returned a donation from a famous but shady character, whose name I don't remember right now.
Does it matter where the money comes from as long as you are getting the money. He has repeatedly stated that he does not support prostitution or white supremicy but isnt the outcome whats important. Also i agree that the Saudis are worse just its going to take alot more to get rid of them seeing as this country runs on oil.
-
Yes it does matter where the money comes from. If he was truly against white supremacists, he would have returned that check from Don Black. It's not enough to say he's against white supremacists. Talk is cheap. Actions are what count. By accepting the money, he is showing that he's fine with the Stormfronters.
So let me ask you Dejavu, what happens if Ron Paul becomes President. Being that he accepted Neo Nazi money, you'll have all the white nationalists reminding him of their support and how Don Black generously contributed to his campaign. They will hold his feet to the fire, and threaten to stop funding his re-election campaign if he doesn't make life miserable for the Jews, or do whatever else they want.
Money like that comes with strings attached to it. And nothing is free.
-
So Dejavu, do you care to read my response above, and tell me why you think it's acceptable for Saudi Arabia to have America's balls in a vice, due to their vast amounts of oil? Why is it acceptable for them to bribe all the American ambassadors to that country? Why is it ok for that prince Awaleed bin Talal to buy up shares of Fox News and Citigroup? And why is ok for this same prince to pour vast amounts of money into the Middle East studies departments of our major universities?
Sorry i did not respond faster but it does take some time to read, think and type a thoughtful response. I plus i had to answer a phone call from my parents... But back on topic. I believe that the Saudis have far too much influence in the US government as well however they are more economic influence seeing as they control the blood of the country. On the other hand the organizations such as AIPAC have are much easier targets seeing as they are not as well hidden into our culture. Getting rid of the influence of AIPAC is fairly easy you just don't allow them any more but on the other hand getting rid of the influence of the Saudis is much more difficult as they are our primary provider of a resource. Now i am a firm believer of getting out from under the thumb of the Saudis and other Middle Eastern countries and we should move towards energy independence through opening up our Oil reserves and also making a strong push towards energy efficiency, alternative fuels and nuclear power (we gotta cut back on coal as well). This will restore the power of the US government to the people of the US rather than the sheikh's and AIPAC style lobbyist.
As far as Paul being antisemitic i disagree because he is not against the Jewish people he is against the power that the groups such as AIPAC hold in our country over our legislatures who are supposed to be our representatives who are not for sale to the highest bidder. I have a huge problem with the actions of the Saudis as well its just that they are much harder to fix as they take a complete change in the actions of our country. Also with that in mind i don't see a problem with the prince guy owning fox news and citigroup because in all honesty anyone who doesn't take what they see on television with a grain of salt deserves to be taken... Everyone has their special interests however those special interests should never affect the policies of the country.
Well then i think you should read about the the Saudi lobby a top down lobbying group there are over 22 moslem countries former state Dept Embassy workers get millions a year from them saudis the oil companies also work on behalf of the moslems.Paul also compared Israel to hezzballah which is'nt the lebanesse army but a militia .Ron Paul is a little scumbag You do realize it's not aipac that has the Influence it's C-Pac Christian zionists also aipac and c-pac are perfectlly legal like you say they are in the open while the moslem pacs work in the shadows
-
Then i am insane because I do not believe that a Nuclear Iran poses a threat to the US for the fact that it would be extremely difficult for them to get a bomb into the US. Now if they did get a bomb into the US we would loose what.. 100,000 people and then we would have the full support of the Entire US to wipe Iran off the map. This would be a completely justified cause. Look at japan in WW2 what did they say after they bombed pearl harbor. "I fear that i have have just awaken a sleeping giant." It would be suicide for them to attack the US and i think that they have the forethought to realize that despite what the retards at the helm (Amedenijad).
Just because they have a moron at the helm much like we do with Bush does not mean that a reasonable amount of their population agree with him.
What reason do you have to think that they could not sneak a bomb into the United States? Even your candidate Ron Paul has talked about our broken borders. If tens of millions from Mexico and tons and tons of drugs can be snuck in each year then why couldn't a dedicated military regime be capable of sneeking a bomb into the United States. Our borders and shores are wide open, it would be very easy for them. And the result would be millions killed, not thousands. They don't care if the United States retaliates against them, they are not rational like the Soviets were, they don't care if they are killed. To their Islamic theology martyrdom is the greatest thing they can do in life, retaliation against them is an incentive for them to act not a deterrent.
I think the only moral thing to do is to destroy their nuclear capabilities now rather than gamble hoping that for some reason they would not use them. I live in Manhattan and would likely be killed along with my family if you and Ron Paul are wrong. Sorry but I really do not care to be your guinea pig to find out whether Iranian nukes are a threat to the United States or not.
-
So let's start with one of your good points. Isn't not giving aid to Israel, a reality a blessing in disguise? And Paul wants to withdraw that aid from Israel and everywhere else.
Well, yes, this is a good thing for Israel, but what's Paul's reasoning behind it? Is it because he loves Israel or is it because he hates Israel? I think Paul hates Israel...so what he wants to do in this aspect might be a blessing in disguise for us..however he wants to do it as a curse on to Israel since we know he blames America for the crazy way Muslims act, when we know that it's Islam which wants to forcefully spread its religion throughout the world. Paul is not a righteous person and, if anything, is the least righteous of all the candidates with his obvious intentions.
However, it would be interesting to see what happens if Paul miraculously won the elections and what would become of Israel without US aid and if she ends up changing for the better and fighting her enemies rather than commit suicide them.
Thank you i have been doing my best to keep this argument as civil as possible seeing as we have differing views but i disagree that Paul hates Israel. I don't think that he hates it i believe that he is indifferent to it because in the larger scheme of the world whether Israel falls or triumphs does not matter to the US and therefore the US should not get involved. The problem is that you are looking at this in black or white. You are either with us or against us. IMO this is a fallacy seeing as you can be for something without getting involved. If you saw someone carjacking someone with a gun are you going to go over there are risk getting shot to try and help them. I wouldn't. Does that mean that i am on the carjackers side. No that means that since i am not involved it is not worth the risk to address the situation. We still want Israel to succeed but its not worth American lives to do so.
Anyways .. seeing as i am a college student it is a Saturday night and i am going to go out with my friends, but i will come on later and check this so please keep the conversation going.
It's a little early for a Saturday night to be going out...the night begins at 11PM!
Nevertheless, I have to disagree and sort of agree on your point about the carjacker.
I believe that if I were to see, let's say, a mugging taking place and I might be close enough to help the victim, you better believe that although dangerous, I will give it my all especially if that person might end up getting killed rather than watch him get killed. I mean, did you hear about that Bangladashi guy in the NY subway helping the person getting beaten up?
My big motto is this: We have to fight evil...we need to make evil the victim rather than the righteous. We need to be zealouts for righteous causes and against the evil causes that we find with the Al Sharptons, Muslims, and athieists who get offended by Christmas trees and the word "Gd".
Let me tell you something. Not caring about Israel is evil. Thinking that without her existance will not make a difference in this world is equally as bad as atheism and communism and liberalism and nazism and facism. The proper thing is to fight for what is truly holy. To fight for Gd's grace. To fight for what is right in this world... I'm sorry to say, but it is a black and white issue.
-
Then why in Chaim's videos does he state that he would like for America to get out of the way so that Israel can take care of itself through Kahanist style terrorism to fight terrorism. Maybe I misunderstood his message then but he seemed to me to state that America is already a lot of the problem because they do not allow for the Israeli's to handle the problem correctly. Also how would it lead to Nuclear war unless you guys are the ones that unleash the nukes... As far as i know you and Pakistan are the only countries in that general area that have been confirmed as having them.
So my basic question then is are you trying to play both teams? You want the US to allow you to do what you think is necessary but you also want the US to back you up in all of your endevors.
If this is true how did the US gain this position as the police man and what does that make Israel if they were the ones that controlled the police?
Who is this you you are referring to? I'm neither Israeli or Jewish. And what do you mean by Kahanist style terrorism?
I don't want the US to prevent Israel from protecting itself through pressuring them and forcing them into suicidal "peace talks" with an enemy that wishes to destroy them. But I also don't want the US to remain neutral to Islamic terrorism. A nuclear war would be initiated by Iran who are building nuclear weapons and have vowed to use them against Israel. And Ron Paul openly says he does not care if Iran gets nukes!
A nuclear Iran is a threat to both Israel and the United States. The regime in Iran has made it clear that it also wishes to destroy America and the West. As they say "first comes saturday then comes sunday." What part about "death to America" don't you understand?
Honestly if there was a fear that Iran would turn those nukes against the US then it would be a different story. Its non-interventionism. If there is an eminent threat then war would be justified but a half assed war like the one that we are fighting now does not work. If there is an eminent threat we go in there and blow the excrement out of them. Them getting nukes is not an eminent threat for the US however i am not going to disagree that it may be for Israel but that is an issue for Israel to address not the US.
Why on earth do you believe that Iran would not use them against the United States? This is a messianic regime that has vowed for decades to destroy the United States, it is official Iranian government policy! I'll ask again what part of "Death to America" don't you understand??? This is the Iranian government slogan that has been chanted at mosques in Iran for DECADES under the orders of the mullahs who control the country. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is well on the record as saying that he believes that the return of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi is imminent which according to their theology would mean Armageddon...and they are building nuclear weapons. And this is of no concern to you or your candidate Ron Paul whom would trade with Iran, a country that has murdered thousands of Americans, and strengthen their economy which would aid their nuclear program. To believe a nuclear Iran is not a threat to the United States is just completely insane.
I don't want another Iraq war, that has been a distaster. I want an air war that would destroy their entire nuclear program, thats it, I don't believe in the idiotic notion that we can create a democracy in a muslim nation.
The Kahanist style terrorism is refering to some comments that i have seen on a few of Chaim's videos where he states that if Israel gets bombed then they should bomb their enemys even worse so that the event would not repeat itself..
Once again maybe i misunderstood what he was going for..
That's not terrorism, that is sanity.
Then i am insane because I do not beleive that a Nuclear Iran poses a threat to the US for the fact that it would be extremely difficult for them to get a bomb into the US. Now if they did get a bomb into the US we would loose what.. 100,000 people and then we would have the full support of the Entire US to wipe Iran off the map. This would be a completely justified cause. Look at japan in WW2 what did they say after they bombed pearl harbor. "I fear that i have have just awaken a sleeping giant." It would be suicide for them to attack the US and i think that they have the forethought to realize that despite what the retards at the helm (Amedenijad).
Just because they have a moron at the helm much like we do with Bush does not mean that a reasonable amount of their population agree with him.
Deja vu, dont' be so sure this time. Look at what happened to the WTC 1993 and 2001! We now call Islam the religion of peace... We live in more evil times than we did in 1940 something.
-
Then i am insane because I do not beleive that a Nuclear Iran poses a threat to the US for the fact that it would be extremely difficult for them to get a bomb into the US. Now if they did get a bomb into the US we would loose what.. 100,000 people and then we would have the full support of the Entire US to wipe Iran off the map. This would be a completely justified cause. Look at japan in WW2 what did they say after they bombed pearl harbor. "I fear that i have have just awaken a sleeping giant." It would be suicide for them to attack the US and i think that they have the forethought to realize that despite what the retards at the helm (Amedenijad).
Just because they have a moron at the helm much like we do with Bush does not mean that a reasonable amount of their population agree with him.
Dejavu, the proper function of our government is to prevent an attack on our country where 100,000, or any number of our people get killed. But it sounds like you are willing to sacrifice 100,000 of your fellow Americans just so that the rest of the world would support and like us. Frankly, the lives of my fellow Americans are infinitely more valuable to me than than the opinions of the rest of the world. And I don't care about the opinions of the European welfare states that served up their Jews on a silver platter to the Nazis. Nor do I care for the Middle Eastern rogue regimes, or the other Third World countries.
-
Then i am insane because I do not believe that a Nuclear Iran poses a threat to the US for the fact that it would be extremely difficult for them to get a bomb into the US. Now if they did get a bomb into the US we would loose what.. 100,000 people and then we would have the full support of the Entire US to wipe Iran off the map. This would be a completely justified cause. Look at japan in WW2 what did they say after they bombed pearl harbor. "I fear that i have have just awaken a sleeping giant." It would be suicide for them to attack the US and i think that they have the forethought to realize that despite what the retards at the helm (Amedenijad).
Just because they have a moron at the helm much like we do with Bush does not mean that a reasonable amount of their population agree with him.
What reason do you have to think that they could not sneak a bomb into the United States? Even your candidate Ron Paul has talked about our broken borders. If tens of millions from Mexico and tons and tons of drugs can be snuck in each year then why couldn't a dedicated military regime be capable of sneeking a bomb into the United States. Our borders and shores are wide open, it would be very easy for them. And the result would be millions killed, not thousands. They don't care if the United States retaliates against them, they are not rational like the Soviets were, they don't care if they are killed. To their Islamic theology martyrdom is the greatest thing they can do in life, retaliation against them is an incentive for them to act not a deterrent.
I think the only moral thing to do is to destroy their nuclear capabilities now rather than gamble hoping that for some reason they would not use them. I live in Manhattan and would likely be killed along with my family if you and Ron Paul are wrong. Sorry but I really do not care to be your guinea pig to find out whether Iranian nukes are a threat to the United States or not.
The days of fortress America have been over since the start of WW2. Anyone that believes that isolationist policies are going to help our situation here in America had better wake up. The only thing that will prevent a tragedy from happening here is to take out the threat at the point of origination. Ron Paul lives in a dream world. Thank G-d his chances for even being in the running are almost zero.
-
Ok as promised I will attempt to answer all of the questions hence the monster quote post.
Yes it does matter where the money comes from. If he was truly against white supremacists, he would have returned that check from Don Black. It's not enough to say he's against white supremacists. Talk is cheap. Actions are what count. By accepting the money, he is showing that he's fine with the Stormfronters.
So let me ask you Dejavu, what happens if Ron Paul becomes President. Being that he accepted Neo Nazi money, you'll have all the white nationalists reminding him of their support and how Don Black generously contributed to his campaign. They will hold his feet to the fire, and threaten to stop funding his re-election campaign if he doesn't make life miserable for the Jews, or do whatever else they want.
Money like that comes with strings attached to it. And nothing is free.
Ron Paul though has repeatedly voted on behalf of the constitution despite what he may or may not believe. Also if you pull up a congressional fact sheet you will also see that Paul has never accepted money for a lobbyist. Now this point I realize you are going to argue with me on however I don’t believe that this money is being given with strings. They are donating to Ron Paul’s campaign because if he were elected there would be a smaller US government with some major changes as to what the government was in control of. The white supremacists are correct to support Paul, why do you ask? Because with the current trends in the administration of the United States we are quickly loosing the rights that we were granted by the bill of rights in the constitution. We have already lost habeas corpus and people are aggressively going after the rights to bear arms in fact you could argue that there are currently laws on the books that violate 8 of the 10 bills of rights. The next step in this progression towards control is to take away things that we consider to be real American values like free speech and freedom of religion.
Although I do not agree with white supremacists in any way I do support their right to state their views as long as they do it in a peaceful manner much the same as you have the right to practice the religion of your choice. The problem is that we are going in the direction of censorship and the supremacist groups are seeing that and therefore supporting the candidate who is advocating freedom from government.
Also you hit upon an extremely good point… talk is cheap and actions are what count. Look at his voting record.
So Dejavu, do you care to read my response above, and tell me why you think it's acceptable for Saudi Arabia to have America's balls in a vice, due to their vast amounts of oil? Why is it acceptable for them to bribe all the American ambassadors to that country? Why is it ok for that prince Awaleed bin Talal to buy up shares of Fox News and Citigroup? And why is ok for this same prince to pour vast amounts of money into the Middle East studies departments of our major universities?
Sorry i did not respond faster but it does take some time to read, think and type a thoughtful response. I plus i had to answer a phone call from my parents... But back on topic. I believe that the Saudis have far too much influence in the US government as well however they are more economic influence seeing as they control the blood of the country. On the other hand the organizations such as AIPAC have are much easier targets seeing as they are not as well hidden into our culture. Getting rid of the influence of AIPAC is fairly easy you just don't allow them any more but on the other hand getting rid of the influence of the Saudis is much more difficult as they are our primary provider of a resource. Now i am a firm believer of getting out from under the thumb of the Saudis and other Middle Eastern countries and we should move towards energy independence through opening up our Oil reserves and also making a strong push towards energy efficiency, alternative fuels and nuclear power (we gotta cut back on coal as well). This will restore the power of the US government to the people of the US rather than the sheikh's and AIPAC style lobbyist.
As far as Paul being antisemitic i disagree because he is not against the Jewish people he is against the power that the groups such as AIPAC hold in our country over our legislatures who are supposed to be our representatives who are not for sale to the highest bidder. I have a huge problem with the actions of the Saudis as well its just that they are much harder to fix as they take a complete change in the actions of our country. Also with that in mind i don't see a problem with the prince guy owning fox news and citigroup because in all honesty anyone who doesn't take what they see on television with a grain of salt deserves to be taken... Everyone has their special interests however those special interests should never affect the policies of the country.
Well then i think you should read about the the Saudi lobby a top down lobbying group there are over 22 moslem countries former state Dept Embassy workers get millions a year from them saudis the oil companies also work on behalf of the moslems.Paul also compared Israel to hezzballah which is'nt the lebanesse army but a militia .Ron Paul is a little scumbag You do realize it's not aipac that has the Influence it's C-Pac Christian zionists also aipac and c-pac are perfectlly legal like you say they are in the open while the moslem pacs work in the shadows
But you still fail to acknowledge that he consistently states that he is against all lobbyists in any form from any country even domestic. He is not sitting there saying we need to ignore the Israeli’s so that our nice oil buddies can walk all over them. He is saying that no country should influence our policies especially the ones in the shadows. In fact he got a lot of negative press in the you tube debate when he was asked a question about the the SPP and the Nafta Superhighway. Because of this question a lot of people wrote him off as a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy nut. However he flat out stated that groups like the trilateral commission and the SPP should not have control. This is the same reason that he is against the Federal Reserve.
Then i am insane because I do not believe that a Nuclear Iran poses a threat to the US for the fact that it would be extremely difficult for them to get a bomb into the US. Now if they did get a bomb into the US we would loose what.. 100,000 people and then we would have the full support of the Entire US to wipe Iran off the map. This would be a completely justified cause. Look at japan in WW2 what did they say after they bombed pearl harbor. "I fear that i have have just awaken a sleeping giant." It would be suicide for them to attack the US and i think that they have the forethought to realize that despite what the retards at the helm (Amedenijad).
Just because they have a moron at the helm much like we do with Bush does not mean that a reasonable amount of their population agree with him.
What reason do you have to think that they could not sneak a bomb into the United States? Even your candidate Ron Paul has talked about our broken borders. If tens of millions from Mexico and tons and tons of drugs can be snuck in each year then why couldn't a dedicated military regime be capable of sneeking a bomb into the United States. Our borders and shores are wide open, it would be very easy for them. And the result would be millions killed, not thousands. They don't care if the United States retaliates against them, they are not rational like the Soviets were, they don't care if they are killed. To their Islamic theology martyrdom is the greatest thing they can do in life, retaliation against them is an incentive for them to act not a deterrent.
I think the only moral thing to do is to destroy their nuclear capabilities now rather than gamble hoping that for some reason they would not use them. I live in Manhattan and would likely be killed along with my family if you and Ron Paul are wrong. Sorry but I really do not care to be your guinea pig to find out whether Iranian nukes are a threat to the United States or not.
I’m not stating that it could not be done. What I am saying is that it would be immensely stupid for them to do so because they would be unleashing a greater force than they could imagine. Also Ron Paul is hardly a piece and love hippy type. His policy is for a strong national defense. What this means is that we use the resources that we are currently spreading all over the world in Germany, Vietnam, South Korea, Japan, our 17 new bases in Iraq, and all of the other ones that are less known and putting our troops where they matter, protecting our borders, in the ports and on the fences, north and south. Our border is a joke I live in a border state and I have literally seen the Mexicans crossing our border in packs of 100. I call the cops and what do they say… I’m sorry but there is nothing that we can do call the border patrol. However the border patrol never comes because most of them are currently on active duty in Iraq. Even if we catch them and deport them what do they do… come back the next day.
I disagree that they want to be made martyrs of because the point of a martyr is to give the rest of the people something to rally behind. If you are literally committing suicide for your entire country by having a state sponsored sneak attack against the United States what is the point of becoming a martyr. There won’t be anyone left.
The question really becomes what do you believe is more important sending 50,000 troops over there to cripple their country and most likely lose have of them in the process and at the same time lose have of the soldiers we send. Or is it better to wait for them to attack. If they attack we lose a small percentage of our population and in turn make their country into a sheet of glass.
Which is worse the guaranteed loss of several hundred thousand people by going into a preemptive war (which only leads to more hatred towards the US) or the possibility of their being another 9-11 type event? I’m not saying that 9-11 wasn’t a terrible event but how does the fear of a country that was not even involved in the event justify a full scale invasion. In my opinion the war in Iraq is nothing but an invasion of a nation that was somewhat anti-American for the sake of possibly preventing war at the guaranteed loss of lives.
So let's start with one of your good points. Isn't not giving aid to Israel, a reality a blessing in disguise? And Paul wants to withdraw that aid from Israel and everywhere else.
Well, yes, this is a good thing for Israel, but what's Paul's reasoning behind it? Is it because he loves Israel or is it because he hates Israel? I think Paul hates Israel...so what he wants to do in this aspect might be a blessing in disguise for us..however he wants to do it as a curse on to Israel since we know he blames America for the crazy way Muslims act, when we know that it's Islam which wants to forcefully spread its religion throughout the world. Paul is not a righteous person and, if anything, is the least righteous of all the candidates with his obvious intentions.
However, it would be interesting to see what happens if Paul miraculously won the elections and what would become of Israel without US aid and if she ends up changing for the better and fighting her enemies rather than commit suicide them.
Thank you i have been doing my best to keep this argument as civil as possible seeing as we have differing views but i disagree that Paul hates Israel. I don't think that he hates it i believe that he is indifferent to it because in the larger scheme of the world whether Israel falls or triumphs does not matter to the US and therefore the US should not get involved. The problem is that you are looking at this in black or white. You are either with us or against us. IMO this is a fallacy seeing as you can be for something without getting involved. If you saw someone carjacking someone with a gun are you going to go over there are risk getting shot to try and help them. I wouldn't. Does that mean that i am on the carjackers side. No that means that since i am not involved it is not worth the risk to address the situation. We still want Israel to succeed but its not worth American lives to do so.
Anyways .. seeing as i am a college student it is a Saturday night and i am going to go out with my friends, but i will come on later and check this so please keep the conversation going.
It's a little early for a Saturday night to be going out...the night begins at 11PM!
Nevertheless, I have to disagree and sort of agree on your point about the carjacker.
I believe that if I were to see, let's say, a mugging taking place and I might be close enough to help the victim, you better believe that although dangerous, I will give it my all especially if that person might end up getting killed rather than watch him get killed. I mean, did you hear about that Bangladashi guy in the NY subway helping the person getting beaten up?
My big motto is this: We have to fight evil...we need to make evil the victim rather than the righteous. We need to be zealouts for righteous causes and against the evil causes that we find with the Al Sharptons, Muslims, and athieists who get offended by Christmas trees and the word "Gd".
Let me tell you something. Not caring about Israel is evil. Thinking that without her existance will not make a difference in this world is equally as bad as atheism and communism and liberalism and nazism and facism. The proper thing is to fight for what is truly holy. To fight for Gd's grace. To fight for what is right in this world... I'm sorry to say, but it is a black and white issue.
In all honesty then by your definition I am evil. I do not believe in god and I don’t believe that Israel being wiped off the map would have any negative effect on me as an American. Does that mean I want it to happen? No of course not. It only means that I don’t believe that Israel is worth any American lives to protect. By all means Israel should protect themselves by whatever means are necessary because it is Israel’s sovereignty and lives that are at stake.
Then why in Chaim's videos does he state that he would like for America to get out of the way so that Israel can take care of itself through Kahanist style terrorism to fight terrorism. Maybe I misunderstood his message then but he seemed to me to state that America is already a lot of the problem because they do not allow for the Israeli's to handle the problem correctly. Also how would it lead to Nuclear war unless you guys are the ones that unleash the nukes... As far as i know you and Pakistan are the only countries in that general area that have been confirmed as having them.
So my basic question then is are you trying to play both teams? You want the US to allow you to do what you think is necessary but you also want the US to back you up in all of your endevors.
If this is true how did the US gain this position as the police man and what does that make Israel if they were the ones that controlled the police?
Who is this you you are referring to? I'm neither Israeli or Jewish. And what do you mean by Kahanist style terrorism?
I don't want the US to prevent Israel from protecting itself through pressuring them and forcing them into suicidal "peace talks" with an enemy that wishes to destroy them. But I also don't want the US to remain neutral to Islamic terrorism. A nuclear war would be initiated by Iran who are building nuclear weapons and have vowed to use them against Israel. And Ron Paul openly says he does not care if Iran gets nukes!
A nuclear Iran is a threat to both Israel and the United States. The regime in Iran has made it clear that it also wishes to destroy America and the West. As they say "first comes saturday then comes sunday." What part about "death to America" don't you understand?
Honestly if there was a fear that Iran would turn those nukes against the US then it would be a different story. Its non-interventionism. If there is an eminent threat then war would be justified but a half assed war like the one that we are fighting now does not work. If there is an eminent threat we go in there and blow the excrement out of them. Them getting nukes is not an eminent threat for the US however i am not going to disagree that it may be for Israel but that is an issue for Israel to address not the US.
Why on earth do you believe that Iran would not use them against the United States? This is a messianic regime that has vowed for decades to destroy the United States, it is official Iranian government policy! I'll ask again what part of "Death to America" don't you understand??? This is the Iranian government slogan that has been chanted at mosques in Iran for DECADES under the orders of the mullahs who control the country. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is well on the record as saying that he believes that the return of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi is imminent which according to their theology would mean Armageddon...and they are building nuclear weapons. And this is of no concern to you or your candidate Ron Paul whom would trade with Iran, a country that has murdered thousands of Americans, and strengthen their economy which would aid their nuclear program. To believe a nuclear Iran is not a threat to the United States is just completely insane.
I don't want another Iraq war, that has been a distaster. I want an air war that would destroy their entire nuclear program, thats it, I don't believe in the idiotic notion that we can create a democracy in a muslim nation.
The Kahanist style terrorism is refering to some comments that i have seen on a few of Chaim's videos where he states that if Israel gets bombed then they should bomb their enemys even worse so that the event would not repeat itself..
Once again maybe i misunderstood what he was going for..
That's not terrorism, that is sanity.
Then i am insane because I do not beleive that a Nuclear Iran poses a threat to the US for the fact that it would be extremely difficult for them to get a bomb into the US. Now if they did get a bomb into the US we would loose what.. 100,000 people and then we would have the full support of the Entire US to wipe Iran off the map. This would be a completely justified cause. Look at japan in WW2 what did they say after they bombed pearl harbor. "I fear that i have have just awaken a sleeping giant." It would be suicide for them to attack the US and i think that they have the forethought to realize that despite what the retards at the helm (Amedenijad).
Just because they have a moron at the helm much like we do with Bush does not mean that a reasonable amount of their population agree with him.
Deja vu, dont' be so sure this time. Look at what happened to the WTC 1993 and 2001! We now call Islam the religion of peace... We live in more evil times than we did in 1940 something.
The events in NY in 1993 and 2001 although sad were not in any ways state sponsored attacks. They were completed by a small faction of extremists and I 100% support going after the people that were responsible. Did we do this? Not by any stretch of the imagination. Most of the hijackers were Saudi yet we did not step foot into their territory to catch the people responsible. Why is this? Oil simple enough. Once again the influence that they have even though they should not through our dependence on their resource. Instead we used Afghanistan and the persuit of Osama Bin Laden as a scapegoat for the American public. Then beyond that we turned it into a war on terror to justify an unprovoked invasion on Iraq because they had WMDs. How does the government cover up its general incompetence as far as information gathering approaching 9-11 is concerned… by diverting our attention to the war.
Then i am insane because I do not beleive that a Nuclear Iran poses a threat to the US for the fact that it would be extremely difficult for them to get a bomb into the US. Now if they did get a bomb into the US we would loose what.. 100,000 people and then we would have the full support of the Entire US to wipe Iran off the map. This would be a completely justified cause. Look at japan in WW2 what did they say after they bombed pearl harbor. "I fear that i have have just awaken a sleeping giant." It would be suicide for them to attack the US and i think that they have the forethought to realize that despite what the retards at the helm (Amedenijad).
Just because they have a moron at the helm much like we do with Bush does not mean that a reasonable amount of their population agree with him.
Dejavu, the proper function of our government is to prevent an attack on our country where 100,000, or any number of our people get killed. But it sounds like you are willing to sacrifice 100,000 of your fellow Americans just so that the rest of the world would support and like us. Frankly, the lives of my fellow Americans are infinitely more valuable to me than than the opinions of the rest of the world. And I don't care about the opinions of the European welfare states that served up their Jews on a silver platter to the Nazis. Nor do I care for the Middle Eastern rogue regimes, or the other Third World countries.
I agree 100% and the best way that we can protect our citizens is to watch ourselves and not to provoke them. I’m not willing to sacrifice 100,000 people but pulling out of the foreign countries around the world hardly means sacrificing our citizens, but at the same time sending in troops guarantees American casualties.
Then i am insane because I do not believe that a Nuclear Iran poses a threat to the US for the fact that it would be extremely difficult for them to get a bomb into the US. Now if they did get a bomb into the US we would loose what.. 100,000 people and then we would have the full support of the Entire US to wipe Iran off the map. This would be a completely justified cause. Look at japan in WW2 what did they say after they bombed pearl harbor. "I fear that i have have just awaken a sleeping giant." It would be suicide for them to attack the US and i think that they have the forethought to realize that despite what the retards at the helm (Amedenijad).
Just because they have a moron at the helm much like we do with Bush does not mean that a reasonable amount of their population agree with him.
What reason do you have to think that they could not sneak a bomb into the United States? Even your candidate Ron Paul has talked about our broken borders. If tens of millions from Mexico and tons and tons of drugs can be snuck in each year then why couldn't a dedicated military regime be capable of sneeking a bomb into the United States. Our borders and shores are wide open, it would be very easy for them. And the result would be millions killed, not thousands. They don't care if the United States retaliates against them, they are not rational like the Soviets were, they don't care if they are killed. To their Islamic theology martyrdom is the greatest thing they can do in life, retaliation against them is an incentive for them to act not a deterrent.
I think the only moral thing to do is to destroy their nuclear capabilities now rather than gamble hoping that for some reason they would not use them. I live in Manhattan and would likely be killed along with my family if you and Ron Paul are wrong. Sorry but I really do not care to be your guinea pig to find out whether Iranian nukes are a threat to the United States or not.
The days of fortress America have been over since the start of WW2. Anyone that believes that isolationist policies are going to help our situation here in America had better wake up. The only thing that will prevent a tragedy from happening here is to take out the threat at the point of origination. Ron Paul lives in a dream world. Thank G-d his chances for even being in the running are almost zero.
And what was our foreign policy before WW2 when you appear to be supporting the situation in the United States… Ding… non-interventionist. We stayed out of World War 2 as long as we did because it was not our fight much as the war in the middle east should not be our fight. We entered into WW2 because we were attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. If we were not attacked by the Japanese then the US would have most likely never entered into WW2, with this in mind if there was a state sponsored attack against the US then Paul as well as most of the country would fully support military actions.
Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.
When did we take up this ideal of forcing people to like us rather than living with the people around us in peace until they are aggressive towards the US? And why are we supporting this ideal when it is bankrupting our country and guaranteeing the loss of American life?
-
I have to tell this forum, THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH A RATIONAL PERSON CAN STAND FROM THESE RON PAUL MORONS.
Here's a direct quote from a RON PAUL MORON in this thread:
"Then i am insane because I do not believe that a Nuclear Iran poses a threat to the US for the fact that it would be extremely difficult for them to get a bomb into the US. Now if they did get a bomb into the US we would loose what.. 100,000 people and then we would have the full support of the Entire US to wipe Iran off the map. This would be a completely justified cause. Look at japan in WW2 what did they say after they bombed pearl harbor. "I fear that i have have just awaken a sleeping giant." It would be suicide for them to attack the US and i think that they have the forethought to realize that despite what the retards at the helm (Amedenijad).
Just because they have a moron at the helm much like we do with Bush does not mean that a reasonable amount of their population agree with him."
This RON PAUL MORON doesn't think that a nuclear Iran poses a threat to the USA ! And why wouldn't a nuclear Iran be a threat ? Because we'd ONLY lose 100,000 dead !! Hey, that's not a threat, nothing to worry about at all !! Besides, after NYC was nuked the entire USA would be united to destroy Iran.
So the RON PAUL MORON doesn't consider 100,000 DEAD AMERICANS a threat. Not to mention the fact that the USA's and the world economy would be absolutely devastated. The RON PAUL MORON fails to understand that if NYC was nuked his life as an American would be irrevocably changed for the worse.
Yeah, 100,000 dead and the end of life as you know it is not a threat and nothing to be concerned about.
Another reason not to worry is that the Iranian people might not support the actions of their government. Well, that's a big freaking consolation and I'm sure that'll be a prime consideration AFTER the nuke goes off.
Seriously folks, THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH A RIGHT THINKING PERSON CAN TAKE FROM THESE BLATHERING IDIOTS.
-
I don't think you are evil in not caring about Israel. You are simply misguided with religion and Gd because of your upbringing. I'm not implying you need to be Jewish to understand religion. I'm implying that because of your upbringing you don't really believe in Gd and think this perfect world came to be randomly.
The perfection of our world and universe and the human species and other species and perfection of melodies and harmonies in music..and the perfection of words in poetry and essays..and beauty for the simpleness of beauty..and the feeling of happiness with sadness...I mean, you tell me there is no Gd? Even though emotion is an animal or human trait due to evolution, it's still perfect! If this whole world and all these beautiful things were created randomly, all it proves to me is that Gd exists because random chaos doesn't create such beauty!
-
you wrote: "In all honesty then by your definition I am evil. I do not believe in G-d and I don’t believe that Israel being wiped off the map would have any negative effect on me as an American. Does that mean I want it to happen? No of course not. It only means that I don’t believe that Israel is worth any American lives to protect. By all means Israel should protect themselves by whatever means are necessary because it is Israel’s sovereignty and lives that are at stake. "
I'm curious. If you don't believe in Gd, then why did you write Gd as "G-d", like every believer in Gd does?
-
Quote from: cjd on December 15, 2007, 08:29:27 PM
Quote from: dhimmi_pride on December 15, 2007, 08:03:00 PM
Quote from: dejavu on December 15, 2007, 07:48:30 PM
Then i am insane because I do not believe that a Nuclear Iran poses a threat to the US for the fact that it would be extremely difficult for them to get a bomb into the US. Now if they did get a bomb into the US we would loose what.. 100,000 people and then we would have the full support of the Entire US to wipe Iran off the map. This would be a completely justified cause. Look at japan in WW2 what did they say after they bombed pearl harbor. "I fear that i have have just awaken a sleeping giant." It would be suicide for them to attack the US and i think that they have the forethought to realize that despite what the retards at the helm (Amedenijad).
Just because they have a moron at the helm much like we do with Bush does not mean that a reasonable amount of their population agree with him.
What reason do you have to think that they could not sneak a bomb into the United States? Even your candidate Ron Paul has talked about our broken borders. If tens of millions from Mexico and tons and tons of drugs can be snuck in each year then why couldn't a dedicated military regime be capable of sneeking a bomb into the United States. Our borders and shores are wide open, it would be very easy for them. And the result would be millions killed, not thousands. They don't care if the United States retaliates against them, they are not rational like the Soviets were, they don't care if they are killed. To their Islamic theology martyrdom is the greatest thing they can do in life, retaliation against them is an incentive for them to act not a deterrent.
I think the only moral thing to do is to destroy their nuclear capabilities now rather than gamble hoping that for some reason they would not use them. I live in Manhattan and would likely be killed along with my family if you and Ron Paul are wrong. Sorry but I really do not care to be your guinea pig to find out whether Iranian nukes are a threat to the United States or not.
The days of fortress America have been over since the start of WW2. Anyone that believes that isolationist policies are going to help our situation here in America had better wake up. The only thing that will prevent a tragedy from happening here is to take out the threat at the point of origination. Ron Paul lives in a dream world. Thank G-d his chances for even being in the running are almost zero.
And what was our foreign policy before WW2 when you appear to be supporting the situation in the United States… Ding… non-interventionist. We stayed out of World War 2 as long as we did because it was not our fight much as the war in the middle east should not be our fight. We entered into WW2 because we were attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. If we were not attacked by the Japanese then the US would have most likely never entered into WW2, with this in mind if there was a state sponsored attack against the US then Paul as well as most of the country would fully support military actions.
Quote from: Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.
When did we take up this ideal of forcing people to like us rather than living with the people around us in peace until they are aggressive towards the US? And why are we supporting this ideal when it is bankrupting our country and guaranteeing the loss of American life?
Dejavu, this is all pussee mentality...If we act like a bunch of pussees, believe me, our enemies and these muslims will come after us with all they got!
Now if it is a strategy to not intervene in the whole world so that all of our resources can be used for ourselves, then I understand why that strategy...but guess what happens in this time of the world? A power vaccum of influence.
To retreat like that is a bad move in today's world and a very bad idea by Ron Paul.
-
I have to tell this forum, THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH A RATIONAL PERSON CAN STAND FROM THESE RON PAUL MORONS.
Here's a direct quote from a RON PAUL MORON in this thread:
"Then i am insane because I do not believe that a Nuclear Iran poses a threat to the US for the fact that it would be extremely difficult for them to get a bomb into the US. Now if they did get a bomb into the US we would loose what.. 100,000 people and then we would have the full support of the Entire US to wipe Iran off the map. This would be a completely justified cause. Look at japan in WW2 what did they say after they bombed pearl harbor. "I fear that i have have just awaken a sleeping giant." It would be suicide for them to attack the US and i think that they have the forethought to realize that despite what the retards at the helm (Amedenijad).
Just because they have a moron at the helm much like we do with Bush does not mean that a reasonable amount of their population agree with him."
This RON PAUL MORON doesn't think that a nuclear Iran poses a threat to the USA ! And why wouldn't a nuclear Iran be a threat ? Because we'd ONLY lose 100,000 dead !! Hey, that's not a threat, nothing to worry about at all !! Besides, after NYC was nuked the entire USA would be united to destroy Iran.
So the RON PAUL MORON doesn't consider 100,000 DEAD AMERICANS a threat. Not to mention the fact that the USA's and the world economy would be absolutely devastated. The RON PAUL MORON fails to understand that if NYC was nuked his life as an American would be irrevocably changed for the worse.
Yeah, 100,000 dead and the end of life as you know it is not a threat and nothing to be concerned about.
Another reason not to worry is that the Iranian people might not support the actions of their government. Well, that's a big freaking consolation and I'm sure that'll be a prime consideration AFTER the nuke goes off.
Seriously folks, THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH A RIGHT THINKING PERSON CAN TAKE FROM THESE BLATHERING IDIOTS.
Thanks, Muck...
-
Quote from: cjd on December 15, 2007, 08:29:27 PM
Quote from: dhimmi_pride on December 15, 2007, 08:03:00 PM
Quote from: dejavu on December 15, 2007, 07:48:30 PM
Then i am insane because I do not believe that a Nuclear Iran poses a threat to the US for the fact that it would be extremely difficult for them to get a bomb into the US. Now if they did get a bomb into the US we would loose what.. 100,000 people and then we would have the full support of the Entire US to wipe Iran off the map. This would be a completely justified cause. Look at japan in WW2 what did they say after they bombed pearl harbor. "I fear that i have have just awaken a sleeping giant." It would be suicide for them to attack the US and i think that they have the forethought to realize that despite what the retards at the helm (Amedenijad).
Just because they have a moron at the helm much like we do with Bush does not mean that a reasonable amount of their population agree with him.
What reason do you have to think that they could not sneak a bomb into the United States? Even your candidate Ron Paul has talked about our broken borders. If tens of millions from Mexico and tons and tons of drugs can be snuck in each year then why couldn't a dedicated military regime be capable of sneeking a bomb into the United States. Our borders and shores are wide open, it would be very easy for them. And the result would be millions killed, not thousands. They don't care if the United States retaliates against them, they are not rational like the Soviets were, they don't care if they are killed. To their Islamic theology martyrdom is the greatest thing they can do in life, retaliation against them is an incentive for them to act not a deterrent.
I think the only moral thing to do is to destroy their nuclear capabilities now rather than gamble hoping that for some reason they would not use them. I live in Manhattan and would likely be killed along with my family if you and Ron Paul are wrong. Sorry but I really do not care to be your guinea pig to find out whether Iranian nukes are a threat to the United States or not.
The days of fortress America have been over since the start of WW2. Anyone that believes that isolationist policies are going to help our situation here in America had better wake up. The only thing that will prevent a tragedy from happening here is to take out the threat at the point of origination. Ron Paul lives in a dream world. Thank G-d his chances for even being in the running are almost zero.
And what was our foreign policy before WW2 when you appear to be supporting the situation in the United States… Ding… non-interventionist. We stayed out of World War 2 as long as we did because it was not our fight much as the war in the middle east should not be our fight. We entered into WW2 because we were attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. If we were not attacked by the Japanese then the US would have most likely never entered into WW2, with this in mind if there was a state sponsored attack against the US then Paul as well as most of the country would fully support military actions.
If America had entered the war when Churchill first expressed concern over Hitlers actions the world would have been spared much grief and 6 million Jews may not have lost their lives. In the days before 1941 Hitler's Germany could have been put down quite quickly since he had not taken over all of Europe. Roosevelt saw what was happening but could not get congress to approve any build up or take more than a very limited stand on the situation. If Hitler would have been ignored by the USA and had been allowed to take over all of Europe including England in the end the Americans would have been facing him on their own. Iran doesn't have to sneak anything in to America they will buy the ability to launch a bomb into Israel or some other country that would start WW3. The only saving grace in the time before WW2 was the fact that our enemies did not have the abilities to reach us here in America with any weapons that would cause a major loss of life. Things are different today and quite a bit more deadly. This is why America needs to remove the ability for radical countries to take the first shot. I really don't see the need for any country that is not an aggressor to have to sustain a first blow to give the world a reason to do what most reasonable countries see as being the correct thing.
-
Dejavu,
Can you give me one instance where Ron Paul said that he wants to bring the 911 murderers (alqueda)to justice? He says they are mad that we have bases there. But that doesn't mean those people in the WTC deserved the gruesome death that they got. I've never heard him say that he wants make Bin Laden and his gang of murderers to justice.
-
did you answer above?
-
Quote from: cjd on December 15, 2007, 08:29:27 PM
Quote from: dhimmi_pride on December 15, 2007, 08:03:00 PM
Quote from: dejavu on December 15, 2007, 07:48:30 PM
Then i am insane because I do not believe that a Nuclear Iran poses a threat to the US for the fact that it would be extremely difficult for them to get a bomb into the US. Now if they did get a bomb into the US we would loose what.. 100,000 people and then we would have the full support of the Entire US to wipe Iran off the map. This would be a completely justified cause. Look at japan in WW2 what did they say after they bombed pearl harbor. "I fear that i have have just awaken a sleeping giant." It would be suicide for them to attack the US and i think that they have the forethought to realize that despite what the retards at the helm (Amedenijad).
Just because they have a moron at the helm much like we do with Bush does not mean that a reasonable amount of their population agree with him.
What reason do you have to think that they could not sneak a bomb into the United States? Even your candidate Ron Paul has talked about our broken borders. If tens of millions from Mexico and tons and tons of drugs can be snuck in each year then why couldn't a dedicated military regime be capable of sneeking a bomb into the United States. Our borders and shores are wide open, it would be very easy for them. And the result would be millions killed, not thousands. They don't care if the United States retaliates against them, they are not rational like the Soviets were, they don't care if they are killed. To their Islamic theology martyrdom is the greatest thing they can do in life, retaliation against them is an incentive for them to act not a deterrent.
I think the only moral thing to do is to destroy their nuclear capabilities now rather than gamble hoping that for some reason they would not use them. I live in Manhattan and would likely be killed along with my family if you and Ron Paul are wrong. Sorry but I really do not care to be your guinea pig to find out whether Iranian nukes are a threat to the United States or not.
The days of fortress America have been over since the start of WW2. Anyone that believes that isolationist policies are going to help our situation here in America had better wake up. The only thing that will prevent a tragedy from happening here is to take out the threat at the point of origination. Ron Paul lives in a dream world. Thank G-d his chances for even being in the running are almost zero.
And what was our foreign policy before WW2 when you appear to be supporting the situation in the United States… Ding… non-interventionist. We stayed out of World War 2 as long as we did because it was not our fight much as the war in the middle east should not be our fight. We entered into WW2 because we were attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. If we were not attacked by the Japanese then the US would have most likely never entered into WW2, with this in mind if there was a state sponsored attack against the US then Paul as well as most of the country would fully support military actions.
Quote from: Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.
When did we take up this ideal of forcing people to like us rather than living with the people around us in peace until they are aggressive towards the US? And why are we supporting this ideal when it is bankrupting our country and guaranteeing the loss of American life?
Dejavu, this is all pussee mentality...If we act like a bunch of pussees, believe me, our enemies and these muslims will come after us with all they got!
Now if it is a strategy to not intervene in the whole world so that all of our resources can be used for ourselves, then I understand why that strategy...but guess what happens in this time of the world? A power vaccum of influence.
To retreat like that is a bad move in today's world and a very bad idea by Ron Paul.
Should we wait for Israel and some of our other true allies to get totally destroyed by Iran before we do something? Iran is going to have the capability very soon (within the next 10 years) to launch, not carry a bomb into the U.S. and Israel so stop this fantasy.
-
The U.S. doesn't give financial aid to most countries, it's blackmail money that they give, they just recently gave into North Korea.
-
Besides, after NYC was nuked the entire USA would be united to destroy Iran.
A nuke going off in NYC wouldn't be 100,000 dead, it'd be more like 5-9 million dead.
-
Mr. Dejavu,
1 do you agree the next President of the USA should address the following problems ?
muslim/mexican/turd world-immigration, the decline of the Church , multi-culturalism, affirmative action, anti-white racism, neo-nazism, anti-semitism, negative white birth-rate, booming muslim birth-rate, development of nuclear weapons by muslims, oil-addiction, Jihad, abortions, Soviet-style government, globalisation, MTV-gangster rap, delocalisation of employment to turd world...... ...
2 Do you agree Jews have the right to have a country that is zero% muslim inhabited?
-> do you support the expulsion of all "P-alestians" out of Israel?
-
To Dejavu: I think many of our JTF members are onto you. Believe me, the Jews and Gentiles that are members here, aren't dumb.
When you refer to Kahanism as terrorism, we are quite aware where you stand. You're just another typical antisemite. (And i could care less if you happen to be Jewish or have a Jewish father) Believe me, your post won't change anything for Ron Paul. You won't convince anyone here to vote for him. 99 percent of JTf members will agree with what I've just written in the above paragraph.
-
I have to tell this forum, THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH A RATIONAL PERSON CAN STAND FROM THESE RON PAUL MORONS.
Here's a direct quote from a RON PAUL MORON in this thread:
"Then i am insane because I do not believe that a Nuclear Iran poses a threat to the US for the fact that it would be extremely difficult for them to get a bomb into the US. Now if they did get a bomb into the US we would loose what.. 100,000 people and then we would have the full support of the Entire US to wipe Iran off the map. This would be a completely justified cause. Look at japan in WW2 what did they say after they bombed pearl harbor. "I fear that i have have just awaken a sleeping giant." It would be suicide for them to attack the US and i think that they have the forethought to realize that despite what the retards at the helm (Amedenijad).
Just because they have a moron at the helm much like we do with Bush does not mean that a reasonable amount of their population agree with him."
This RON PAUL MORON doesn't think that a nuclear Iran poses a threat to the USA ! And why wouldn't a nuclear Iran be a threat ? Because we'd ONLY lose 100,000 dead !! Hey, that's not a threat, nothing to worry about at all !! Besides, after NYC was nuked the entire USA would be united to destroy Iran.
So the RON PAUL MORON doesn't consider 100,000 DEAD AMERICANS a threat. Not to mention the fact that the USA's and the world economy would be absolutely devastated. The RON PAUL MORON fails to understand that if NYC was nuked his life as an American would be irrevocably changed for the worse.
Yeah, 100,000 dead and the end of life as you know it is not a threat and nothing to be concerned about.
Another reason not to worry is that the Iranian people might not support the actions of their government. Well, that's a big freaking consolation and I'm sure that'll be a prime consideration AFTER the nuke goes off.
Seriously folks, THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH A RIGHT THINKING PERSON CAN TAKE FROM THESE BLATHERING IDIOTS.
Ah I’m being called a moron now… I have been perfectly civil as far as I can tell to this point and until now I have received the same. The problem is that you seem to think that if we are not there the probability that they would attack the United States is 100%. I strongly disagree with this for several reasons the first of which if we are the aggressors then we justify their cause and also in order to stop this possibility of attack we will lose lives in the process. Also even with an interventionist policy we are hardly safer. We are sending our soldiers overseas and away from the borders where they can do the most good protecting us and the border.
I don't think you are evil in not caring about Israel. You are simply misguided with religion and Gd because of your upbringing. I'm not implying you need to be Jewish to understand religion. I'm implying that because of your upbringing you don't really believe in Gd and think this perfect world came to be randomly.
The perfection of our world and universe and the human species and other species and perfection of melodies and harmonies in music..and the perfection of words in poetry and essays..and beauty for the simpleness of beauty..and the feeling of happiness with sadness...I mean, you tell me there is no Gd? Even though emotion is an animal or human trait due to evolution, it's still perfect! If this whole world and all these beautiful things were created randomly, all it proves to me is that Gd exists because random chaos doesn't create such beauty!
Once again I don’t want this to turn into an argument of religion but why is it that random cannot be beautiful. Also the world is hardly perfect, if it were perfect why would there be war at all.
you wrote: "In all honesty then by your definition I am evil. I do not believe in G-d and I don’t believe that Israel being wiped off the map would have any negative effect on me as an American. Does that mean I want it to happen? No of course not. It only means that I don’t believe that Israel is worth any American lives to protect. By all means Israel should protect themselves by whatever means are necessary because it is Israel’s sovereignty and lives that are at stake. "
I'm curious. If you don't believe in Gd, then why did you write Gd as "G-d", like every believer in Gd does?
I am not doing this your forum automatically filters and changes God to add the dash.
Quote from: cjd on December 15, 2007, 08:29:27 PM
Quote from: dhimmi_pride on December 15, 2007, 08:03:00 PM
Quote from: dejavu on December 15, 2007, 07:48:30 PM
Then i am insane because I do not believe that a Nuclear Iran poses a threat to the US for the fact that it would be extremely difficult for them to get a bomb into the US. Now if they did get a bomb into the US we would loose what.. 100,000 people and then we would have the full support of the Entire US to wipe Iran off the map. This would be a completely justified cause. Look at japan in WW2 what did they say after they bombed pearl harbor. "I fear that i have have just awaken a sleeping giant." It would be suicide for them to attack the US and i think that they have the forethought to realize that despite what the retards at the helm (Amedenijad).
Just because they have a moron at the helm much like we do with Bush does not mean that a reasonable amount of their population agree with him.
What reason do you have to think that they could not sneak a bomb into the United States? Even your candidate Ron Paul has talked about our broken borders. If tens of millions from Mexico and tons and tons of drugs can be snuck in each year then why couldn't a dedicated military regime be capable of sneeking a bomb into the United States. Our borders and shores are wide open, it would be very easy for them. And the result would be millions killed, not thousands. They don't care if the United States retaliates against them, they are not rational like the Soviets were, they don't care if they are killed. To their Islamic theology martyrdom is the greatest thing they can do in life, retaliation against them is an incentive for them to act not a deterrent.
I think the only moral thing to do is to destroy their nuclear capabilities now rather than gamble hoping that for some reason they would not use them. I live in Manhattan and would likely be killed along with my family if you and Ron Paul are wrong. Sorry but I really do not care to be your guinea pig to find out whether Iranian nukes are a threat to the United States or not.
The days of fortress America have been over since the start of WW2. Anyone that believes that isolationist policies are going to help our situation here in America had better wake up. The only thing that will prevent a tragedy from happening here is to take out the threat at the point of origination. Ron Paul lives in a dream world. Thank G-d his chances for even being in the running are almost zero.
And what was our foreign policy before WW2 when you appear to be supporting the situation in the United States… Ding… non-interventionist. We stayed out of World War 2 as long as we did because it was not our fight much as the war in the middle east should not be our fight. We entered into WW2 because we were attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. If we were not attacked by the Japanese then the US would have most likely never entered into WW2, with this in mind if there was a state sponsored attack against the US then Paul as well as most of the country would fully support military actions.
Quote from: Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.
When did we take up this ideal of forcing people to like us rather than living with the people around us in peace until they are aggressive towards the US? And why are we supporting this ideal when it is bankrupting our country and guaranteeing the loss of American life?
Dejavu, this is all pussee mentality...If we act like a bunch of pussees, believe me, our enemies and these muslims will come after us with all they got!
Now if it is a strategy to not intervene in the whole world so that all of our resources can be used for ourselves, then I understand why that strategy...but guess what happens in this time of the world? A power vaccum of influence.
To retreat like that is a bad move in today's world and a very bad idea by Ron Paul.
You hit on another reason that I am strongly against intervention in that we cannot afford it. What happened when we left the soviets alone… they collapsed because they were under a leadership style which was flawed in nature. I believe that many of these countries will burn themselves out if we leave them alone and let them die to civil wars. If we leave them alone the oppressed within their countries will rise up and create a government on their own and they will most likely recreate it in the strategy that seems most successful. Currently this is the democratic strategy. However if we attack them we give them a cause to galvanize behind to spread their influence. In all honesty by attacking them we create the power vacuum which will lead to these extremist groups gaining control.
Its not an idea that was only presented by Ron Paul it is a view that many of the RP supporters held before the campaign even began. They are not the ones making martyrs, we are the ones attacking their homes and letting them all get personally involved behind a cause.
The feeling that I am getting on this forum is that there seems to almost take an intolerant view that they are in some way in human due to their religious views. How is this any different than the way that the Nazis scapegoated the Jews in WW2 to justify their cause.
Quote from: cjd on December 15, 2007, 08:29:27 PM
Quote from: dhimmi_pride on December 15, 2007, 08:03:00 PM
Quote from: dejavu on December 15, 2007, 07:48:30 PM
Then i am insane because I do not believe that a Nuclear Iran poses a threat to the US for the fact that it would be extremely difficult for them to get a bomb into the US. Now if they did get a bomb into the US we would loose what.. 100,000 people and then we would have the full support of the Entire US to wipe Iran off the map. This would be a completely justified cause. Look at japan in WW2 what did they say after they bombed pearl harbor. "I fear that i have have just awaken a sleeping giant." It would be suicide for them to attack the US and i think that they have the forethought to realize that despite what the retards at the helm (Amedenijad).
Just because they have a moron at the helm much like we do with Bush does not mean that a reasonable amount of their population agree with him.
What reason do you have to think that they could not sneak a bomb into the United States? Even your candidate Ron Paul has talked about our broken borders. If tens of millions from Mexico and tons and tons of drugs can be snuck in each year then why couldn't a dedicated military regime be capable of sneeking a bomb into the United States. Our borders and shores are wide open, it would be very easy for them. And the result would be millions killed, not thousands. They don't care if the United States retaliates against them, they are not rational like the Soviets were, they don't care if they are killed. To their Islamic theology martyrdom is the greatest thing they can do in life, retaliation against them is an incentive for them to act not a deterrent.
I think the only moral thing to do is to destroy their nuclear capabilities now rather than gamble hoping that for some reason they would not use them. I live in Manhattan and would likely be killed along with my family if you and Ron Paul are wrong. Sorry but I really do not care to be your guinea pig to find out whether Iranian nukes are a threat to the United States or not.
The days of fortress America have been over since the start of WW2. Anyone that believes that isolationist policies are going to help our situation here in America had better wake up. The only thing that will prevent a tragedy from happening here is to take out the threat at the point of origination. Ron Paul lives in a dream world. Thank G-d his chances for even being in the running are almost zero.
And what was our foreign policy before WW2 when you appear to be supporting the situation in the United States… Ding… non-interventionist. We stayed out of World War 2 as long as we did because it was not our fight much as the war in the middle east should not be our fight. We entered into WW2 because we were attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. If we were not attacked by the Japanese then the US would have most likely never entered into WW2, with this in mind if there was a state sponsored attack against the US then Paul as well as most of the country would fully support military actions.
If America had entered the war when Churchill first expressed concern over Hitlers actions the world would have been spared much grief and 6 million Jews may not have lost their lives. In the days before 1941 Hitler's Germany could have been put down quite quickly since he had not taken over all of Europe. Roosevelt saw what was happening but could not get congress to approve any build up or take more than a very limited stand on the situation. If Hitler would have been ignored by the USA and had been allowed to take over all of Europe including England in the end the Americans would have been facing him on their own. Iran doesn't have to sneak anything in to America they will buy the ability to launch a bomb into Israel or some other country that would start WW3. The only saving grace in the time before WW2 was the fact that our enemies did not have the abilities to reach us here in America with any weapons that would cause a major loss of life. Things are different today and quite a bit more deadly. This is why America needs to remove the ability for radical countries to take the first shot. I really don't see the need for any country that is not an aggressor to have to sustain a first blow to give the world a reason to do what most reasonable countries see as being the correct thing.
I agree that 6M Jews may not have lost their life but how many more Americans would have if we would have entered the war several years earlier. With this reasoning we need to go into North Korea right away because in all honesty they already have Nuclear weapons and Kim Jong Il is certifiably insane. Why don’t we go in there? Because we are letting them crumble economically.
On your final line. What makes the country that is in power the morally correct one? If we did what the largest group in the world thought was correct then we would never have democracy to begin with. I disagree that things are different just I think that the scope is larger. It used to be that you were only able to attack your neighbors but now the whole world is on the same block. Also where does it stop to stop a first blow. Do we need to live in a 1984 like society where we have curfews and spying on citizens to quell any disturbance even domestic?
Dejavu,
Can you give me one instance where Ron Paul said that he wants to bring the 911 murderers (alqueda)to justice? He says they are mad that we have bases there. But that doesn't mean those people in the WTC deserved the gruesome death that they got. I've never heard him say that he wants make Bin Laden and his gang of murderers to justice.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=w68E5GjKHXs (http://youtube.com/watch?v=w68E5GjKHXs)
I think he makes it pretty clear as to what is justified in this video.
Quote from: cjd on December 15, 2007, 08:29:27 PM
Quote from: dhimmi_pride on December 15, 2007, 08:03:00 PM
Quote from: dejavu on December 15, 2007, 07:48:30 PM
Then i am insane because I do not believe that a Nuclear Iran poses a threat to the US for the fact that it would be extremely difficult for them to get a bomb into the US. Now if they did get a bomb into the US we would loose what.. 100,000 people and then we would have the full support of the Entire US to wipe Iran off the map. This would be a completely justified cause. Look at japan in WW2 what did they say after they bombed pearl harbor. "I fear that i have have just awaken a sleeping giant." It would be suicide for them to attack the US and i think that they have the forethought to realize that despite what the retards at the helm (Amedenijad).
Just because they have a moron at the helm much like we do with Bush does not mean that a reasonable amount of their population agree with him.
What reason do you have to think that they could not sneak a bomb into the United States? Even your candidate Ron Paul has talked about our broken borders. If tens of millions from Mexico and tons and tons of drugs can be snuck in each year then why couldn't a dedicated military regime be capable of sneeking a bomb into the United States. Our borders and shores are wide open, it would be very easy for them. And the result would be millions killed, not thousands. They don't care if the United States retaliates against them, they are not rational like the Soviets were, they don't care if they are killed. To their Islamic theology martyrdom is the greatest thing they can do in life, retaliation against them is an incentive for them to act not a deterrent.
I think the only moral thing to do is to destroy their nuclear capabilities now rather than gamble hoping that for some reason they would not use them. I live in Manhattan and would likely be killed along with my family if you and Ron Paul are wrong. Sorry but I really do not care to be your guinea pig to find out whether Iranian nukes are a threat to the United States or not.
The days of fortress America have been over since the start of WW2. Anyone that believes that isolationist policies are going to help our situation here in America had better wake up. The only thing that will prevent a tragedy from happening here is to take out the threat at the point of origination. Ron Paul lives in a dream world. Thank G-d his chances for even being in the running are almost zero.
And what was our foreign policy before WW2 when you appear to be supporting the situation in the United States… Ding… non-interventionist. We stayed out of World War 2 as long as we did because it was not our fight much as the war in the middle east should not be our fight. We entered into WW2 because we were attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. If we were not attacked by the Japanese then the US would have most likely never entered into WW2, with this in mind if there was a state sponsored attack against the US then Paul as well as most of the country would fully support military actions.
Quote from: Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.
When did we take up this ideal of forcing people to like us rather than living with the people around us in peace until they are aggressive towards the US? And why are we supporting this ideal when it is bankrupting our country and guaranteeing the loss of American life?
Dejavu, this is all pussee mentality...If we act like a bunch of pussees, believe me, our enemies and these muslims will come after us with all they got!
Now if it is a strategy to not intervene in the whole world so that all of our resources can be used for ourselves, then I understand why that strategy...but guess what happens in this time of the world? A power vaccum of influence.
To retreat like that is a bad move in today's world and a very bad idea by Ron Paul.
Should we wait for Israel and some of our other true allies to get totally destroyed by Iran before we do something? Iran is going to have the capability very soon (within the next 10 years) to launch, not carry a bomb into the U.S. and Israel so stop this fantasy.
You’re asking for it both ways again… you want the US to allow Israel to defend itself but at the same time you want the US to be your allies. A war is seemingly justifiable for the Israelis to undertake but I disagree that the US should be allies with Israel. Others have repeatedly said that Israel can take care of itself but when given the chance to allow this to happen you ask for the US to back you up. As I have said before I am all for Israel protecting itself through any means that they think seem fit but the US should have no part in its decision and should provide no support.
If Israel decides to start the war and bomb the hell out of Iran… that is their decision… go for it. At the same time don’t expect to be bailed out.
The U.S. doesn't give financial aid to most countries, it's blackmail money that they give, they just recently gave into North Korea.
What a joke this was… we reward those who we fear for a promise of protection.
We bomb their bridges then we send them money to rebuild their roads while our infrastructure is suffering at home. We burn their fields then we drop them food when we have to borrow money from a communist country to pay our bills.
By continuing the foreign policy that we currently have we are crawling into bed with the people that we should probably be most fearful of.
Also look at the list of countries that the US does give aid to. We give more aid to our enemies than we do to our allies. We should let our enemies crush themselves under the pressure of a war that they would not be able to sustain financially. Wars don’t end because someone wins and the other side gives up. Wars end because one side can no longer afford to fight. Be it human or monetary resources.
-
Besides, after NYC was nuked the entire USA would be united to destroy Iran.
A nuke going off in NYC wouldn't be 100,000 dead, it'd be more like 5-9 million dead.
NYC was an example that someone else mentioned when they stated that they lived in Manhattan and despite the amount of people that would be dead my point still stands. Why guarantee the loss of life for the possibility of preventing the loss of life.
Mr. Dejavu,
1 do you agree the next President of the USA should address the following problems ?
muslim/mexican/turd world-immigration, the decline of the Church , multi-culturalism, affirmative action, anti-white racism, neo-nazism, anti-semitism, negative white birth-rate, booming muslim birth-rate, development of nuclear weapons by muslims, oil-addiction, Jihad, abortions, Soviet-style government, globalisation, MTV-gangster rap, delocalisation of employment to turd world...... ...
2 Do you agree Jews have the right to have a country that is zero% muslim inhabited?
-> do you support the expulsion of all "P-alestians" out of Israel?
1.
muslim/mexican/turd world-immigration – Immigration is a serious issue that definitely needs to be addressed if we want to continue to be a sovereign nation. We need foreign workers but we need legal ones. Should president address it (yes)
the decline of the Church – not an issue that the government should deal with. There is a separation of church and state for a reason Should president address it (no)
multi-culturalism – this is a good thing, diversity leads to innovation, group think leads to bad decisions. Look at the Islamic groups they seem to have the largest problem with group think of anyone. Should president address it (no)
affirmative action – like communism good in theory, failure in practice. Should president address it (no)
anti-white racism – this is an issue that local authorities should govern, if on an international level it is not our business. (no)
neo-nazism – same answer as above
anti-semitism – same answer
negative white birth-rate – this is a good thing all races should have a negative birth rate we have far to many people in the world. Do I think that this is an issue that a president should address. (no) what happens between the sheets is the business of the people doing it.
booming muslim birth-rate – this is a bad thing but its not our place to govern it. (no)
development of nuclear weapons by muslims – this is an issue that should be watched but we should not be intervening
oil-addiction – most definitely. This is something that the next president must address we need to move off of oil and coal for our environment and our future. Also we need to move towards energy independence so that we can get the best price possible on the oil that we do get through competition. (yes)
Jihad – should be watched but not acted upon until an imminent threat is upon us. (yes)
Abortions – I am not against abortion however I do believe that rowe v wade should be overturned because it is unconstitutional. The right to an abortion should be left up to the state governments so for this reason yes the next president should address it.
Soviet-style government – I feel like a broken record but same as Jihad
Globalization – this is a good thing. Peace through economic dependence. We don’t go to war with China because we both realize that we would cripple our own economy if we did so. This is something that a president should strive for (yes)
MTV-gangster rap – we should not try to impose our morals on others. If its for everyone… we are adults and we can take care of ourselves and if its for the kids then the parents need to do their job. (no)
delocalisation of employment to turd world – I think you are referring to outsourcing in this one and I believe that we should outsource some jobs however we need to have real free trade where the market decides the outcomes rather than the protectionism granted under Nafta and Cafta and the UN.
2.
I do not support Israels doing so however at the same time I don’t think that it is necessary for Israel to get our support. If that’s what Israel think needs to be done then by all means they should go for it
To Dejavu: I think many of our JTF members are onto you. Believe me, the Jews and Gentiles that are members here, aren't dumb.
When you refer to Kahanism as terrorism, we are quite aware where you stand. You're just another typical antisemite. (And i could care less if you happen to be Jewish or have a Jewish father) Believe me, your post won't change anything for Ron Paul. You won't convince anyone here to vote for him. 99 percent of JTf members will agree with what I've just written in the above paragraph.
I refer to current US foreign policy as terrorism. In my opinion any preemptive attack constitutes terrorism. I still however don’t understand how I am an anti-Semite seeing as I believe that Israel should do whatever it is necessary to protect themselves and that America should not be involved.
Also Good afternoon everyone
-
Quote from: Ambiorix on Today at 12:08:22 PM
Mr. Dejavu,
1 do you agree the next President of the USA should address the following problems ?
muslim/mexican/turd world-immigration, the decline of the Church , multi-culturalism, affirmative action, anti-white racism, neo-nazism, anti-semitism, negative white birth-rate, booming muslim birth-rate, development of nuclear weapons by muslims, oil-addiction, Jihad, abortions, Soviet-style government, globalisation, MTV-gangster rap, delocalisation of employment to turd world...... ...
2 Do you agree Jews have the right to have a country that is zero% muslim inhabited?
-> do you support the expulsion of all "P-alestians" out of Israel?
1.
muslim/mexican/turd world-immigration – Immigration is a serious issue that definitely needs to be addressed if we want to continue to be a sovereign nation. We need foreign workers but we need legal ones. Should president address it (yes)
Prove me you need foreign workers.
A higher birth-rate could have prevented this problem.
It will lead to the turd-worldisation of the USA
the decline of the Church – not an issue that the government should deal with. There is a separation of church and state for a reason Should president address it (no)
multi-culturalism – this is a good thing, diversity leads to innovation, group think leads to bad decisions. Look at the Islamic groups they seem to have the largest problem with group think of anyone. Should president address it (no)
I think this is a naive view yo have, multi-culturalism & political corectness are marxist inventions. Study this things, you seem to be unaware of the problems. Diversity leads to honour killings, clitoris-chopping, millions of tax-payer's money to make a police-state, in order to control the hordes of jihadis.
affirmative action – like communism good in theory, failure in practice. Should president address it (no)
You are a traitor to your people. Your president should address these problems ASAP , are USA will become a turd world country.
anti-white racism – this is an issue that local authorities should govern, if on an international level it is not our business. (no)
you can put your head in the sand , for all anti-white racism that is happening in the world, and deny any problem, until suddenly the mob comes to chop your head off.
neo-nazism – same answer as above
anti-semitism – same answer
negative white birth-rate – this is a good thing all races should have a negative birth rate we have far to many people in the world. Do I think that this is an issue that a president should address. (no) what happens between the sheets is the business of the people doing it.
Crap. If people like you have to defend America, it will be an all black continent by 2023.
booming muslim birth-rate – this is a bad thing but its not our place to govern it. (no)
I mean : you're facing extinction, and your enemy reproduction rate is booming, and you think you can stay out of this?? Are you insane?
development of nuclear weapons by muslims – this is an issue that should be watched but we should not be intervening
crazy, you bomb all the facilities at once, otherwise in 2030 ALL nations have atomic weapons.
oil-addiction – most definitely. This is something that the next president must address we need to move off of oil and coal for our environment and our future. Also we need to move towards energy independence so that we can get the best price possible on the oil that we do get through competition. (yes)
at least some sanity
Jihad – should be watched but not acted upon until an imminent threat is upon us. (yes)
IT IS A IMMEDIATE TREATH TO YOU AND ME !!!
Abortions – I am not against abortion however I do believe that rowe v wade should be overturned because it is unconstitutional. The right to an abortion should be left up to the state governments so for this reason yes the next president should address it.
Abortion is killing the next generation. It is one of the factors that is leading to the extinction of White people. As well as Israeli.... Wake Up!!
Soviet-style government – I feel like a broken record but same as Jihad
Not understood. Better fight Big government in the USA.
Globalization – this is a good thing. Peace through economic dependence. We don’t go to war with China because we both realize that we would cripple our own economy if we did so. This is something that a president should strive for (yes)
Of course NOT.
The relation with China is disastrous for America!!
MTV-gangster rap – we should not try to impose our morals on others. If its for everyone… we are adults and we can take care of ourselves and if its for the kids then the parents need to do their job. (no)
No. We should strive for a abolishment of these type of media. THose gansters are sickening the youth. Is creating violence all over the place. Lock these crappers up in guantanamo bay.
delocalisation of employment to turd world – I think you are referring to outsourcing in this one and I believe that we should outsource some jobs however we need to have real free trade where the market decides the outcomes rather than the protectionism granted under Nafta and Cafta and the UN.
Protectionism is a good thing. USA should use it more.
2.
I do not support Israels doing so however at the same time I don’t think that it is necessary for Israel to get our support. If that’s what Israel think needs to be done then by all means they should go for it.
You'd better agree with the fact that Israel in the long run cannot survive if the Arabs inside their borders. Same counts for USA/EU/Russia. Assimilating millions of Arabs is almost impossible.
-
Quote from: Ambiorix on Today at 12:08:22 PM
Mr. Dejavu,
1 do you agree the next President of the USA should address the following problems ?
muslim/mexican/turd world-immigration, the decline of the Church , multi-culturalism, affirmative action, anti-white racism, neo-nazism, anti-semitism, negative white birth-rate, booming muslim birth-rate, development of nuclear weapons by muslims, oil-addiction, Jihad, abortions, Soviet-style government, globalisation, MTV-gangster rap, delocalisation of employment to turd world...... ...
2 Do you agree Jews have the right to have a country that is zero% muslim inhabited?
-> do you support the expulsion of all "P-alestians" out of Israel?
1.
muslim/mexican/turd world-immigration – Immigration is a serious issue that definitely needs to be addressed if we want to continue to be a sovereign nation. We need foreign workers but we need legal ones. Should president address it (yes)
Prove me you need foreign workers.
A higher birth-rate could have prevented this problem.
It will lead to the turd-worldisation of the USA
Its estimated that there are 12 million Illegal immigrants in the US at this time. Probably about another 5 or so million that are here legally on Visas. So if we were to just kick them out we would have 17 million people that needed to be hired and trained to handle the jobs that we already have. I don’t think we have that many unemployed people in the US and even if there are I highly doubt that we would people would want to fill these jobs. Also seeing as we are living in a global economy the only way that we can fully understand the people that we are selling our goods to is to employ some of them. To believe that we could determine exactly what they needed without them being part of the process is a retarded concept.
the decline of the Church – not an issue that the government should deal with. There is a separation of church and state for a reason Should president address it (no)
multi-culturalism – this is a good thing, diversity leads to innovation, group think leads to bad decisions. Look at the Islamic groups they seem to have the largest problem with group think of anyone. Should president address it (no)
I think this is a naive view yo have, multi-culturalism & political corectness are marxist inventions. Study this things, you seem to be unaware of the problems. Diversity leads to honour killings, clitoris-chopping, millions of tax-payer's money to make a police-state, in order to control the hordes of jihadis.
Diversity does not lead to these things, diversity leads to understanding that even though we may believe different things it is the experiences of our lives are what lead us to providing the most different points of view and having the highest likelihood of coming up with the best answer. Honor killings, clitoris-chopping and etc are a product of different morals and morals are something that must be learned they cannot be forced.
affirmative action – like communism good in theory, failure in practice. Should president address it (no)
You are a traitor to your people. Your president should address these problems ASAP , are USA will become a turd world country.
Who are my people. As far as im concerned every US citizen is a member of my people white black or otherwise.
anti-white racism – this is an issue that local authorities should govern, if on an international level it is not our business. (no)
you can put your head in the sand , for all anti-white racism that is happening in the world, and deny any problem, until suddenly the mob comes to chop your head off.
Its not that I need to take my head out of the sand I just don’t need to have my nose in the air. Your whole argument seems to be an us vs. them, holier than thou attitude that seems to have a hint of racism itself yet I am the one that is being called an anti-Semite repeatedly in this thread. Also Paul has been accused of having a white supremacist support background yet the answers I am receiving from you are much the same as I would expect from a WP group.
neo-nazism – same answer as above
anti-semitism – same answer
negative white birth-rate – this is a good thing all races should have a negative birth rate we have far to many people in the world. Do I think that this is an issue that a president should address. (no) what happens between the sheets is the business of the people doing it.
Crap. If people like you have to defend America, it will be an all black continent by 2023.
wrong it will be a Mexican continent by then they are the ones that are reproducing at an alarming rate.
booming muslim birth-rate – this is a bad thing but its not our place to govern it. (no)
I mean : you're facing extinction, and your enemy reproduction rate is booming, and you think you can stay out of this?? Are you insane?
apparently… what do you propose? Eugenics? That ought to make us some more friends around the world
development of nuclear weapons by muslims – this is an issue that should be watched but we should not be intervening
crazy, you bomb all the facilities at once, otherwise in 2030 ALL nations have atomic weapons.
Most of our major enemies already have nuclear weapons and do they use them… no its suicide
oil-addiction – most definitely. This is something that the next president must address we need to move off of oil and coal for our environment and our future. Also we need to move towards energy independence so that we can get the best price possible on the oil that we do get through competition. (yes)
at least some sanity
Yes we agree that it needs to be done however we agree for vastly different reasons. I think that we need to get off of oil addiction because of its adverse effects on the environment and also I think that the oil that we have in Alaska should be unlocked so that the Arab countries have to compete to keep the prices low
Jihad – should be watched but not acted upon until an imminent threat is upon us. (yes)
IT IS A IMMEDIATE TREATH TO YOU AND ME !!!
disagree
Abortions – I am not against abortion however I do believe that rowe v wade should be overturned because it is unconstitutional. The right to an abortion should be left up to the state governments so for this reason yes the next president should address it.
Abortion is killing the next generation. It is one of the factors that is leading to the extinction of White people. As well as Israeli.... Wake Up!!
If the minorities are having babies at a faster rate wouldn’t that also mean that they are most likely having abortions at a faster rate. By your reasoning making abortions illegal would only make the extinction of the white race come faster
Soviet-style government – I feel like a broken record but same as Jihad
Not understood. Better fight Big government in the USA.
Ok apparently I misunderstood what you meant by soviet style government but I will make a larger answer so that I am very specific where I stand on all of the issues regarding the size of government. I thought you were referring to soviet style governments being made in other countries
The purpose of government is to protect our citizens at home and abroad. This does not mean that they should be the moral authority of the people. The government should not control business through subsidies, free trade through protectionism, healthcare ( socialist democrats >:( ), nation building or anything else of this nature.
Globalization – this is a good thing. Peace through economic dependence. We don’t go to war with China because we both realize that we would cripple our own economy if we did so. This is something that a president should strive for (yes)
Of course NOT.
The relation with China is disastrous for America!!
I disagree wholeheartedly. It is far from ideal but it is successful and moving in the right direction.
MTV-gangster rap – we should not try to impose our morals on others. If its for everyone… we are adults and we can take care of ourselves and if its for the kids then the parents need to do their job. (no)
No. We should strive for a abolishment of these type of media. THose gansters are sickening the youth. Is creating violence all over the place. Lock these crappers up in guantanamo bay.
Hurray for censorship and unlawful detention
You scare me if you truly believe this
Parents should control what their kids are exposed to and anyone who blames society for the way that their kids turn out are seriously taking a copout approach. Society is not to blame for kids it’s the way that you bring them up.
delocalisation of employment to turd world – I think you are referring to outsourcing in this one and I believe that we should outsource some jobs however we need to have real free trade where the market decides the outcomes rather than the protectionism granted under Nafta and Cafta and the UN.
Protectionism is a good thing. USA should use it more.
Protectionism is absolutely horrible for this country it leads to non-competitive business practices. Same with subsidies. If the person who can provide a service provides it for the lowest cost possible then everyone wins. Also protectionism when used by the US only leads to a tit for tat exchange where other countries are unwilling to accept our goods and place large tariffs on our goods. What is the best way to perform in a race? Is it to get out in front and force everyone to stay behind you? No if you do this you will only spend too much energy and it will take much longer to finish the race. The best way is to let the other people in the race work with you taking turns breaking the wind and making the best out of the energy of the group. Now this doesn’t guarantee that you win the race but it will most definitely allow you to finish stronger than if you tried to win by handicapping everyone else including yourself.
This falls onto the argument that many people have about wal-mart in the USA. It provides goods to people at lower prices than are available at any other business and due to this is has put a lot of smaller “mom and pop” stores out of business. Does this mean that the government needs to intervene and subsidize the smaller businesses to compete? Absolutely not they are being purged because they are no longer competitive and if a situation comes around where it is necessary for mom and pop stores to keep walmarts prices down they will be built and they will adjust the market.
Protectionism leads to higher prices which leads to inflation. And inflation is the single most important factor that is facing this country at the moment. Housing prices are going down and inflation is going up at the same time. What does this mean peoples life savings that are invested in their housing are literally disappearing.
2.
I do not support Israels doing so however at the same time I don’t think that it is necessary for Israel to get our support. If that’s what Israel think needs to be done then by all means they should go for it.
You'd better agree with the fact that Israel in the long run cannot survive if the Arabs inside their borders. Same counts for USA/EU/Russia. Assimilating millions of Arabs is almost impossible.
And how do you assimilate people at a rate that is successful… by having immigration reform and allowing for people to enter the country at a manageable rate while firmly punishing those who break our laws. However our laws do not exceed our borders.
-
Besides, after NYC was nuked the entire USA would be united to destroy Iran.
A nuke going off in NYC wouldn't be 100,000 dead, it'd be more like 5-9 million dead.
Would the USA be onto Iran though? Iran could claim that they had nothing to do with it, they could have smuggled the nuke across the border from mexico in a suitcase, and had some random man set it off, there would be no trail to follow to lead to iran.
-
Besides, after NYC was nuked the entire USA would be united to destroy Iran.
A nuke going off in NYC wouldn't be 100,000 dead, it'd be more like 5-9 million dead.
Would the USA be onto Iran though? Iran could claim that they had nothing to do with it, they could have smuggled the nuke across the border from mexico in a suitcase, and had some random man set it off, there would be no trail to follow to lead to iran.
If it can be hidden in a suitcase its hardly going to have the distructive force to take out an entire city. Also if a nuclear weapon is involved there would have to be some kind of involvement at the state level. Anyone with the will to do so can hijack a plane but a lot more sophistication is necessary to form a nuclear attack.
-
Ron Paul Moron bemoans:
Ah I’m being called a moron now… I have been perfectly civil as far as I can tell to this point and until now I have received the same.
The Ron Paul Moron still doesn't consider a nuclear armed Iran a threat to America.
The Ron Paul Moron is still demonstrating the most twisted, myopic reasoning and a complete lack of logic and common sense to convince the good people of this forum that the death of hundreds of thousands of Americans, the destruction of NYC and our way of life could ever be palatable or justifiable.
The Ron Paul Moron considers America to be the aggressor.
The Ron Paul Moron insists moooozies attack us only because 'we're there' (whatever that means).
The Ron Paul Moron considers Kahanists terrorists, but doesn't consider Islam to be a retrograde, genocidal, expansionist movement or a threat to Western civilization.
The Ron Paul Moron states "I disagree that the US should be allies with Israel".
The Ron Paul Moron states "I refer to current US foreign policy as terrorism. In my opinion any preemptive attack constitutes terrorism."
Here's a newsflash for you, Ron Paul Moron, you're not only a moron, you're a sick, twisted, demented, wet behind the ears, sack of feces and you don't deserve to be treated with any respect or civility.
-
Dejavu, you look at this world as a non-believer in Creation, you do not believe in God. I think that's a very dangerous position to take. Either the universe was designed, or it came about by random chance. These are the only options. If you want to believe life started with a big bang where nothing exploded and produced everything, and that a cosmic soup of some kind came alive and out of it the first life form found someone to marry, and something to eat, and slowly evolved into everything we see today, you go right ahead, but I'm telling you the real truth about life is found in the Bible, the King James version. Great great great great great great grandpa was not a monkey.
“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” Psalm 14:1
One of the things you fail to understand about one of our enemies, is that you cannot tame Islam. See, the Quran, which is one person's (Mohamed's) plagiarism of the Bible, teaches that Muslims fight and kill Jews and Christians (and non-religious) people if those people do not convert to Islam. That is their religion. So no matter how much YOU reason with yourself that Islam means peace, and Islam is peaceful, this is not what their, ahem.. "holy" book teaches. If you just "leave them alone" hoping they'll leave you alone, your a fool. Sorry. It's that simple. Their own book teaches otherwise. You don't even believe them? You should.
It always amazes me people who think all the enemy really needs is a hug, then everything will be okay. Journalists for example who are worried about offending Muslims in their news reports don't realize their heads would be the first to come off under Islamic rule!
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools," Romans 1:22
-
You hit on another reason that I am strongly against intervention in that we cannot afford it. What happened when we left the soviets alone… they collapsed because they were under a leadership style which was flawed in nature. I believe that many of these countries will burn themselves out if we leave them alone and let them die to civil wars. If we leave them alone the oppressed within their countries will rise up and create a government on their own and they will most likely recreate it in the strategy that seems most successful. Currently this is the democratic strategy. However if we attack them we give them a cause to galvanize behind to spread their influence. In all honesty by attacking them we create the power vacuum which will lead to these extremist groups gaining control.
Its not an idea that was only presented by Ron Paul it is a view that many of the RP supporters held before the campaign even began. They are not the ones making martyrs, we are the ones attacking their homes and letting them all get personally involved behind a cause.
The feeling that I am getting on this forum is that there seems to almost take an intolerant view that they are in some way in human due to their religious views. How is this any different than the way that the Nazis scapegoated the Jews in WW2 to justify their cause.
I agree with letting the muzzies kill each other...HOwever there are places where the US needs to intervene and defend and other places to stay away and let those nations implode while we keep a close eye on them.
Ron Paul seems to take the extreme of staying away from all countries..That's wrong. And there are people in our govt who want to be invovled with every country as well. That's wrong as well. We have to pick and choose wisely who we help and we should ignore for the time being.
Secondly, after what we have seen in Iraq, the smart thing to do should have simply been to bomb the heck out of Iraq and not care if Saddam stayed in power or not. Same with Iran. We should not comitt ground troops but also do a bombing run. Perhpas have a few special agents on the ground as well.
THe current war against the Muslims isn't one of conventional war where these armies are visible. They fight the guerrella fight..we need to counter with a better strategy than being target practice anywhere we go now. I think this is where Bush et al has failed miserably.
-
Dejavu, you look at this world as a non-believer in Creation, you do not believe in G-d. I think that's a very dangerous position to take. Either the universe was designed, or it came about by random chance. These are the only options. If you want to believe life started with a big bang where nothing exploded and produced everything, and that a cosmic soup of some kind came alive and out of it the first life form found someone to marry, and something to eat, and slowly evolved into everything we see today, you go right ahead, but I'm telling you the real truth about life is found in the Bible, the King James version. Great great great great great great grandpa was not a monkey.
“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no G-d.” Psalm 14:1
One of the things you fail to understand about one of our enemies, is that you cannot tame Islam. See, the Quran, which is one person's (Mohamed's) plagiarism of the Bible, teaches that Muslims fight and kill Jews and Christians (and non-religious) people if those people do not convert to Islam. That is their religion. So no matter how much YOU reason with yourself that Islam means peace, and Islam is peaceful, this is not what their, ahem.. "holy" book teaches. If you just "leave them alone" hoping they'll leave you alone, your a fool. Sorry. It's that simple. Their own book teaches otherwise. You don't even believe them? You should.
It always amazes me people who think all the enemy really needs is a hug, then everything will be okay. Journalists for example who are worried about offending Muslims in their news reports don't realize their heads would be the first to come off under Islamic rule!
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools," Romans 1:22
Here's the deal...it's not whether the universe was created via evolution or via "zap tree and zap monkey and zap human"...it's the fact that whichever way it was created, it still involved the Hand of Gd. We are wee tiny humans that can barely understand what He's all about...so rather than mucking through interpretations..the bottom line is that Gd is Great and He exists...the rest is commentary.
-
Ron Paul Moron bemoans:
Ah I’m being called a moron now… I have been perfectly civil as far as I can tell to this point and until now I have received the same.
The Ron Paul Moron still doesn't consider a nuclear armed Iran a threat to America.
The Ron Paul Moron is still demonstrating the most twisted, myopic reasoning and a complete lack of logic and common sense to convince the good people of this forum that the death of hundreds of thousands of Americans, the destruction of NYC and our way of life could ever be palatable or justifiable.
The Ron Paul Moron considers America to be the aggressor.
The Ron Paul Moron insists moooozies attack us only because 'we're there' (whatever that means).
The Ron Paul Moron considers Kahanists terrorists, but doesn't consider Islam to be a retrograde, genocidal, expansionist movement or a threat to Western civilization.
The Ron Paul Moron states "I disagree that the US should be allies with Israel".
The Ron Paul Moron states "I refer to current US foreign policy as terrorism. In my opinion any preemptive attack constitutes terrorism."
Here's a newsflash for you, Ron Paul Moron, you're not only a moron, you're a sick, twisted, demented, wet behind the ears, sack of feces and you don't deserve to be treated with any respect or civility.
The Ron Paul Moron still doesn't consider a nuclear armed Iran a threat to America.
Correct I still believe that just because a country that we don’t like has them does not mean that they will use them… see North Korea, China, Pakistan, India, and the Soviet Union. And by sending troops over there and making it so that they are not able to have them will only strengthen their resolve and make it so that they will work even harder to get them meaning that the amount of troops over there will increase to the point of a full scale invasion which we cannot afford, guarantees casualties on both sides, and also will only help their cause in the long run.
The Ron Paul Moron is still demonstrating the most twisted, myopic reasoning and a complete lack of logic and common sense to convince the good people of this forum that the death of hundreds of thousands of Americans, the destruction of NYC and our way of life could ever be palatable or justifiable.
When have I tried to say that the destruction of NYC is either palatable or justifiable? I have repeatedly stated that I was in support of going and getting the people who were responsible for 9/11 but there is absolutely no connection between 9/11 and the invasion of iraq.
The Ron Paul Moron considers America to be the aggressor.
Yes I do consider America the aggressor at this time. Iraq had nothing to do with the events of 9/11 and we invaded a sovereign country which is wrong no matter how much I don’t agree with the religion/values of the people that were invaded.
The Ron Paul Moron insists moooozies attack us only because 'we're there' (whatever that means).
Do you think that we have been sitting in our country for the last 50 years and only recently tried to impose our interests on these countries. That’s naive. We have been putting bases in Saudi Arabia with our oil buddies and supporting Israel and we even overthrew the government of Iran in 1953
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat)
The Ron Paul Moron considers Kahanists terrorists, but doesn't consider Islam to be a retrograde, genocidal, expansionist movement or a threat to Western civilization.
Does it matter what I think about what Israelis do in their country? No… Do I consider Kahanism terrorism? Yes I do because you support a first strike policy. Do I have the right to stop you? No I do not. Do I consider a lot of Islamics terrorists? Of course I do for the same reason as I consider Kahanists terrorists.
The only time that the US should step in is when a threat to our citizens is imminent.
The Ron Paul Moron states "I disagree that the US should be allies with Israel".
The US should be allies with none, trade with all.
The Ron Paul Moron states "I refer to current US foreign policy as terrorism. In my opinion any preemptive attack constitutes terrorism."
I still believe 100% what I typed.
Here's a newsflash for you, Ron Paul Moron, you're not only a moron, you're a sick, twisted, demented, wet behind the ears, sack of feces and you don't deserve to be treated with any respect or civility.
Yes not attacking unless there is an imminent threat of attack. I’m one sick and twisted bastard, I better move to Syria so I can go around screaming. Allah!!!
Dejavu, you look at this world as a non-believer in Creation, you do not believe in G-d. I think that's a very dangerous position to take. Either the universe was designed, or it came about by random chance. These are the only options. If you want to believe life started with a big bang where nothing exploded and produced everything, and that a cosmic soup of some kind came alive and out of it the first life form found someone to marry, and something to eat, and slowly evolved into everything we see today, you go right ahead, but I'm telling you the real truth about life is found in the Bible, the King James version. Great great great great great great grandpa was not a monkey.
“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no G-d.” Psalm 14:1
One of the things you fail to understand about one of our enemies, is that you cannot tame Islam. See, the Quran, which is one person's (Mohamed's) plagiarism of the Bible, teaches that Muslims fight and kill Jews and Christians (and non-religious) people if those people do not convert to Islam. That is their religion. So no matter how much YOU reason with yourself that Islam means peace, and Islam is peaceful, this is not what their, ahem.. "holy" book teaches. If you just "leave them alone" hoping they'll leave you alone, your a fool. Sorry. It's that simple. Their own book teaches otherwise. You don't even believe them? You should.
It always amazes me people who think all the enemy really needs is a hug, then everything will be okay. Journalists for example who are worried about offending Muslims in their news reports don't realize their heads would be the first to come off under Islamic rule!
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools," Romans 1:22
First of all you cant quote scripture to convert a non believer… that does not work. You have to respect the book as some kind of truth before the words have meaning. As for the god issue let me fine tune my position on creation. At this time I do not believe that I have the correct answer; therefore, my position is that I will not sell myself to any one faith or non-religious doctrine. The reason that I consider myself an atheist is because I do not believe in a higher power at this time. Does that mean that I believe in the big bang theory? Not necessarily however it is the best answer that I can find at this time. Here is the way that I feel about religion for the most part.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v381/frostie333/ScienceVsFaith.png)
Leave them alone and hopefully they wont attack oversimplifies the issue the problem is justification. If they attack us that gives us justification for a complete assault where we can wipe them off the map and their people will not have a cohesive center to regroup behind because they started the fight. On the other hand if we attack them to say see look they attacked us they are evil support us and we will set you free. So by allowing them to have a first strike or atleast the imminent threat of attack there will be less loss of American life in the short and long term for America.
I do not believe that Islam is a religion of peace but at the same time I don’t believe that they have the means or the support to garner any kind of attack of any magnitude.
You hit on another reason that I am strongly against intervention in that we cannot afford it. What happened when we left the soviets alone… they collapsed because they were under a leadership style which was flawed in nature. I believe that many of these countries will burn themselves out if we leave them alone and let them die to civil wars. If we leave them alone the oppressed within their countries will rise up and create a government on their own and they will most likely recreate it in the strategy that seems most successful. Currently this is the democratic strategy. However if we attack them we give them a cause to galvanize behind to spread their influence. In all honesty by attacking them we create the power vacuum which will lead to these extremist groups gaining control.
Its not an idea that was only presented by Ron Paul it is a view that many of the RP supporters held before the campaign even began. They are not the ones making martyrs, we are the ones attacking their homes and letting them all get personally involved behind a cause.
The feeling that I am getting on this forum is that there seems to almost take an intolerant view that they are in some way in human due to their religious views. How is this any different than the way that the Nazis scapegoated the Jews in WW2 to justify their cause.
I agree with letting the muzzies kill each other...HOwever there are places where the US needs to intervene and defend and other places to stay away and let those nations implode while we keep a close eye on them.
Ron Paul seems to take the extreme of staying away from all countries..That's wrong. And there are people in our govt who want to be invovled with every country as well. That's wrong as well. We have to pick and choose wisely who we help and we should ignore for the time being.
Secondly, after what we have seen in Iraq, the smart thing to do should have simply been to bomb the heck out of Iraq and not care if Saddam stayed in power or not. Same with Iran. We should not comitt ground troops but also do a bombing run. Perhpas have a few special agents on the ground as well.
THe current war against the Muslims isn't one of conventional war where these armies are visible. They fight the guerrella fight..we need to counter with a better strategy than being target practice anywhere we go now. I think this is where Bush et al has failed miserably.
I agree with letting the muzzies kill each other...HOwever there are places where the US needs to intervene and defend and other places to stay away and let those nations implode while we keep a close eye on them.
Ron Paul seems to take the extreme of staying away from all countries..That's wrong. And there are people in our govt who want to be invovled with every country as well. That's wrong as well. We have to pick and choose wisely who we help and we should ignore for the time being.
Who makes this decision and how do we manage this slippery slope? The problem with this kind of reasoning is that it cannot be managed and only leads to special interests involvement and wasted government resources.
On your second issue why did we go into Iraq in the first place if not to get rid of Saddam. Also after these bombings what kind of government do you expect to get in Iraq except for anti-American. That’s like shooting a guy in the head and expecting his loving wife to be your best friend; it’s not going to happen.
Dejavu, you look at this world as a non-believer in Creation, you do not believe in G-d. I think that's a very dangerous position to take. Either the universe was designed, or it came about by random chance. These are the only options. If you want to believe life started with a big bang where nothing exploded and produced everything, and that a cosmic soup of some kind came alive and out of it the first life form found someone to marry, and something to eat, and slowly evolved into everything we see today, you go right ahead, but I'm telling you the real truth about life is found in the Bible, the King James version. Great great great great great great grandpa was not a monkey.
“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no G-d.” Psalm 14:1
One of the things you fail to understand about one of our enemies, is that you cannot tame Islam. See, the Quran, which is one person's (Mohamed's) plagiarism of the Bible, teaches that Muslims fight and kill Jews and Christians (and non-religious) people if those people do not convert to Islam. That is their religion. So no matter how much YOU reason with yourself that Islam means peace, and Islam is peaceful, this is not what their, ahem.. "holy" book teaches. If you just "leave them alone" hoping they'll leave you alone, your a fool. Sorry. It's that simple. Their own book teaches otherwise. You don't even believe them? You should.
It always amazes me people who think all the enemy really needs is a hug, then everything will be okay. Journalists for example who are worried about offending Muslims in their news reports don't realize their heads would be the first to come off under Islamic rule!
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools," Romans 1:22
Here's the deal...it's not whether the universe was created via evolution or via "zap tree and zap monkey and zap human"...it's the fact that whichever way it was created, it still involved the Hand of Gd. We are wee tiny humans that can barely understand what He's all about...so rather than mucking through interpretations..the bottom line is that Gd is Great and He exists...the rest is commentary.
But I don’t believe the story about the hand in the sky.
-
hand in the sky or not...something created something..not nothing created something...how? makes no difference in this arguement.
-
random luck... same reason i believe that there is life on other planets... i cant believe that we would be the only ones that got lucky.
-
Dr. Dan wrote, "The smart thing to do should have simply been to bomb the heck out of Iraq and not care if Saddam stayed in power or not. Same with Iran. The current war against the Muslims isn't one of conventional war where these armies are visible. They fight the guerrella fight..we need to counter with a better strategy than being target practice anywhere we go now. I think this is where Bush et al has failed miserably."
I agree 100% on this Dan. O0 If the World War II heroes used 'precision bombing' against the Germans instead of leading a MASSIVE bombing campaign against them, we'd all be speaking German right now. Political correctness is killing the West. The next time Ahmadinejad tells his colleagues the way to hasten the coming of the Islamic Messiah is to launch a war to destroy Israel and America first, we should carpet bomb his country and the Middle East.
Dr. Dan wrote, "Here's the deal...it's not whether the universe was created via evolution or via "zap tree and zap monkey and zap human"...it's the fact that whichever way it was created, it still involved the Hand of Gd. We are wee tiny humans that can barely understand what He's all about...so rather than mucking through interpretations..the bottom line is that Gd is Great and He exists...the rest is commentary."
Of course God is Great and He exists, but ahem,.. I have to disagree with your other comment. Keep in mind none of us will agree with each other on every issue. But, that doesn't mean you still can't learn something from others. Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean that the rest of them is bad - well, that's is true in most cases. ;D
I have to strongly disagree with your "it's not whether the universe was created via evolution or via (creation)" and the "so rather than mucking through interpretations" comment, because it really does matter. This is an extremely important topic. The Bible makes it clear God created the world in 6 literal, 24-hour days, and rested on the 7th:
"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day." Exodus 20:11
I think it is sad that some people (not you specifically Dan) feel the need to change their beliefs just to fit in with an unproven theory. They try to massage the Bible into fitting a man made box. The earth is not billions of years old. No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal. No one has ever observed life spontaneously arising from nonliving matter. Matter cannot make itself out of nothing. Evolutionism is a religious worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense.
I would daresay that the main historic position of the Church has been young earth creation. It is primarily only in more recent times that the Church has sought to accommodate its views to "scientists" and believe in millions of years. The Bible's simplest interpretation is for a young earth creation account. A person cannot just ignore part of the Scripture and still claim to believe the Bible. Call me a literalist for my interpretation of the Bible, but that is what I am, and that, I believe very strongly, is how the Bible is to be taken, and I unashamedly hold to that.
If anyone wants instant proof of God's creation and that evolution is a ridiculous lie get up out of your chair and go look at yourself in the mirror. One human cell is more complicated than the space shuttle. Type into a Google search "Polonium halos" and find out what they are. These halos are solid scientific proof of the instantaneous creation spoken of in the Bible. And take an honest look at some examples of irreducible complexity too such as the EYE and the complex cell and the FLAGELLUM. This is all proof of an instant creation. If I said with a little rain, wind, and some erosion over a few millions years, the faces of four American Presidents created themselves on Mount Rushmore, you wouldn't believe me would you? And you'd be right. But, somehow there are people who believe DNA made itself out of nothing and produced everything we see today. Think about it.
After weighing all the evidence and reviewing the creation/evolution subject thousands of times, I believe and can say with all certainty that the Bible is infallible, inspired, inerrant Word of the living God. The universe was created in six literal, 24 hour days about 6,000 years ago as revealed in the creation verses of the Bible (see Mathew 19:4; Exodus 20:11; Genesis 1 & 5 etc……)
The theory of evolution is a lie from the Devil. Everyone knows that matter could not come from nothing exploding. Yet, they put this in your science book. This is what they believe. It is ridiculous! They do not have another choice except, "God created the heaven and the earth."
Please watch video:
Why Evolution is Sooooooooooooo Stupid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwuvYtBNZsk
Oh, and PS, I mean no offence by my comments. 8;)
May the LORD look on you with favor and give you peace.
-
Dr. Dan wrote, "The smart thing to do should have simply been to bomb the heck out of Iraq and not care if Saddam stayed in power or not. Same with Iran. The current war against the Muslims isn't one of conventional war where these armies are visible. They fight the guerrella fight..we need to counter with a better strategy than being target practice anywhere we go now. I think this is where Bush et al has failed miserably."
I agree 100% on this Dan. O0 If the World War II heroes used 'precision bombing' against the Germans instead of leading a MASSIVE bombing campaign against them, we'd all be speaking German right now. Political correctness is killing the West. The next time Ahmadinejad tells his colleagues the way to hasten the coming of the Islamic Messiah is to launch a war to destroy Israel and America first, we should carpet bomb his country and the Middle East.
Dr. Dan wrote, "Here's the deal...it's not whether the universe was created via evolution or via "zap tree and zap monkey and zap human"...it's the fact that whichever way it was created, it still involved the Hand of Gd. We are wee tiny humans that can barely understand what He's all about...so rather than mucking through interpretations..the bottom line is that Gd is Great and He exists...the rest is commentary."
Of course G-d is Great and He exists, but ahem,.. I have to disagree with your other comment. Keep in mind none of us will agree with each other on every issue. But, that doesn't mean you still can't learn something from others. Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean that the rest of them is bad - well, that's is true in most cases. ;D
I have to strongly disagree with your "it's not whether the universe was created via evolution or via (creation)" and the "so rather than mucking through interpretations" comment, because it really does matter. This is an extremely important topic. The Bible makes it clear G-d created the world in 6 literal, 24-hour days, and rested on the 7th:
"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day." Exodus 20:11
I think it is sad that some people (not you specifically Dan) feel the need to change their beliefs just to fit in with an unproven theory. They try to massage the Bible into fitting a man made box. The earth is not billions of years old. No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal. No one has ever observed life spontaneously arising from nonliving matter. Matter cannot make itself out of nothing. Evolutionism is a religious worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense.
I would daresay that the main historic position of the Church has been young earth creation. It is primarily only in more recent times that the Church has sought to accommodate its views to "scientists" and believe in millions of years. The Bible's simplest interpretation is for a young earth creation account. A person cannot just ignore part of the Scripture and still claim to believe the Bible. Call me a literalist for my interpretation of the Bible, but that is what I am, and that, I believe very strongly, is how the Bible is to be taken, and I unashamedly hold to that.
If anyone wants instant proof of G-d's creation and that evolution is a ridiculous lie get up out of your chair and go look at yourself in the mirror. One human cell is more complicated than the space shuttle. Type into a Google search "Polonium halos" and find out what they are. These halos are solid scientific proof of the instantaneous creation spoken of in the Bible. And take an honest look at some examples of irreducible complexity too such as the EYE and the complex cell and the FLAGELLUM. This is all proof of an instant creation. If I said with a little rain, wind, and some erosion over a few millions years, the faces of four American Presidents created themselves on Mount Rushmore, you wouldn't believe me would you? And you'd be right. But, somehow there are people who believe DNA made itself out of nothing and produced everything we see today. Think about it.
After weighing all the evidence and reviewing the creation/evolution subject thousands of times, I believe and can say with all certainty that the Bible is infallible, inspired, inerrant Word of the living G-d. The universe was created in six literal, 24 hour days about 6,000 years ago as revealed in the creation verses of the Bible (see Mathew 19:4; Exodus 20:11; Genesis 1 & 5 etc……)
The theory of evolution is a lie from the Devil. Everyone knows that matter could not come from nothing exploding. Yet, they put this in your science book. This is what they believe. It is ridiculous! They do not have another choice except, "G-d created the heaven and the earth."
Please watch video:
Why Evolution is Sooooooooooooo Stupid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwuvYtBNZsk
Oh, and PS, I mean no offence by my comments. 8;)
May the LORD look on you with favor and give you peace.
Thank you for your kind words...I have to disagree with you on the other commentary that the universe was literally created in 7 days. Not saying that Gd can't do it..Of course He can.. He can do anything. However, I think Gd is a lot more clever than just doing zap this and zap that..that theory of evolution can be the method by which He might have created the universe.
But it doesn't matter really...I'm interested in learning about evolution and scientific stuff. I see the beauty of Gd's handy-work either way. I just hope that someone who might disagree with me won't take away that beauty from my eyes. Seeing how many species are similar to each other fascinates me and just comes to show me even more so that Gd exists.
-
rational thinkers are allowed to believe, i just make no statements that i know anything.
Religious people that believe in god do i do not have an issue with. Its people who know it exists that bother me because it shows that they have closed their mind to the possibility that there is a better answer.
I can believe that there is life on other planets but i am not running around saying that you are incompetent for not believing the same thing as me.
-
Re: "...The Bible makes it clear G-d created the world in 6 literal, 24-hour days, and rested on the 7th: ..."
My Sunday school teacher who is the world's foremost authority on the Bible, told me that the Protestant Church split from the Catholic Church because of the big argument over whether or not the 6 literal, 24-hour days began the world's first "leap year".
She also told me that the Greek Orthodox Church split from the Catholics because of the big arguments they had over whether or not the 6 literal, 24-hour days began using Daylight Savings Time.
She also explained about how the different denominations split even further on the differences of opinion as to whether or not Genesis is describing Eastern Standard Time, Greenwich Mean Time, Pacific Time, etc...that's how the Methodists and Presbyterians and Baptists began.
The Unitarians wanted to be different so they voted to make Genesis the beginning of U.S. Naval Observatory Time.
Then, she explained how Albert Einstein discovered the atomic clock, and he set his wristwatch to it.
Religion can be most confusing unless one is armed with the facts.
-
rational thinkers are allowed to believe, i just make no statements that i know anything.
Religious people that believe in G-d do i do not have an issue with. Its people who know it exists that bother me because it shows that they have closed their mind to the possibility that there is a better answer.
I can believe that there is life on other planets but i am not running around saying that you are incompetent for not believing the same thing as me.
You're mistaken..There is nothign better than Gd...However, it is how one believes in Gd...It's just that certain people are capable of climbing a mountain to a certain point...some can't climb so they see Gd one way. Others are great climbers..they see Gd at a different yet higher level.
-
How do you personally allow for it? Give us an example.
-
How do you personally allow for it? Give us an example.
By admitting that you may not be right and continuing to look for answers other than you own, much the same as i do. Its just that currently we both believe certain things that are by no means the same but the path to get there was the same.rational thinkers are allowed to believe, i just make no statements that i know anything.
Religious people that believe in G-d do i do not have an issue with. Its people who know it exists that bother me because it shows that they have closed their mind to the possibility that there is a better answer.
I can believe that there is life on other planets but i am not running around saying that you are incompetent for not believing the same thing as me.
I personally allow for the possibility that the G-d of the Torah and my ancestors does not exist. Have you allowed for the possibility that He does exist?
read what i have written in this thread
http://jtf.org/forum_english/index.php?topic=13552.0 (http://jtf.org/forum_english/index.php?topic=13552.0)
-
At some point i do believe that we evolved from a single cellular organism. Where did this single cell organism come from? If you put the right materials together in the right quantities something is bound to happen. Where did the materials come from? Hydrogen. Where did hydrogen come from? A large explosion.
I don't pretend to know all the answers. I admit that what i think may have happened is probably wrong. I just strongly believe that because i cant figure out how it happened, that that necessarily means that there is a higher power. I am blissful in knowing that i am ignorant to the correct answer because i have an open enough mind to realize that none of the answers have reasonable support under a microscope.
I am not saying that i am right and you are wrong... I am saying you think this and i don't know but i don't believe what you believe.
So i admit that a god could exist i just dont believe that it did.
That answer your question now?
-
i turned elsewhere like evolution and the big bang theory.
Evolution and the big bang theory are NOT anti-religious or anti-God. They're theories about natural processes and physical realities based on physical or measurable evidence. They imply nothing about the existence or non-existence of God.
Here's a quote from Darwin himself:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Evolution obviously does not rule out a creator on its own, even if he did choose to be agnostic later in his life.
The Big Bang theory is actually the best option for theists, in my opinion, because it allows for a definite beginning to the universe.
Another reason for my loss of faith was the fact that religion (by this i will mean Christianity because it is the one that i have actually been a part of) has seemingly been able to adapt to the facts of the day. An example of this is when the world was flat G-d was in the heavens and the devil was in the ground however once it was realized that the world was flat it became metaphorical. Or the fact that things such as Limbo used to exist until recently when the Vatican made an announcement that it did not exist.
I'm not a Catholic (I'm non-denominational), so I can't explain a lot of the things they believe or don't believe in, but I do think that a study of nature should inform us in spiritual matters to some degree. The earliest scientists, "natural philosophers" pursued their interest as exploring God's creations.
But this is not what this argument was supposed to be about i would like to keep it somewhat focused on the foreign policy questions that i originally posed and not an argument on religion because i am a firm believer that everyone has the right to believe whatever they want and that i should not impose my religious views on others because that should be a personal relationship between yourself and whatever you consider to be a higher power.
You were the one who made your atheism relevant by bringing it up. I've been friends with atheists before even though I feel that they're misguided so I definitely don't hate atheists. I just think you should rethink the reasons why you fell away from faith because they seem to be a bit shaky.
With that in mind i apologize for starting this thread so close to the sabbath i was unaware that this site went into maintenance during that period.
Most of the people here aren't Jewish but the forum shuts down on the Sabbath to not encourage the Jewish posters to sin by breaking Sabbath on this forum. It makes sense. This is after all "Jewish Task Force".
-
i turned elsewhere like evolution and the big bang theory.
Evolution and the big bang theory are NOT anti-religious or anti-G-d. They're theories about natural processes and physical realities based on physical or measurable evidence. They imply nothing about the existence or non-existence of G-d.
Here's a quote from Darwin himself:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Evolution obviously does not rule out a creator on its own, even if he did choose to be agnostic later in his life.
The Big Bang theory is actually the best option for theists, in my opinion, because it allows for a definite beginning to the universe.
Another reason for my loss of faith was the fact that religion (by this i will mean Christianity because it is the one that i have actually been a part of) has seemingly been able to adapt to the facts of the day. An example of this is when the world was flat G-d was in the heavens and the devil was in the ground however once it was realized that the world was flat it became metaphorical. Or the fact that things such as Limbo used to exist until recently when the Vatican made an announcement that it did not exist.
I'm not a Catholic (I'm non-denominational), so I can't explain a lot of the things they believe or don't believe in, but I do think that a study of nature should inform us in spiritual matters to some degree. The earliest scientists, "natural philosophers" pursued their interest as exploring G-d's creations.
But this is not what this argument was supposed to be about i would like to keep it somewhat focused on the foreign policy questions that i originally posed and not an argument on religion because i am a firm believer that everyone has the right to believe whatever they want and that i should not impose my religious views on others because that should be a personal relationship between yourself and whatever you consider to be a higher power.
You were the one who made your atheism relevant by bringing it up. I've been friends with atheists before even though I feel that they're misguided so I definitely don't hate atheists. I just think you should rethink the reasons why you fell away from faith because they seem to be a bit shaky.
With that in mind i apologize for starting this thread so close to the sabbath i was unaware that this site went into maintenance during that period.
Most of the people here aren't Jewish but the forum shuts down on the Sabbath to not encourage the Jewish posters to sin by breaking Sabbath on this forum. It makes sense. This is after all "Jewish Task Force".
As for evolution and the big bang theory i disagree that they can exist with the messages in Judeo-Christian religions because according to the current doctrine of intelligent design everything is exactly as it was intended to be and the world started when god decided for it to. The big bang theory is a slap in the face to religion because it states that the world was created in an explosion. According to the first day of creation the earth was already there in its current form... It mentions nothing of the creation of earth only that the earth was there and it got lit up.
The First Day
The first recorded Words of God that we have are "Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3 NIV). The sun was already shining brightly, but God made the earth's thick new atmosphere allow diffuse light to penetrate to the surface. And so it was that the light was made separate from darkness. The first day of earth's creation was literally the first "day" as someone on earth's surface would experience it - a period of opaque light, and a period of darkness. (Genesis 1:3-5)
The Second Day
The separation of the waters. There was yet no liquid water, no oceans. All of the water was in the form of a vapor, a worldwide super-fog, extending a number of kilometers/miles up from the very hot (above the boiling temperature of water) bare-rock earth's surface (the earth's core remains molten right to the present day). God's "hovering over the waters" in verse 2 describes His being above that gaseous-water atmosphere, not a liquid ocean. God then caused most of the water to condense onto the cooling earth which simultaneously formed a whole-planet ocean and cleared the sky. (Genesis 1:6-8)
Earth The Third Day
The first appearance of dry ground. The further cooling of the surface set in motion a process of natural contraction, uplifting and motion of the crust (the process continues today, called "plate tectonics"). The earth changed from a smooth one-level molten "cue ball" to a planet with an irregular surface with ocean basins and continental landmasses. With dry ground available, the first plants were made to grow in great abundance. (Genesis 1:9-13)
The Fourth Day
With the sky now clear, the sun, moon and stars were dependably visible. They were to "serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years." The sun marked the day (sunset to sunset), the moon the month (new moon to new moon), and the stars the seasons (constellations are seen in particular seasons e.g. "Orion" is visible in winter in the northern hemisphere, which is summer in the southern hemisphere). (Genesis 1:14-19)
The Fifth Day
Great numbers of birds and sea creatures. God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." (Genesis 1:20-23)
The Sixth Day
Vast numbers of land animals. Man. From the man, woman (humans today are just now discovering how to genetically alter fertilized embryos, and even to create one human from the tissue of another - known as "cloning"). (Genesis 1:24-31)
The Seventh Day
The Sabbath Day. "By the seventh day God had finished the work He had been doing; so on the seventh day He rested from all His work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it He rested [or ceased] from all the work of creating that He had done." The day that is the basis for The Fourth Commandment. (Genesis 2:2-3)
You are correct infact that darwin was actually a Christian when he came up with the theories of evolution but that does not change the fact that they are not accepted as part of intelligent design which is the current creationist doctrine.
Also the reason that i brought up my religious beliefs into the argument is because it is a jewish website and we are talking about Israel which is considered a holy land to their religion and therefore it is extremely relevant. Although it is relevant i did not want it to be the focus of the argument because it takes away from the larger problem.
As for the maintenance period i was just stating that i understood why it was happening and apologised for starting a controversial topic so close to the sabbath period where people had to think about what they wanted to say but were not allowed to type it. I understand how you can be passionate about a subject.
-
At some point i do believe that we evolved from a single cellular organism. Where did this single cell organism come from? If you put the right materials together in the right quantities something is bound to happen. Where did the materials come from? Hydrogen. Where did hydrogen come from? A large explosion.
I don't pretend to know all the answers. I admit that what i think may have happened is probably wrong. I just strongly believe that because i cant figure out how it happened, that that necessarily means that there is a higher power. I am blissful in knowing that i am ignorant to the correct answer because i have an open enough mind to realize that none of the answers have reasonable support under a microscope.
I am not saying that i am right and you are wrong... I am saying you think this and i don't know but i don't believe what you believe.
So i admit that a G-d could exist i just dont believe that it did.
That answer your question now?
Thanks for the answer; now we're getting somewhere. It proves that you are not the "athiest" you say you are, just an agnostic. Lack of knowledge is different than outright rebellion, for if you had a greater measure of belief, you would accept upon yourself the Seven Laws of Noah (which include the belief in G-d and not to blasphem His Name). Your kind of attitude towards G-d is of course considered incorrect, but not wicked, at least by Jewish standards.
You are absolutely correct however when i explain to most people that i am agnostic most people do not know what that means so it is more convenient to state that i am atheist because at least people then know where my beliefs lie.
-
You guy's, I respect your opinions, but I don't know where your getting your ideas from? Either the universe was designed, or it came about by random chance. These are the only options.
I'm surprised SOME of you do NOT believe G-d exists, and a few who do believe, think G-d (could) have used evolution to make everything. WOW! I just want you to know the evolution theory is in complete contradiction to what the Bible teaches. Just so you know that. And there is absolutely no proof it took place. A (g)od that has to use suffering, misfits, death, a (g)od that doesn't know what he wants the first time and can't make it right in six days like He said, that is a retarded (g)od. I would not worship that one at all. [Such a (g)od is] Certainly not the G-d of the Bible.
The Bible makes it very clear G-d created the world in 6 literal, 24-hour days, and rested on the 7th:
"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day." Exodus 20:11
G-d took six days, instead of a single instant, to finish His work of creating and making all things to be a model for humanity (Genesis 2:1-3). G-d's week was of precisely the same duration and pattern as man's regular week.
As far as the Greek Orthodox Church split from the Catholics, this denomination splitting from that one, sorry, I could care less. All I care about is what G-d's Word says and not some branch of the Church. Good! Let em' go! Who needs them! The Bible's simplest interpretation is for a young earth creation account. A person cannot just ignore part of the Scripture and still claim to believe the Bible.
Have any of you ever heard of Irreducible Complexity? Irreducible Complexity means that something requires all its parts in order to function, so therefore it couldn't have possibly evolved. A good example is the eye. Or the Flagellum bacteria.
Check this out: There is this little nanotechnology machine far beyond the state of the art: a microminiaturized rotary motor and propeller system that drives a tiny vessel through liquid. The engine and drive mechanism are composed of 40 parts, including a rotor, stator, driveshaft, bushings, universal joint, and flexible propeller. The engine is powered by a flow of ions, can rotate at up to 100,000 RPM ... and can reverse direction in a quarter of a rotation. The system comes with an automatic feedback control mechanism. The engine itself is about 1/100,000th of an inch wide -- far smaller than can be seen by the human eye. Let me introduce to you a certain motorized bacteria that reveal immense engineering complexity. There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY this could have evolved. IMPOSSIBLE. This is proof of a Creator.
Evolution's Nightmare & Demise.
The Tiny Flagellar Motor of Escherichia coli (E coli Bacteria)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N09BIEzDlI
Have a nice day/night.
Ciao.
-
You still seem to believe the fallacy that because you cant explain something that proves that there is a higher power. The only thing that this proves is that you cant explain it.
-
Dejavu wrote, "You still seem to believe the fallacy that because you cant explain
something that proves that there is a higher power. The only thing that this proves
is that you cant explain it."
You keep convincing yourself of that Dejavu. O0
I just gave you proof of creation.
The Tiny Motor of the E coli Bacteria
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N09BIEzDlI
This bacteria could not have made itself. Yet, you come up with the comment
above? I'm sorry, but that is not even reasonable statement. Hmm, maybe you
don't even think we are here right now. Maybe this is aaaaaaalll just a dream. :D
Using your logic, if I can't prove who made your car, it doesn't prove someone
made it, all it proves is that I cant explain it. Yeah! Okaaaaaaaay. :::D
This just in: Dejavu, your car just didn't make itself out of nothing. It had a Maker.
Just like that motorized bacteria in the video.
I'm curious. Have you even studied the Bible Dejavu? This seems to me a subject
you don't want to be wrong about.
"I (G-d) have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have
stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded." Isaiah 45:12
-
Dejavu wrote, "You still seem to believe the fallacy that because you cant explain
something that proves that there is a higher power. The only thing that this proves
is that you cant explain it."
You keep convincing yourself of that Dejavu. O0
Using your logic if I am unable to prove who made your car, this doesn't prove
someone made it, all it proves is that I cant explain it.
Have you even studied the Bible Dejavu? I'm just curious. Why do you seem so
willing to close your mind to it?
Why yes i actually have studied the bible as part of my confirmation in the Lutheran Church. In fact it was reading the bible and asking questions about what i had read that led to my loss of faith.
Also im not the one with the closed mind here i have admitted that i could be wrong i just would perfer not to proclaim that i know anything because there is no way to know. Unless you want to put all of your faith in a book that was written by human beings but somehow divinely inspired.
-
The Tiny Motor of the E coli Bacteria
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N09BIEzDlI
my response...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w&NR=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w&NR=1)
as for intelligent design explain for me a few things...
1. if there is a design why is it that virtually everyone is different.
2. why do people seem to gain characteristics based upon the region that they are in... examples of this are the shirpas that are native to the area around Mt. Everest. They are much shorter than the average person yet at the same time they have much larger lungs and heart than the average person. How does ID explain things like this or the fact that there is no known reason for the appendix in the body.
3. why do most embryos of mammals look the same for a large portion of the maternity process. When humans are still in the embryo form they appear to have a tail.
4. how do you explain the similarities on the genealogical scale of monkeys and humans.
-
Just want to say, I've given you extremely strong evidence proving
a Creator. Just wanted to point that out.
Dejavu wrote, "In fact it was reading the bible and asking questions
about what i had read that led to my loss of faith."
Y'know, most people reject God because of their lifestyle. Not because
they don't believe He exists. The problem with that is, the scoffers are
willingly ignorant. You know, the Bible warned us that was going to happen.
In 2 Peter chapter 3 it says,
"Knowing this first, there shall come in the last days scoffers."
Did you know there are people that scoff at the Bible? I deal with them
on a regular basis. I attract them like a magnet! Just found one now in
Dejavu.
And it says they are going to "walk after their own lusts". See, the reason
they scoff at this Book is because of their sin, not because of their science.
There is no scientific reason to reject the Bible. But they don’t like this Bible
because it chaps their hide. Well, get some Vaseline, man, you are going to
need it! Because we’re going to be judged according to this book—whether
you like it or not.
Dejavu wrote, "Also im not the one with the closed mind here i have
admitted that i could be wrong"
If you believe your eye evolved & made itself, then you are being more than
close minded. Like I said, this isn't a joke, either the universe was designed, or
it came about by random chance. These are the only options. That's it. And
you better make sure your right because if your wrong, your going away for
a loooooooooong time. I do not make this statement lightly. The message
and seriousness of Hell is so real and so urgent, that I don't think any warning
about Hell's reality and pain can ever be overestimated or exaggerated. Hell is
much worse than anything any living human being can ever imagine.
Dejavu wrote, "Unless you want to put all of your faith in a book that was
written by human beings but somehow divinely inspired."
Typical response. Well, now I know you haven't read the Bible from cover to
cover or else you would have more appreciation for a Book that was written
over a period of approxomately 1,600 years, and been proven archeologically
true time and time again. Human history would be completely lost if it were not
for the Holy Bible. The Bible is the only written account in the world that conveys
a history of mankind and his existence on this planet. Just to get clear on my
background: I believe the Bible is totally true, word by word. I believe it is a
Word of God. I believe the Bible doesn't have any contradictions whatsoever.
I'm referring to the King James version, not the modern watered down versions.
God is unchangeable. God's word is unchangeable too. Matthew 24:35, tells us,
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
Psalms 12:6-7 says, "The words of the LORD are PURE words... Thou shalt
KEEP them, O LORD, thou shalt PRESERVE them from this generation for ever."
God promised in Psalms 12:6-7, to "preserved" His word. And He did. Search it
out for yourself. Do you have any idea how many Bible prophecies have come
true proving the Bible is the infallible, inspired, inerrant Word of the living God?
Search that out too. Here's a hint: (Prophecy Israel Reborn 1948) Look it up.
But, sorry, it's getting late and I just don't have time to explain this anymore.
Ciao.
-
Dejavu wrote, "Also im not the one with the closed mind here i have
admitted that i could be wrong"
If you believe your eye evolved & made itself, then you are being more than
close minded. Like I said, this isn't a joke, either the universe was designed, or
it came about by random chance. These are the only options. That's it. And
you better make sure your right because if your wrong, your going away for
a loooooooooong time. I do not make this statement lightly. The message
and seriousness of Hell is so real and so urgent, that I don't think any warning
about Hell's reality and pain can ever be overestimated or exaggerated. Hell is
much worse than anything any living human being can ever imagine.
"And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Matthew 25:40
The Muslims you call dogs and pigs are still innocents in many cases so... See you there ;)
-
Dejavu wrote, "Also im not the one with the closed mind here i have
admitted that i could be wrong"
If you believe your eye evolved & made itself, then you are being more than
close minded. Like I said, this isn't a joke, either the universe was designed, or
it came about by random chance. These are the only options. That's it. And
you better make sure your right because if your wrong, your going away for
a loooooooooong time. I do not make this statement lightly. The message
and seriousness of Hell is so real and so urgent, that I don't think any warning
about Hell's reality and pain can ever be overestimated or exaggerated. Hell is
much worse than anything any living human being can ever imagine.
"And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Matthew 25:40
The Muslims you call dogs and pigs are still innocents in many cases so... See you there ;)
Dejavu. I get a déjà vu.
do you know any muslims?
have you had friendship with them so you can talk about politics? They all support Osama bin Laden, but they just refuse to tell you that, unless they trust you.
-
dejavu How is the weather in Iran?
-
Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Matthew 25:40
You might have been a Lutheran at one time but i see you lack understanding of the Bible. During that time Jesus never considered Gentiles his family Jesus considered the Jewish people His family. Jesus said (Matthew 25:40) "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren (the Jewish people… Gentiles were never called His brethren), ye have done it unto me.I also think you should look up Matt. 15:21-28 ,maybe you will understand the times and the full perspective.
-
You still seem to believe the fallacy that because you cant explain something that proves that there is a higher power. The only thing that this proves is that you cant explain it.
I don't think it is meant to be explained...we're too small to understand anything Gd does.
-
MassuhDGoodName sets the record straight!...
===================================================
as for intelligent design explain for me a few things...
1. if there is a design why is it that virtually everyone is different.
-Everyone is not different!...Ask any crime victim attempting to identify their attacker out of a police lineup of Negro suspects!...The victim is always unable to pick one because "Negroes all look alike"!
2. why do people seem to gain characteristics based upon the region that they are in... examples of this are the shirpas that are native to the area around Mt. Everest. They are much shorter than the average person yet at the same time they have much larger lungs and heart than the average person. How does ID explain things like this or the fact that there is no known reason for the appendix in the body.
-That's an easy one...First of all, the Sherpas all smoked cigarettes when they were teenagers. Their mothers all warned them that "Smoking will stunt your growth!", but they are a rebellious people and continued to smoke. That's why they became short...their lungs and heart are enlarged now in a futile attempt to breathe!
-The appendix is arguably the most intelligent design of all...Doctors and surgeons all must make a living, so the Creator of all things invented an appendix to help with their mortgage payments.
3. why do most embryos of mammals look the same for a large portion of the maternity process.
-This is so cannibals can try and make excuses for eating pregnant missionaries who crash-land in Africa! "How did we know it was really a human?"
When humans are still in the embryo form they appear to have a tail.
-Absolutely untrue. Only people destined to behave like jackasses have those tails, and obviously the few embryos which the "scientists" studied just happened to be the embryos of some real jackasses.
4. how do you explain the similarities on the genealogical scale of monkeys and humans.
-That's another easy one...Every Great Artist has to work and re-work their artistic creations until they are satisfied with the end result!
-
Besides, after NYC was nuked the entire USA would be united to destroy Iran.
A nuke going off in NYC wouldn't be 100,000 dead, it'd be more like 5-9 million dead.
Would the USA be onto Iran though? Iran could claim that they had nothing to do with it, they could have smuggled the nuke across the border from mexico in a suitcase, and had some random man set it off, there would be no trail to follow to lead to iran.
If it can be hidden in a suitcase its hardly going to have the distructive force to take out an entire city. Also if a nuclear weapon is involved there would have to be some kind of involvement at the state level. Anyone with the will to do so can hijack a plane but a lot more sophistication is necessary to form a nuclear attack.
You could flatten most cities with a nuke that could fit in a suit case, there's no need for any trail to be left, by shrinking in down to suit case size, the thing that you are removing is the method for remote detonation, that's the majority of mass in most nukes, if you're prepared to die setting it off, you could flatten New York with a suit case sized device, iran could send a man to do just that, and say it was nothing to do with them, who could prove otherwise? The man would have been incinerated, so he could not provide any kind of evidence, there would be no way to trace where it had come from, unless the man was intercepted before he detonated it.
-
Dejavu wrote, "Also im not the one with the closed mind here i have
admitted that i could be wrong"
If you believe your eye evolved & made itself, then you are being more than
close minded. Like I said, this isn't a joke, either the universe was designed, or
it came about by random chance. These are the only options. That's it. And
you better make sure your right because if your wrong, your going away for
a loooooooooong time. I do not make this statement lightly. The message
and seriousness of Hell is so real and so urgent, that I don't think any warning
about Hell's reality and pain can ever be overestimated or exaggerated. Hell is
much worse than anything any living human being can ever imagine.
"And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Matthew 25:40
The Muslims you call dogs and pigs are still innocents in many cases so... See you there ;)
Dejavu. I get a déjà vu.
do you know any muslims?
have you had friendship with them so you can talk about politics? They all support Osama bin Laden, but they just refuse to tell you that, unless they trust you.
Actually I do thanks to my time in the military I actually have several friends who live over in that area that I talk to over skype regularly as well as some that are lucky enough to live in the US on work visas or who have gotten asylum. Also I have spoken politics with them and shockingly enough they are not insane. They support their leadership at times but at the same time the ones that I have met do not have this must wipe Israel off the map mentality that you allege. Now I’m not going to make the argument that that mentality does not exist but I do believe that it is far from the majority in that region and a religion should not be blamed for the views of some.
dejavu How is the weather in Iran?
… http://weather.yahoo.com/forecast/IRXX0018.html (http://weather.yahoo.com/forecast/IRXX0018.html)
Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Matthew 25:40
You might have been a Lutheran at one time but i see you lack understanding of the Bible. During that time Jesus never considered Gentiles his family Jesus considered the Jewish people His family. Jesus said (Matthew 25:40) "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren (the Jewish people… Gentiles were never called His brethren), ye have done it unto me.I also think you should look up Matt. 15:21-28 ,maybe you will understand the times and the full perspective.
http://osdir.com/ml/security.opdb.cvs/2006-05/msg00000.html?rfp=dta (http://The deducted Few, the disaffected Many, and our spiritual Leaders)
That part of the bible has been skewed from its original form which left it up to interpretation. And if I was a religious person I would take my brethren to mean the people of the earth since we are all said to be the children of god. Now there is also another argument that brethren only referred to literally his disciples who he referred to as his brothers. I don’t understand how brethren could be skewed to refer to Israel in any way since it did not even exist in its current form until May 14, 1948
You still seem to believe the fallacy that because you cant explain something that proves that there is a higher power. The only thing that this proves is that you cant explain it.
I don't think it is meant to be explained...we're too small to understand anything Gd does.
Sounds like a reasonable compromise and basically what I have been saying. I don’t necessarily understand it but at the same time I don’t pretend to. God may be the easy answer but just because it is easy does not make it right to me.
MassuhDGoodName sets the record straight!...
===================================================
as for intelligent design explain for me a few things...
1. if there is a design why is it that virtually everyone is different.
-Everyone is not different!...Ask any crime victim attempting to identify their attacker out of a police lineup of Negro suspects!...The victim is always unable to pick one because "Negroes all look alike"!
2. why do people seem to gain characteristics based upon the region that they are in... examples of this are the shirpas that are native to the area around Mt. Everest. They are much shorter than the average person yet at the same time they have much larger lungs and heart than the average person. How does ID explain things like this or the fact that there is no known reason for the appendix in the body.
-That's an easy one...First of all, the Sherpas all smoked cigarettes when they were teenagers. Their mothers all warned them that "Smoking will stunt your growth!", but they are a rebellious people and continued to smoke. That's why they became short...their lungs and heart are enlarged now in a futile attempt to breathe!
-The appendix is arguably the most intelligent design of all...Doctors and surgeons all must make a living, so the Creator of all things invented an appendix to help with their mortgage payments.
3. why do most embryos of mammals look the same for a large portion of the maternity process.
-This is so cannibals can try and make excuses for eating pregnant missionaries who crash-land in Africa! "How did we know it was really a human?"
When humans are still in the embryo form they appear to have a tail.
-Absolutely untrue. Only people destined to behave like jackasses have those tails, and obviously the few embryos which the "scientists" studied just happened to be the embryos of some real jackasses.
4. how do you explain the similarities on the genealogical scale of monkeys and humans.
-That's another easy one...Every Great Artist has to work and re-work their artistic creations until they are satisfied with the end result!
Do you really believe anything you just typed?
1. I don’t walk through Chinatown saying hey look Jackie Chan. The victims are unable to identify their attacker because in times of stress the adrenaline in your body rises which puts all of the bodies resources towards escape or action and not towards memory. It’s called the fight or flight response.
2. I hope you are joking with your reasoning behind sherpas. And as for the appendix being the most intelligent design of all then where was the intelligence for all the years leading up to modern medicine before it was discovered.
3. ”-This is so cannibals can try and make excuses for eating pregnant missionaries who crash-land in Africa! "How did we know it was really a human?"
………wow
“-Absolutely untrue. Only people destined to behave like jackasses have those tails, and obviously the few embryos which the "scientists" studied just happened to be the embryos of some real jackasses.”
(http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/on-line/lifecycle/images/1-2-3-1-5-0-0-0-0-0-0.jpg)
4. But land mammals and man were made on the sixth day… perhaps he was just too busy to think up several different designs.
Besides, after NYC was nuked the entire USA would be united to destroy Iran.
A nuke going off in NYC wouldn't be 100,000 dead, it'd be more like 5-9 million dead.
Would the USA be onto Iran though? Iran could claim that they had nothing to do with it, they could have smuggled the nuke across the border from mexico in a suitcase, and had some random man set it off, there would be no trail to follow to lead to iran.
If it can be hidden in a suitcase its hardly going to have the destructive force to take out an entire city. Also if a nuclear weapon is involved there would have to be some kind of involvement at the state level. Anyone with the will to do so can hijack a plane but a lot more sophistication is necessary to form a nuclear attack.
You could flatten most cities with a nuke that could fit in a suit case, there's no need for any trail to be left, by shrinking in down to suit case size, the thing that you are removing is the method for remote detonation, that's the majority of mass in most nukes, if you're prepared to die setting it off, you could flatten New York with a suit case sized device, iran could send a man to do just that, and say it was nothing to do with them, who could prove otherwise? The man would have been incinerated, so he could not provide any kind of evidence, there would be no way to trace where it had come from, unless the man was intercepted before he detonated it.
If it were nuclear then it would be state sponsored that is not something that someone can just go to the corner store and buy. Also seeing as they are in the infancy of a weapons program their bombs will be extremely underpowered. I’m not going to argue that the US probably has bombs that could level a city and fit in a suitcase but the Iranians would have to have a lot of advanced testing before they would be able to make anything smaller than the size of a mini cooper take out a city.
-
dejavu, you obviously don't understand how nuclear weapons work, there would be nothing hard at all about making a suitcase nuke, if you can just get hold of enough enriched enough uranium, the majority of the bulk of a nuke is normally the trigger mechanism, if you don't mind detonating it personally, and dying in the blast, it would be very easy for it to be suitcase sized, yes, the state of iran would be sponsoring the attack, but there would be nothing to link them to it, their agent, with the bomb would sneak across the border from Mexico, travel to New York, or Washington, open his suitcase, and detonate the device, how could that be traced back to iran?
-
The problem however is that Iran would have to enrich uranium to the point much beyond what they would be able to do without a lot of help.
-
The problem however is that Iran would have to enrich uranium to the point much beyond what they would be able to do without a lot of help.
They are determined to get a A-bomb.
Do not make the mistake they aren't able to do this themselves.
if we don't stop them , or other turd-world-countries, then we'll have 50+ nations with nukes by 2020.
-
The problem however is that Iran would have to enrich uranium to the point much beyond what they would be able to do without a lot of help.
No one helped the USA in 1945.
-
The problem however is that Iran would have to enrich uranium to the point much beyond what they would be able to do without a lot of help.
No one helped the USA in 1945.
The USA couldn't have done it.
the bomb was made by German Jews.
-
The problem however is that Iran would have to enrich uranium to the point much beyond what they would be able to do without a lot of help.
No one helped the USA in 1945.
The USA couldn't have done it.
the bomb was made by German Jews.
The majority of the team was American (a few Brits were there too), the USA provided the money, and the German Jews provided the leadership... I know, I was simplifying, slightly... But, the fact is that now that the theory is understood, practically anyone with the right equipment and access to uranium and the internet for information can make a nuke.
-
The problem however is that Iran would have to enrich uranium to the point much beyond what they would be able to do without a lot of help.
No one helped the USA in 1945.
The USA couldn't have done it.
the bomb was made by German Jews.
The majority of the team was American (a few Brits were there too), the USA provided the money, and the German Jews provided the leadership... I know, I was simplifying, slightly... But, the fact is that now that the theory is understood, practically anyone with the right equipment and access to uranium and the internet for information can make a nuke.
that's more or less what happened.
It is true. we will face a dozen of muslim countries with nukes, unless we systematically take them out.
-
Actually I do thanks to my time in the military I actually have several friends who live over in that area that I talk to over skype regularly as well as some that are lucky enough to live in the US on work visas or who have gotten asylum.
What Military? What were you Marine? Army?
-
Dejavu wrote, "The Muslims you call dogs and pigs are
still innocents in many cases so... See you there (in hell)."
You should make sure you know what your talking about first
before you accuse people. I've made my position clear on this.
READ HERE:
http://jtf.org/forum_english/index.php?topic=13110.msg144273#msg144273
Secondly, whoever is posting those embryo drawings as
proof for evolution (if you are) those are Ernst Haeckel's
embryo gill slit drawings. A guy named Ernst Haeckel made
up this whole thing back in 1869. See, Charlie Darwin's book
came out in 1859. He said, “We should find evidence for my
theory.” Ten years later they had none. So Ernst Haeckel in
Germany - who also hated God - Ernst Haeckel said, “ I'm
going to make some evidence.”
He took the drawing of a human and a dog embryo at four
weeks development and he changed them and made them
look exactly alike. He traveled all over Germany with his fake
drawings and just about single-handedly converted Germany
to being atheistic.
Well, somebody a few years ago decided to check out his
drawings and see how accurate they were. He blew it. He lied,
actually. And it was proven that he lied. He was taken to court
at his own university, the University of Jena. And he was convicted
of fraud in 1874. One hundred and twenty-five years ago Ernst
Haeckel confessed to lying about this embryology thing. He lied.
And he confessed it. So anyone using embryo gill slit drawings
as evidence for evolution doesn't know what they're talking about.
OH, and guess what. Even though they've been proven a hoax, that
concept is still in textbooks today. Biology books today still show
the human embryo with gill pouches. Proven wrong 125 years ago.
College textbooks still have it. Simply a lie. Proven wrong in 1874.
Anyways, don't mean to be rude, but you need help Dejavu. My
prayers are for you that your eyes open to the truth of Creation
and the Bible in this lifetime before it's too late.
Copyright © 2007 Dejavu-Needs-Help™
-
Actually I do thanks to my time in the military I actually have several friends who live over in that area that I talk to over skype regularly as well as some that are lucky enough to live in the US on work visas or who have gotten asylum.
What Military? What were you Marine? Army?
i graduated from high school in 1998 and went into the Marines. I served proudly and went to Afghanistan in late 2001 and most of 2002. Luckily when i got home i was allowed to get into the IRR and out of active duty. After more 4 years in the IRR as far as i know now they have no ability to ask for me to go anywhere. Now i believe that what we were doing in Afghanistan was completely justified and that we should have done what we needed to and gotten back out. The war in Iraq is a complete unprovoked farce. That is why i am so interested in politics and that is why i believe so strongly that RP is the one who understands what needs to be done to restore the country that we are willing to give our lives for. I would proudly give my life for my country but there is no value in a first strike unless their first strike is imminent.
I argue the way i do because i still have a lot of friends that are over there giving their lives for a cause that almost none of us believe in anymore.
Dejavu wrote, "The Muslims you call dogs and pigs are
still innocents in many cases so... See you there (in hell)."
You should make sure you know what your talking about first
before you accuse people. I've made my position clear on this.
READ HERE:
http://jtf.org/forum_english/index.php?topic=13110.msg144273#msg144273
Secondly, whoever is posting those embryo drawings as
proof for evolution (if you are) those are Ernst Haeckel's
embryo gill slit drawings. A guy named Ernst Haeckel made
up this whole thing back in 1869. See, Charlie Darwin's book
came out in 1859. He said, “We should find evidence for my
theory.” Ten years later they had none. So Ernst Haeckel in
Germany - who also hated G-d - Ernst Haeckel said, “ I'm
going to make some evidence.”
He took the drawing of a human and a dog embryo at four
weeks development and he changed them and made them
look exactly alike. He traveled all over Germany with his fake
drawings and just about single-handedly converted Germany
to being atheistic.
Well, somebody a few years ago decided to check out his
drawings and see how accurate they were. He blew it. He lied,
actually. And it was proven that he lied. He was taken to court
at his own university, the University of Jena. And he was convicted
of fraud in 1874. One hundred and twenty-five years ago Ernst
Haeckel confessed to lying about this embryology thing. He lied.
And he confessed it. So anyone using embryo gill slit drawings
as evidence for evolution doesn't know what they're talking about.
OH, and guess what. Even though they've been proven a hoax, that
concept is still in textbooks today. Biology books today still show
the human embryo with gill pouches. Proven wrong 125 years ago.
College textbooks still have it. Simply a lie. Proven wrong in 1874.
Anyways, don't mean to be rude, but you need help Dejavu. My
prayers are for you that your eyes open to the truth of Creation
and the Bible in this lifetime before it's too late.
Copyright © 2007 Dejavu-Needs-Help™
Ok i'll recant the statement in regards to you directly however it still does stand for many of the sentiments that i have seen on this board that are definitely leaning to the race/religion supremacist view points. My personal opinion is that i am no better or worse than anyone else... just different. I have my opinions as far as what it means to be moral or where i came from but thats what it is an opinion. I disagree with you on the existence of god as well as the process of evolution. I don't pretend that i think that you are an idiot because you don't believe the same thing as i do. Your life experiences have just lead you to believe something different. As for the embryo thing i actually was a biochemistry major when i first got into college and i have actually seen some of these "murdered" aborted fetuses and i don't understand how though you can argue with pictures that were taken not drawn that show similar features.
Also please remove me from your prayers i'd respectfully rather not waste your time.
-
Actually I do thanks to my time in the military I actually have several friends who live over in that area that I talk to over skype regularly as well as some that are lucky enough to live in the US on work visas or who have gotten asylum.
What Military? What were you Marine? Army?
i graduated from high school in 1998 and went into the Marines. I served proudly and went to Afghanistan in late 2001 and most of 2002. Luckily when i got home i was allowed to get into the IRR and out of active duty. After more 4 years in the IRR as far as i know now they have no ability to ask for me to go anywhere. Now i believe that what we were doing in Afghanistan was completely justified and that we should have done what we needed to and gotten back out. The war in Iraq is a complete unprovoked farce. That is why i am so interested in politics and that is why i believe so strongly that RP is the one who understands what needs to be done to restore the country that we are willing to give our lives for. I would proudly give my life for my country but there is no value in a first strike unless their first strike is imminent.
I argue the way i do because i still have a lot of friends that are over there giving their lives for a cause that almost none of us believe in anymore.
Dejavu wrote, "The Muslims you call dogs and pigs are
still innocents in many cases so... See you there (in hell)."
You should make sure you know what your talking about first
before you accuse people. I've made my position clear on this.
READ HERE:
http://jtf.org/forum_english/index.php?topic=13110.msg144273#msg144273
Secondly, whoever is posting those embryo drawings as
proof for evolution (if you are) those are Ernst Haeckel's
embryo gill slit drawings. A guy named Ernst Haeckel made
up this whole thing back in 1869. See, Charlie Darwin's book
came out in 1859. He said, “We should find evidence for my
theory.” Ten years later they had none. So Ernst Haeckel in
Germany - who also hated G-d - Ernst Haeckel said, “ I'm
going to make some evidence.”
He took the drawing of a human and a dog embryo at four
weeks development and he changed them and made them
look exactly alike. He traveled all over Germany with his fake
drawings and just about single-handedly converted Germany
to being atheistic.
Well, somebody a few years ago decided to check out his
drawings and see how accurate they were. He blew it. He lied,
actually. And it was proven that he lied. He was taken to court
at his own university, the University of Jena. And he was convicted
of fraud in 1874. One hundred and twenty-five years ago Ernst
Haeckel confessed to lying about this embryology thing. He lied.
And he confessed it. So anyone using embryo gill slit drawings
as evidence for evolution doesn't know what they're talking about.
OH, and guess what. Even though they've been proven a hoax, that
concept is still in textbooks today. Biology books today still show
the human embryo with gill pouches. Proven wrong 125 years ago.
College textbooks still have it. Simply a lie. Proven wrong in 1874.
Anyways, don't mean to be rude, but you need help Dejavu. My
prayers are for you that your eyes open to the truth of Creation
and the Bible in this lifetime before it's too late.
Copyright © 2007 Dejavu-Needs-Help™
Ok i'll recant the statement in regards to you directly however it still does stand for many of the sentiments that i have seen on this board that are definitely leaning to the race/religion supremacist view points. My personal opinion is that i am no better or worse than anyone else... just different. I have my opinions as far as what it means to be moral or where i came from but thats what it is an opinion. I disagree with you on the existence of G-d as well as the process of evolution. I don't pretend that i think that you are an idiot because you don't believe the same thing as i do. Your life experiences have just lead you to believe something different. As for the embryo thing i actually was a biochemistry major when i first got into college and i have actually seen some of these "murdered" aborted fetuses and i don't understand how though you can argue with pictures that were taken not drawn that show similar features.
Also please remove me from your prayers i'd respectfully rather not waste your time.
NO that last part wasn't a nice thing to say...When someone tells me that he wants to pray for me, my response is, "thank you so much, I will pray for you too."
-
Also please remove me from your prayers i'd respectfully rather not waste your time.
Ok...........................moving on............
Now answer my question please. Which military did you serve?
-
Dejavu wrote, "Ok i'll recant the statement in regards
to you directly (re: his false racist accusation)."
Thank you. (read Malachi 2:10, Acts 17:26)
Dejavu wrote, "I disagree with you on the existence
of G-d as well as the process of evolution."
You mean you don't believe about 20 billion years ago
there was this big bang where nothing exploded and
produced everything? You don't believe from this big
bang the earth cooled down from a hot fiery mass and
developed a hard rocky crust, then slowly, somehow,
somewhere, long ago and far away, the melted rocks
in the oceans... the dust and particles.. the minerals out
of the rocks.. became a cosmic soup of some kind and
this soup came alive. And the first life form found someone
to marry, and something to eat and slowly evolved into
everything we see today? Well, if you don't believe that,
and you don't believe in G-d... and those are the only
two choices.. what do you believe in then??
Ahhh... nevermind. I don't care at this point.
Dejavu wrote, "I don't pretend that i think that you are
an idiot because you don't believe the same thing as i do."
I've never said any such thing. Is this another false accusation
about me? Well, now you are an idiot. Sorry.
Dejavu wrote, "Your life experiences have just lead you
to believe something different."
That's partially true, however, when truth is staring you right in
the face and you still don't want it because it is related to God
and the Bible, that puts you in a whole new category.
“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no G-d.” Psalm 14:1
Dejavu wrote, "As for the embryo thing i actually was a
biochemistry major when i first got into college and i have
actually seen some of these "murdered" aborted fetuses and
i don't understand how though you can argue with pictures
that were taken not drawn that show similar features."
You still don't get it. We will now upgrade your brain, please
wait...searching...searching...still searching...sorry NO BRAIN
found!
The guy who drew those embryo pictures your talking about
was Ernst Haeckel, he was a fraudster. HE LIED, actually. And
it was proven that he lied. He was taken to court at his own
university, in Germany. And he was convicted of fraud in 1874!
If you are using embryo's as evidence for evolution then you are
either ignorant of the facts, or you are a bold face liar.
Fraud rediscovered
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/fraud.asp
Dejavu wrote, "Also please remove me from your prayers
i'd respectfully rather not waste your time."
Praying for you is NOT a waste of time - but, talking to you is.
I'm done with you. Everyone has the right to be stupid but you
abuse the privilege.
Goodbye.
-
Also please remove me from your prayers i'd respectfully rather not waste your time.
Ok...........................moving on............
Now answer my question please. Which military did you serve?
It was in the quote... marines
-
Also please remove me from your prayers i'd respectfully rather not waste your time.
Ok...........................moving on............
Now answer my question please. Which military did you serve?
It was in the quote... marines
you mean the Marines don't you? And correct me if I am wrong you swear a oath to God and your Country. So the oath of service you gave was false?
-
I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. That I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
If you wish to argue semantics then i guess that you would be correct but with this reasoning i have never said the pledge of allegiance to the flag and meant it. Do you think that there should be a religious test to hold a position in the military. Is my ability to defend the values of the people within the country somehow lessened by the fact that i do not believe in your god or for that fact any god?
In all honesty i don't believe that this part should be in the Oath however it is a tradition and for that reason i said it willingly. The part of the oath that i believe is meaningful is the part where i swear to support and defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. As far as i am concerned right now the biggest enemy to the constitution of the United States is the President himself through ignorant laws such as the patriot act and the military commissions act which are a direct slap in the face to the constitution. While i was still a Marine i obeyed my orders and i kept my personal beliefs to myself however i am no longer a part of the marines much because of the fact that i do not believe that any of our elected officials have ever taken this oath seriously short of Dr. Ron Paul who is the one voice fighting for the constitution.
-
If you wish to argue semantics
Once a Marine is always a Marine, you are never anything else. The Marines I served beside were great men. And to bring any military field into a bad light is totally unacceptable.
White Nationalism is not allowed within the US Marine Corps.
If you have served which I greatly believe you haven't, you would know this. You would also know that you can't hide beliefs in the service.
-
what do you mean by white nationalism. I have not made one comment in this entire forum to the fact that the whites are in any way a superior race. In fact i believe i have typed exactly the opposite. I am proud I was a Marine however i cannot in good conscience say that i believe that the direction that we are going in this country is the correct one. I firmly believe that the constitution is quickly becoming a forgotten document. As far as hiding your beliefs in the service at the time i did not have to because i was in complete support of the initial push into Afghanistan which is when i was in the service. As far as Iraq is concerned we have no place going over there.
Exactly what comments have i made on this forum that would warrant being called a white nationalist because in all honesty that is rather offensive.
-
As for evolution and the big bang theory i disagree that they can exist with the messages in Judeo-Christian religions because according to the current doctrine of intelligent design everything is exactly as it was intended to be and the world started when G-d decided for it to.
I believe that in most instances that God works through natural processes or through people to do His work.
The big bang theory is a slap in the face to religion because it states that the world was created in an explosion.
An explosion? That's just not true. The Big Bang has NOTHING to do with any explosion. You sound like a Carl Baugh or Hovind-ite creationist saying things like that.
According to the first day of creation the earth was already there in its current form... It mentions nothing of the creation of earth only that the earth was there and it got lit up.
And before that the earth was without form, and void. That goes along with the Hadean era quite well.
Also, could you please explain why the Bible says "let the earth bring forth?"
You are correct infact that darwin was actually a Christian when he came up with the theories of evolution but that does not change the fact that they are not accepted as part of intelligent design which is the current creationist doctrine.
I'm not a creationist or an ID advocate.
In fact "intelligent design" is not actually just a belief that the universe was designed intelligently. It's a belief that you can scientifically demonstrate divine intervention or a need for such. I don't believe that you can scientifically establish anything supernatural as the supernatural is by its nature not measurable. I'm a theistic evolutionist, NOT an intelligent design advocate. I do believe the universe was intelligently designed, but I don't think you can scientifically establish that.
I know that may be a bit confusing, but I've been a part of the EvC debate for some time now and I recognize a large distinction between the two philosophies.
Also the reason that brought up my religious beliefs into the argument is because it is a jewish website and we are talking about Israel which is considered a holy land to their religion and therefore it is extremely relevant. Although it is relevant i did not want it to be the focus of the argument because it takes away from the larger problem.
Even if you don't believe in the Bible, I think common sense would cause someone to lean more toward Israelis than Palescumians. I've spoken to nonreligious people who would agree with many things Chaim says regarding Israel.
-
Also the reason that brought up my religious beliefs into the argument is because it is a jewish website and we are talking about Israel which is considered a holy land to their religion and therefore it is extremely relevant. Although it is relevant i did not want it to be the focus of the argument because it takes away from the larger problem.
Even if you don't believe in the Bible, I think common sense would cause someone to lean more toward Israelis than Palescumians. I've spoken to nonreligious people who would agree with many things Chaim says regarding Israel.
I'm fairly tired of the religious debate so i am only going to respond to this section of your response. In my heart i do lean towards the Israelis over the Palestinians because i do typically believe that the Israel is typically defending themselves rather than being the aggressor. Now the problem that I have is that despite how i feel towards either side it is not a fight for Americans to be involved in. It is a fight between Israel and their Muslin neighbors and by getting involved we only make it worse for everyone. We take away Israels sovereignty and ability to make its own decisions, we cause more hatred towards the US for the Muslims, and we sacrifice American taxpayer money and soldiers.
All and all we hurt Israel the most by getting involved.
-
what do you mean by white nationalism. I have not made one comment in this entire forum to the fact that the whites are in any way a superior race. In fact i believe i have typed exactly the opposite. I am proud I was a Marine however i cannot in good conscience say that i believe that the direction that we are going in this country is the correct one. I firmly believe that the constitution is quickly becoming a forgotten document. As far as hiding your beliefs in the service at the time i did not have to because i was in complete support of the initial push into Afghanistan which is when i was in the service. As far as Iraq is concerned we have no place going over there.
Exactly what comments have i made on this forum that would warrant being called a white nationalist because in all honesty that is rather offensive.
You support Ron Paul he is a white nationalist. If you support a WN then you have WN ideas. Guilt by association.
Iraq was a necessary evil, a step that we had to take, and the benefits to the people questionable at best. But the future for them was never bright anyway. Now with the reconstruction team working there the future for the country at least is better than it was. Give or take a few hundred camel spiders of course. Afghanistan we have no choice. Iran well we will see.
-
Oh I forgot you found me calling you a WN offensive, well I think we are even then, I find your attitude towards God offensive too. 8;)
-
Guilt by association... i will respectfully disagree then.
As for RP being a white nationalist, i have heard this website say things to this effect repeatedly; however, i have yet to see any actual evidence to it other than the fact that he has received a small monetary donation from a WN group. He has received money from a lot of people, the only thing that he has not received any money from is the typical lobbyist that sully our electoral process.
I am sure if you look at every group that any other candidate has been receiving donations from you will find that there are people that you don't agree with donating money as well.
-
:::D :::D :::D :::D
Would you like to try that one again ^-^
He fully supports StørmFrønt, VNN and Not to mention the defunked National Alliance. NA I don't think were in the business of selling Girl Guide cookies no were they ::)
-
Also the reason that brought up my religious beliefs into the argument is because it is a jewish website and we are talking about Israel which is considered a holy land to their religion and therefore it is extremely relevant. Although it is relevant i did not want it to be the focus of the argument because it takes away from the larger problem.
Even if you don't believe in the Bible, I think common sense would cause someone to lean more toward Israelis than Palescumians. I've spoken to nonreligious people who would agree with many things Chaim says regarding Israel.
I'm fairly tired of the religious debate so i am only going to respond to this section of your response. In my heart i do lean towards the Israelis over the PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazis because i do typically believe that the Israel is typically defending themselves rather than being the aggressor. Now the problem that I have is that despite how i feel towards either side it is not a fight for Americans to be involved in. It is a fight between Israel and their Muslin neighbors and by getting involved we only make it worse for everyone. We take away Israels sovereignty and ability to make its own decisions, we cause more hatred towards the US for the Muslims, and we sacrifice American taxpayer money and soldiers.
All and all we hurt Israel the most by getting involved.
Amen! You finally said something that this movement advocates!!!
-
Also the reason that brought up my religious beliefs into the argument is because it is a jewish website and we are talking about Israel which is considered a holy land to their religion and therefore it is extremely relevant. Although it is relevant i did not want it to be the focus of the argument because it takes away from the larger problem.
Even if you don't believe in the Bible, I think common sense would cause someone to lean more toward Israelis than Palescumians. I've spoken to nonreligious people who would agree with many things Chaim says regarding Israel.
I'm fairly tired of the religious debate so i am only going to respond to this section of your response. In my heart i do lean towards the Israelis over the PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazis because i do typically believe that the Israel is typically defending themselves rather than being the aggressor. Now the problem that I have is that despite how i feel towards either side it is not a fight for Americans to be involved in. It is a fight between Israel and their Muslin neighbors and by getting involved we only make it worse for everyone. We take away Israels sovereignty and ability to make its own decisions, we cause more hatred towards the US for the Muslims, and we sacrifice American taxpayer money and soldiers.
All and all we hurt Israel the most by getting involved.
Amen! You finally said something that this movement advocates!!!
That's ± the JTF stand on Israel - USA.
-
:::D :::D :::D :::D
Would you like to try that one again ^-^
He fully supports StørmFrønt, VNN and Not to mention the defunked National Alliance. NA I don't think were in the business of selling Girl Guide cookies no were they ::)
Its called evidence... show me something to this effect.
-
Dejavu, if Ron Paul disagrees with what StørmFrønt stands for, he would have returned that money, just as any decent person would do. And his being against lobbyists is irrelevant here. He can talk all he wants. Actions speak louder than words.
-
That's exactly what I think.
StørmFrønt is anti-semitic.
By accepting donations from Stormfronters, he is endorsing anti-semitism.
-
That's exactly what I think.
StørmFrønt is anti-semitic.
By accepting donations from Stormfronters, he is endorsing anti-semitism.
StørmFrønt/Whorefront is an anti-semetic, dreck form with people with their own racial agenda's. :P
-
I would take their money too... the less money that is in their hands the more that he can use to further his campaign. Oh wait thats right i am not a decent person either... ;)
I guess i will stick with my beliefs as well that his voting record > everything.
-
I would take their money too... the less money that is in their hands the more that he can use to further his campaign.
That's a lame rationalization, Dejavu. He could have easily said, I don't agree with what StørmFrønt stands for, therefore I am returning this money. That would have shown him to be principled. And that would have gotten him respect from others who might not have considered him to begin with. But by accepting that money he's quietly saying he accepts what they stand for. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
-
I would take their money too... the less money that is in their hands the more that he can use to further his campaign.
That's a lame rationalization, Dejavu. He could have easily said, I don't agree with what StørmFrønt stands for, therefore I am returning this money. That would have shown him to be principled. And that would have gotten him respect from others who might not have considered him to begin with. But by accepting that money he's quietly saying he accepts what they stand for. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Wait wait wait... he does accept what they stand for. That is part of what this country was built on. Freedom of speech. They are allowed to say whatever they want to but just because he accepts it in no way says he supports it. I mean i just went to the StørmFrønt website something which i doubt many of you have done to see why they support him and this is what i found.
(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a50/dejavu22/RP2.jpg)
-
Dejavu,
Nazi is an acronym for National Socialism, and there is nothing right wing about that. So as far as I'm concerned the people at whorefront can go on acting all right wing, but that still doesn't change a thing. They are correctly known for being rabid anti-semites and Nazis who would kill all the Jews if they could get away with it. Anyone with with half a brain would know that just by looking at their home page. And I repeat, any decent person would avoid them like the plague, and that means not taking money from them.
-
Dejavu,
Nazi is an acronym for National Socialism, and there is nothing right wing about that. So as far as I'm concerned the people at whorefront can go on acting all right wing, but that still doesn't change a thing. They are correctly known for being rabid anti-semites and Nazis who would kill all the Jews if they could get away with it. Anyone with with half a brain would know that just by looking at their home page. And I repeat, any decent person would avoid them like the plague, and that means not taking money from them.
NS, Nazi, Whorefront are left-wing organizations if they were right-wing they wouldn't have their own personal Nationalist/socialist-NS agenda's, and do the righteous good or deed.
-
I didnt call them right wing, what i said is that they do not support him because he is a white nationalist. Also they confirm the obvious that he is not a socialist. And yes i know that the Z in nazi is for socialist. Did you even read what was in the picture i posted?
-
At one of the ugliest neo-Nazi sites on the web, Vanguard News Network, the leader of the American National Socialist Workers Party says Ron Paul Lies About Lack Of Involvement With White Nationalists.
Ron Paul Lies About Lack Of Involvement With White Nationalists
Comrades:
I have kept quiet about the Ron Paul campaign for a while, because I didn’t see any need to say anything that would cause any trouble. However, reading the latest release from his campaign spokesman, I am compelled to tell the truth about Ron Paul’s extensive involvement in white nationalism.
Both Congressman Paul and his aides regularly meet with members of the StørmFrønt set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review, and others at the Tara Thai restaurant in Arlington, Virginia, usually on Wednesdays. This is part of a dinner that was originally organized by Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis and Joe Sobran, and has since been mostly taken over by the Council of Conservative Citizens.
I have attended these dinners, seen Paul and his aides there, and been invited to his offices in Washington to discuss policy.
For his spokesman to call white racialism a “small ideology” and claim white activists are “wasting their money” trying to influence Paul is ridiculous. Paul is a white nationalist of the StørmFrønt type who has always kept his racial views and his views about world Judaism quiet because of his political position.
I don’t know that it is necessarily good for Paul to “expose” this. However, he really is someone with extensive ties to white nationalism and for him to deny that in the belief he will be more respectable by denying it is outrageous — and I hate seeing people in the press who denounce racialism merely because they think it is not fashionable.
Bill White, Commander
American National Socialist Workers Party
UPDATE at 12/19/07 5:52:00 pm:
Charges for the Tara Thai restaurant show up on page listing DISBURSEMENTS FOR RON PAUL 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE.
UPDATE at 12/19/07 6:50:25 pm:
More corroboration of the neo-Nazi’s claim: Extremist Group Announces Speech by Congressman.
The Robert A. Taft Club, a group headed by a man with a network of racist connections, has announced that a U.S. congressman, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), will address the group this Thursday at a restaurant in Arlington, Va.
-
Hi Rubystars.
I hope you are doing well.
I believe that in most instances that G-d works through
natural processes or through people to do His work.
What do you mean by natural processes?
An explosion? That's just not true. The Big Bang has
NOTHING to do with any explosion. You sound like a Carl Baugh
or Hovind-ite creationist saying things like that.
What was the Big Bang then if it wasn't an explosion? And by the
way, you may not realize it, but you are using what is called an
ad hominem argument. An ad hominem is when an individual
attacks the man, not the argument (a personal attack). When
you can't defeat the message, take a shot at the messenger.
I highly regard Kent Hovind, that man is a great defender of the
Judeo-Christian faith, and one of the top Creation Scientist's in
the world. YES, I am fully aware of his troubles and the attacks
against him by the non-believing athiest crowd. Let's stick to
the arguments and forget about other people. What was the
Big Bang if it wasn't an explosion?
And before that the earth was without form, and void.
That goes along with the Hadean era quite well.
Care to elaborate? The Bible and Hadean era are related how?
In fact "intelligent design" is not actually just a belief
that the universe was designed intelligently. It's a belief that
you can scientifically demonstrate divine intervention or a
need for such.
That's not necessarily true. The definition of ID can be best
summarized as a theory that holds that “certain features” of
living and nonliving things were designed by an “intelligent cause”
as opposed to being formed through natural causes. The ID
concept does not name the intelligent cause.
I don't believe that you can scientifically establish anything
supernatural as the supernatural is by its nature not measurable.
I'm a theistic evolutionist, NOT an intelligent design advocate. I do
believe the universe was intelligently designed, but I don't think you
can scientifically establish that.
Well, I think you can scientifically prove creation and a young earth.
Polonium Halos is one example. Irreducible Complexity is another.
But, let me say this first, either the universe was designed, or it came
about by random chance. These are the only options. I mean, seriously.
These are the only two real options. Now evolution really is one of the
most stupid ideas in the history of the world, there is absolutely no
proof of it. If there is any proof, please give me your best evidence.
Your very best example.
Even if you don't believe in the Bible, I think common sense
would cause someone to lean more toward Israelis than Palescumians.
I've spoken to nonreligious people who would agree with many things
Chaim says regarding Israel.
I would agree. Interesting, Israel ceased to be a free nation about
2500 years ago, beginning with the first attack by Nebuchadnezzar
in 586 BC. The cities of Israel were demolished and the people of Israel
were taken captive, many as slaves. The final blow was in the year 70
when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Jewish people were
scattered among the nations.
But, G-d promised them He would bring them back to their land, He
said, "I will cause them (the Jewish people) to return to the land that
I gave to their fathers, and they shall possess it." Jeremiah 30:3
"I will plant them (Jewish people) upon their land, and they shall
no more be torn up out of their land, which I gave them, says the
Lord your G-d." Amos 9:15
‘For I will take you from among the nations and gather you out of
all lands, and will gather you into your own land’. Ezekiel 36:24.
References concerning the regathering of Israel are numerous!
G-d had promised that the impossible would happen.
And it happened on May 14, 1948 - when the Jews declared
independence for Israel as a united and sovereign nation for
the first time in 2500 years! The Jewish people are once again
back in their homeland – Israel.
Welcome home!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSRefoZ-gns
The Bible Predicts the Future
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAps2CqtJpU
If G-d provides a miracle for you like this, why won't you
believe Him when He says He created the world in 6 literal,
24-hour days, and rested on the 7th. The Bible's simplest
interpretation is for a young earth creation account.
-
That's exactly what I think.
StørmFrønt is anti-semitic.
By accepting donations from Stormfronters, he is endorsing anti-semitism.
StørmFrønt/Whorefront is an anti-semetic, dreck form with people with their own racial agenda's. :P
Not everyone there is like that *cough* ::)
-
Dejavu,
Nazi is an acronym for National Socialism, and there is nothing right wing about that. So as far as I'm concerned the people at whorefront can go on acting all right wing, but that still doesn't change a thing. They are correctly known for being rabid anti-semites and Nazis who would kill all the Jews if they could get away with it. Anyone with with half a brain would know that just by looking at their home page. And I repeat, any decent person would avoid them like the plague, and that means not taking money from them.
NS, Nazi, Whorefront are left-wing organizations if they were right-wing they wouldn't have their own personal Nationalist/socialist-NS agenda's, and do the righteous good or deed.
WHoa SF is not left wing, oh boy it is as right wing as it gets.
-
Dejavu,
Nazi is an acronym for National Socialism, and there is nothing right wing about that. So as far as I'm concerned the people at whorefront can go on acting all right wing, but that still doesn't change a thing. They are correctly known for being rabid anti-semites and Nazis who would kill all the Jews if they could get away with it. Anyone with with half a brain would know that just by looking at their home page. And I repeat, any decent person would avoid them like the plague, and that means not taking money from them.
NS, Nazi, Whorefront are left-wing organizations if they were right-wing they wouldn't have their own personal Nationalist/socialist-NS agenda's, and do the righteous good or deed.
WHoa SF is not left wing, oh boy it is as right wing as it gets.
The Infidel, I hope you were kidding ;D ;). If not I'll just give some reasons why it's not a right-wing site - when it calls for the destruction of jews and israel and believes that the white race is superior I don't think that is very much a righteous right-wing conservative site, on some issues they might be conservative, but if you asked most of them what they would do about adopting a black baby or if (by chance ;) a black woman was pregnant with their baby they would abort it just like a nazi, instead of giving it up for adoption, so besides the other issues they are probably liberal on abortion, israel etc. They don't believe in a Judeo-Christian nation and think it's a myth, and blame the jews for all the world's problems, and consider jews the most racially-mixed people on the planet, so it's definitely not right wing imo :D. :D ;)