Euston Manifesto

[LBLUNTX]

Dearest Reprob8,
Have you perchance read the latest Euston Manifesto? I found it quite interesting reading, even agreed with much, if not most, of it. headscrat

LBLUNTX
XOXOXOXO

http://eustonmanifesto.org

P.S. Some of you moderates and conservatives might enjoy this. scared:

[reprob8]

LBLUNTX:

Looks interesting. Will read it a little later. Thanks.

[LBLUNTX]

LBLUNTX:

Looks interesting. Will read it a little later. Thanks.

Any comments perchance, Reprob8? It must have been shocking to see "progressives" sounding a little more conservative and less knee-jerk liberal.

biggrin:

LBLUNTX

[reprob8]

Any comments perchance, Reprob8? It must have been shocking to see "progressives" sounding a little more conservative and less knee-jerk liberal.

biggrin:

LBLUNTX

Seems to me those points advocated by this group were part and parcel of the so-called liberal agenda long before you decided to refer to such positions as approaching conservative. If you read the sorry history of what you like call conservatives, you'll find them in violation of just abbout every one of those positions.

Better yet...Pray tell, what defines a conservative vis-à-vis knee-jerk liberal?

Are the following conservative or knee-jerk liberal actions?


Deceiving the country into a war.
Wiping out 800 years of a legal tradition known as habeas corpus?
Breaking the law by authorizing warrantless wiretaps.
Running up an $8,000,000,000,000 national debt.
Hitting on under age pages.
Covering up the fact that you knew, and even urged the perpetrator to run for re-election.
Blaming the opposition party for the scandal.
Accusing those who disagree with your foreign policy of treason.
Accusing 9-11 widows of enjoying their husbands’ deaths.
Abrogating the Bill of Rights in the name of national security.
Using religion instead of science to set policy.
Calling Martin Luther King a communist.
Refusing to name a commision to investigate the events leading up 9-11.
Refusing to testify before the same commision.
Calling muslims ragheads.
Threatening a financial analyst with termination if he reveals that your new prescritpion program would add more to the defecit than your office claims.
Claiming that you have been ordained by God to go after terrorists.
Refusing to follow the will of Congress and the law by making signing statements about how you choose to interpret a law.
Exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative.
Referring to Martin Luther King as Martin Luther Koon.
Saying that it is the president who interprets the law.
Setting up gulags in Guantanamo, Cuba.
Operating secret prisons and torture chambers overseas.
Deporting foreign nationals to countries where you know they’ll be tortured.
Threatening the life of a president.
Blurring the line between church and state.
Making not one or two, but several speeches before the Council of Conservative Citizens
Launching a proxy war against an unarmed civilian population.
Trading arms for hostages.
Financing an illegal war with money from Colombian drug cartels.
Supporting a regime that killed 2 million of its own.
Mocking the person whose death warrant you signed, after denying her one last appeal for clemency.
Fathering child out of wedlock with a black woman in the Jim Crow south and never admitting to it.
Serving your wife with divorce papers while she’s recuperating in a hospital bed.
Telling your wife you want a divorce, over the phone, at her mother’s birthday party.
Railing against the evils of gambling while accepting money and lobbying for a group of casino owners.
Having your housekeeper score prescrition drugs for you.
Fathering children out of wedlock while claiming to stand for morality and Christian values.
Claiming to be the avatar of virtues while dropping hundreds of thousands in Vagas casinos.
Extolling the virtues of fiscal responsibility while failing to claim your wife’s income, and having tax liens filed against your property.
Refusing to recuse yourself from a case in which you may have a conflict of interest.
Advocating the establishment of a Christian theocratic state.


Just curious… confused: huh4: headscrat notsure: :confuseds

[JarHead]

Just curious… confused: huh4: headscrat notsure: :confuseds

Oh no!
We agree? What's next.

SemperFidrillse:

[reprob8]

Oh no!
We agree? What's next.

SemperFidrillse:

You buy me Saigon tea, GI.drillse:

Me love you looooong time.:biggrin:

[LBLUNTX]

Oh no!
We agree? What's next.

SemperFidrillse:

Quite simple actually. Go out and buy a brown shirt, then follow someone out into the parking lot and have a kristalnacht on their car if it has a BUSH/CHANEY sticker on it.

LBLUNTX

shocked:

[The Pirate]

You buy me Saigon tea, GI.drillse:

Me love you looooong time.:biggrin:

hey, joe, what ship you on? i love you long time, go around the world, me get air-tight with you and your friends, joe? you buy me ladies drink? o.k?shocked:

[LBLUNTX]

"Seems to me those points advocated by this group were part and parcel of the so-called liberal agenda long before you
decided to refer to such positions as approaching conservative. If you read the sorry history of what you like call
conservatives, you'll find them in violation of just abbout every one of those positions.
Better yet...Pray tell, what defines a conservative vis-à-vis knee-jerk liberal?
Are the following conservative or knee-jerk liberal actions?"

Deceiving the country into a war.
ALREADY PROVEN NOT TRUE. ACTUALLY WILSON LIED!
Wiping out 800 years of a legal tradition known as habeas corpus?
ARE YOU SPEAKING OF HOW WE ARE DEALING WITH TERRORISTS?
Breaking the law by authorizing warrantless wiretaps.
EXCUSE ME, BUT WOULD YOU RATHER WE HUNT DOWN THE TERRORISTS AFTER THEY'VE BLOWN SOMETHING UP OR GATHER INTELLIGENCE BY
WARANTLESS WIRETAPS AND STOP THEM BEFORE THEY ATTACK?
Running up an $8,000,000,000,000 national debt.
DON'T BE STUPID, BOTH SIDES ARE COMPLICENT IN THIS AND ALL EUROPEAN COUNTRIES ARE UP TO THEIR EYEBALLS IN DEBT ALSO.
Hitting on under age pages.
yOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH HOMOSEXUALS RECRUITING THE NEXT GENERATION? I'LL SICK THE ALCU ON YOU!
Covering up the fact that you knew, and even urged the perpetrator to run for re-election.
SEZ YOU! i'LL WAIT TILL AFTER THE ELECTIONS WHEN THE POLITICAL BS DIES DOWN AND THE TRUTH HOPEFULLY COMES OUT.
Blaming the opposition party for the scandal.
ACTUALLY BLAMING THEM FOR HOLDING ON TO THE INFORMATION UNTIL JUST BEFORE THE ELECTION, SINCE IT IS A SERIOUS MATTER.
Accusing those who disagree with your foreign policy of treason.
AND YOUR POINT IS?
Accusing 9-11 widows of enjoying their husbands’ deaths.
YOU STICK YOUR NOSE IN THE POLITICAL ARENA, DON'T BE SURPRISED IF IT GETS BITTEN OFF.
Abrogating the Bill of Rights in the name of national security.
I REALLY DON'T THINK THOMAS AND THE BOYS REALLY THOUGHT THE BILL OF RIGHTS SHOULD BE EXTENDED TO OUR ENEMIES.
Using religion instead of science to set policy.
TOUGH BANANAS, HE WAS ELECTED, NOT YOU.
Calling Martin Luther King a communist.
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT J. EDGAR?
Refusing to name a commision to investigate the events leading up 9-11.
Refusing to testify before the same commision.
ACTUALLY I DON'T BLAME THE PREVIOUS OR THE CURRENT PRESIDENTS FOR 9-11. NOBODY HIGH ENOUGH UP IN GOVERNMENT, THAT COULD DO
SOMETHING ABOUT IT, SAW THAT ONE COMING.
Calling muslims ragheads.
YOU MUST HAVE TAKEN SENSITIVITY TRAINING. DO YOU NEED A HUG?
Threatening a financial analyst with termination if he reveals that your new prescritpion program would add more to the
defecit than your office claims.
SO!
Claiming that you have been ordained by God to go after terrorists.
HOW DO YOU KNOW HE WASN'T?
Refusing to follow the will of Congress and the law by making signing statements about how you choose to interpret a law.
HE WASN'T THE FIRST AND HE WON'T BE THE LAST.
Exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative.
SO ARMITAGE IS A CONSERVATIVE. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT. AND FOR YOUR EDIFICATION, COVERT OPERATIVES DON'T GO TO WORK AT LANGLY
EVERY DAY FOR 6 YEARS, THAT ALONE WILL OUT YOU.
Referring to Martin Luther King as Martin Luther Koon.
NEVER HEARD THAT ONE, DID YOU MAKE IT UP, YOU SLY DOG?
Saying that it is the president who interprets the law.
ON STOPPING ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC, AS HE SWORE, I AGREE.
Setting up gulags in Guantanamo, Cuba.
YOU HAVE JUST SLANDERED EVERY RUSSIAN SENT TO THE ACTUAL GULAGS, I DARE SAY THEY WOULD HAVE ENJOYED GITMO FAR MORE THAN
SIBERIA. FUTHERMORE, AS ENEMY COMBATENTS OUT OF UNIFORM, THEY SHOULD BE SHOT.
Operating secret prisons and torture chambers overseas.
I THINK YOU MUST WANT TO LOSE THIS WAR. THIS IS A DIFFERENT KIND OF ENEMY AND THEY MUST BE FOUGHT IN IN A DIFFERENT MANNER.
Deporting foreign nationals to countries where you know they’ll be tortured.
POOR TERRORIZING BABIES.
Threatening the life of a president.
WHAT IN THE FIDELEBAUER ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT.
Blurring the line between church and state.
IN YOUR OPINION! NOT MINE!
Making not one or two, but several speeches before the Council of Conservative Citizens
Launching a proxy war against an unarmed civilian population.
NEVER HEARD OF IT.
Trading arms for hostages.
Financing an illegal war with money from Colombian drug cartels.
Supporting a regime that killed 2 million of its own.
WAAA!!!
Mocking the person whose death warrant you signed, after denying her one last appeal for clemency.
SO MURDERS SHOULD BE TREATED WITH MORE RESPECT THAN THEY TREATED THEIR VICTIMS.
Fathering child out of wedlock with a black woman in the Jim Crow south and never admitting to it.
Serving your wife with divorce papers while she’s recuperating in a hospital bed.
Telling your wife you want a divorce, over the phone, at her mother’s birthday party.
Railing against the evils of gambling while accepting money and lobbying for a group of casino owners.
Having your housekeeper score prescrition drugs for you.
Fathering children out of wedlock while claiming to stand for morality and Christian values.
Claiming to be the avatar of virtues while dropping hundreds of thousands in Vagas casinos.
Extolling the virtues of fiscal responsibility while failing to claim your wife’s income, and having tax liens filed against
your property.
Refusing to recuse yourself from a case in which you may have a conflict of interest.
Advocating the establishment of a Christian theocratic state.
AND YOUR POINT IS?

By the way, nice move changing the subject you must have taken debating classes.
So, have you read the Eusto Manifesto yet?

P.S. Almost everyone in Congress voted for the war and/or appropriations for it, So it's not just Bush's war its America"s war like it or not.

LBLUNTX

argue:

[reprob8]

In-freaking-credible…

I’m changing subjects? If I recall correctly, you’re the one looking to reduce things to a matter of convenient labels. You’re also the one making the characterizations about conservatives versus knee-jerk liberals (or in another context, and judging by the tone and tenor of your response, infidels).



Deceiving the country into a war.
ALREADY PROVEN NOT TRUE. ACTUALLY WILSON LIED!

Proven not true? Try this: http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/ (http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/)
What lie did Wilson tell? You mean to say that the proof or lack of same now hinges on whether Wilson lied?

Wiping out 800 years of a legal tradition known as habeas corpus?
ARE YOU SPEAKING OF HOW WE ARE DEALING WITH TERRORISTS?

A terrorist being anyone whom the president so designates, including American citizens. No proof or suspicion is even required; no right to face your accuser; no right to see and challenge the evidence against you; no right to know what the charges are against you; no right to petition the court or for a court to establish whether in fact there are legal grounds for your detention. These rights pre-date our own constitution. What freedoms can we claim to protect if they can be subject to revocation by simple fiat? Do we dare call it the act of a conservative? I’ll take my chances against some religious wacko with a death wish before I cede them to any government that tells me to for my own good. Once you give them away, you’ll have a hard time reclaiming them.


Breaking the law by authorizing warrantless wiretaps.
EXCUSE ME, BUT WOULD YOU RATHER WE HUNT DOWN THE TERRORISTS AFTER THEY'VE BLOWN SOMETHING UP OR GATHER INTELLIGENCE BY
WARANTLESS WIRETAPS AND STOP THEM BEFORE THEY ATTACK?

Strawman. The Foreign Intelligence Surveilance Act (FISA) does allow for a warrantless wiretaps, provided the FISA court is given notice within 72 hours of the wiretap being put in place. Out over 18,000 requests for wiretaps, in its 30-year history, the court has reject less tah 10. So you can’t claim that fast action was required, or that there was even a remote chance that your request would be rejected.

Running up an $8,000,000,000,000 national debt.
DON'T BE STUPID, BOTH SIDES ARE COMPLICENT IN THIS AND ALL EUROPEAN COUNTRIES ARE UP TO THEIR EYEBALLS IN DEBT ALSO.

I believe it’s these self-professed conservatives who have been remonstrating against huge budget defecits since Ronald Reagan ran for president in 1980. And it has been under these so-called conservative administrations that our budget defecits and the national debt has balooned, despite all their calls for fiscal restraint and for government to live within its means. So I’m not the one being as stupid as perhaps the ones who buy this political sleigh of hand.

Hitting on under age pages.
yOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH HOMOSEXUALS RECRUITING THE NEXT GENERATION? I'LL SICK THE ALCU ON YOU!

Homosexuals recruit? There’s real piece of Christian enlightenment. And by the way, I am a member of the ACLU. But you digress for the subject. Is hitting on pages in keeping with the family-values our self-professed conservative like to espouse?

Covering up the fact that you knew, and even urged the perpetrator to run for re-election.
SEZ YOU! i'LL WAIT TILL AFTER THE ELECTIONS WHEN THE POLITICAL BS DIES DOWN AND THE TRUTH HOPEFULLY COMES OUT.

You mean to tell me that Tom Reynolds and his chief-of-staff Kirk Fordham (who was also Foley’s chief-of-staff) are playing politics??? “When the truth hopefully comes out”…look up the term cognitive dissonance.

Blaming the opposition party for the scandal.
ACTUALLY BLAMING THEM FOR HOLDING ON TO THE INFORMATION UNTIL JUST BEFORE THE ELECTION, SINCE IT IS A SERIOUS MATTER.

Blaming them absent any proof to support your accusation. I recall how Hilary Clinton was laughed at when she claimed that the Lewinsky scandal was all a “right-wing” conspiracy. Yet, there is less proof to support Republican claims about George Soros and the democrats. Is this what self-professed conservatives call personal responsibility?

Accusing those who disagree with your foreign policy of treason.
AND YOUR POINT IS?

So I take that to mean that all those words in the First Ammendment are just that…words. We have rights, but we can’t exercise them. I think you need to re-read the manifesto. And you accuse those who disagree with you of being brown shirts?


Accusing 9-11 widows of enjoying their husbands’ deaths.
YOU STICK YOUR NOSE IN THE POLITICAL ARENA, DON'T BE SURPRISED IF IT GETS BITTEN OFF.

Asking for an independent commision to investigate the events leading up the 9-11 attacks is sticking your nose in the political arena? Are these woman, and the rest of the American people not entitled to answers from their government?

Abrogating the Bill of Rights in the name of national security.
I REALLY DON'T THINK THOMAS AND THE BOYS REALLY THOUGHT THE BILL OF RIGHTS SHOULD BE EXTENDED TO OUR ENEMIES.

I was referring to this administration. And I was referring to American citizens. Oh, I forgot, dissent is treasonous. Ergo, the dissenter has no rights like other good Americans, since good American don’t dissent, because if they did they wouldn’t be good Americans, but traitors instead. Joseph Heller must be spinning in his grave.

Using religion instead of science to set policy.
TOUGH BANANAS, HE WAS ELECTED, NOT YOU.

So if we follow your logic, the election of a Hebrew to the presidency would make it acceptable that policy be a function of Hebrew law. Same if we elect a Hindu? How about a Muslim? How about Wican? Does the word sharia ring a bell with you?

Calling Martin Luther King a communist.
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT J. EDGAR?

Besides J. Edgar Hoover, whom I will assume you revere, since he too tolerated no dissent, the accusation came from Jesse Helms, with a tacit endorsement of the same from Ronald Reagan. But what the hey…By your logic, King too was a treasonous commie since he stood in opposition to our foreign policy - i.e. Vietnam War.

I’ll respond to the rest of your drivel later…


By the way, there were attacks and acts of vandalism, here in the US, against Muslims, Sihks and their temples in the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks. So you may need to disabuse yourself of the notion that perhaps knee-jerk liberals are the only ones given over the actions of brown shirts.

[PhantomPharter]

box: box: box: Seems like you guys just need to have some cuddle time with each other.biggrin: biggrin:

[LBLUNTX]

Dearest snarling Rebrob8,

MOTHER JONES!!!!!!!!!! Whats your other news source, Granma? But seriously you are the master of the smokescreen. ONE MORE TIME, HAVE YOU READ THE EUSTON MANIFESTO?


LBLUNTX

att:

[reprob8]

Dearest snarling Rebrob8,

MOTHER JONES!!!!!!!!!! Whats your other news source, Granma? But seriously you are the master of the smokescreen. ONE MORE TIME, HAVE YOU READ THE EUSTON MANIFESTO?


LBLUNTX

att:

Ordinarily, I would allow some lattitude for questioning the reliability of a source, since I too would find myself questioning integrity of what could be your personal favorites, such as the Moonie-owned Washington Times, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, James Dodson's Focus On The Family, or even scripture. However, had you taken a closer look, you would have noticed that the timeline references back to publications which are more mainstream; unless, for example, you now find that US News & World Report is a suspect source.

Likewise if you define a source as suspect, though it quotes a public statement that can be easily verified, then you are in effect denying, despite all evidence to the contrary, that such a statement was ever made.

I don't know of what smokescreen you refer to. Can you provide some sort of clarity as to what distinguishes a conservative from a knee-jerk liberal? Classifications are fine to the extent that you can provide some distinguishing characteristics that sets one class apart from the other. If someone supports the invasion of Iraq, but as an athiest believes in a high wall separating church and state, what does that make them? Conservative? Liberal? A knee-conservative-jerk-liberal? Or what if someone believes that there is no such thing as separation of church and state, but likes to play with himself while watching hookers strip in a motel room (remember Jimmy Swaggart)? What does that make him? A conservative-jerking-off-liberally? Couldn't resist that one. :biggrin: What I am saying is that we limit the effectiveness of the discussion the instant we start reaching for labels. I happen to know Jarhead quite well, and we do hold opposing points of views on many issues. However, I am quite surprised that he has agreed with so much that I've said on this board. But I would not call him a knee-jerk liberal. At least, not if I don't want to piss him off.

And before you get your rosary all twisted in a knot, yes I did read the manifesto's points.

Lastly...When you write in CAPS all the time, it's the equivalent of shouting. And if you have to shout, you've lost the argument.

[The Pirate]

hoo-ahh.

[JarHead]

. . . . . Or what if someone believes that there is no such thing as separation of church and state, but likes to play with himself while watching hookers strip in a motel room (remember Jimmy Swaggart)? What does that make him? A conservative-jerking-off-liberally? Couldn't resist that one. :biggrin: What I am saying is that we limit the effectiveness of the discussion the instant we start reaching for labels. I happen to know Jarhead quite well, and we do hold opposing points of views on many issues. However, I am quite surprised that he has agreed with so much that I've said on this board. But I would not call him a knee-jerk liberal. At least, not if I don't want to piss him off.

And before you get your rosary all twisted in a knot, yes I did read the manifesto's points.

Lastly...When you write in CAPS all the time, it's the equivalent of shouting. And if you have to shout, you've lost the argument.

reprob8,

Only a couple of sentences separate me from a "conservative-jerking-off-liberally"? ? ? Yet you profess to be concerned about getting the JarHead pissed off. Not even so much as a new paragraph to separate / change subject?

This transgression could, perhaps, be resolved over 2 special beers.beerchug:
Heineken, since Marines love / hate green.
Delivered by UPS, since someone here likes to label some others as brown shirts.
What color is my friend's shirt? I only saw my friend, not the color.huh4:

Beer, or no beer?

SemperFi

[reprob8]

reprob8,

Only a couple of sentences separate me from a "conservative-jerking-off-liberally"? ? ? Yet you profess to be concerned about getting the JarHead pissed off. Not even so much as a new paragraph to separate / change subject?

This transgression could, perhaps, be resolved over 2 special beers.beerchug:
Heineken, since Marines love / hate green.
Delivered by UPS, since someone here likes to label some others as brown shirts.
What color is my friend's shirt? I only saw my friend, not the color.huh4:

Beer, or no beer?

SemperFi

Mea culpa! bowdown:

I owe you. Hieneken I can work with, though I would prefer a Becks.

Better yet, Crown Royal, straight, no chaser.

[LBLUNTX]

Dearest aptly named Reprob8,
I thought we'd take this in bite sized bits, so here goes.

Quote from the Euston Manifesto:

"B. Statement of principles
1) For democracy.
We are committed to democratic norms, procedures and structures — freedom of opinion and assembly, free elections, the separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers, and the separation of
state and religion. We value the traditions and institutions, the legacy of good governance, of those countries in which liberal, pluralist democracies have taken hold."

"freedom of opinion and assembly" -- Agree as long as assembly is done peacefully, as written in our constitution, i.e.- no stinking violent revolutions allowed. Freedom of opinion is already being eroded in the Western world by politically correct speech limitations and "Thought Police" laws such as Hate Crime legislation. Take the case of James Byrd for example. He was horribly murdered in a Red State by some low lifes. Texas adjudicated the case, without hate crimes legislation, and only failed on one point, The killers death sentences should have been to be
dragged to death behind a pickup truck being driven by a member of Mr. Byrds family. Hate Crime legislation is unnecessary as it is already against the law to harm people in all 50 states. Civil rights should be shared equally by all citizens!

"free elections"-- Agree as long as a choice of more than one Party or Ideology are on the ballot and "one person, one vote" is enforced without prejudice.

"the separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers"-- Sounds amazingly like our country, how 'bout that.

"separation of state and religion", Agree within the framers of the Constitution's original intent, not the Supreme Courts decision ~ 150 years later and your further idea that elected officials should be either atheistic or ignore their faith while in office, America knew Bush was a committed Christian before He was voted into office. If you voted against him, He is still your President even if you disagree with him, the same as Clinton and Carter (hock a lugi here) were my presidents, and I served under Carter, as Commander In Chief (hock a lugi here) honorably.

"We value the traditions and institutions, the legacy of good governance, of those countries in which liberal, pluralist democracies have taken hold." -- Depends on your definition of Liberal.

Now to protect Andy from stinking low life lawyers.
Portions of this screed were lifted from HTTP://www.eustonmanifesto.org (http://www.eustonmanifesto.org/)

P.S. In an earlier post you said habeas corpus had been wiped out. Your sources really suck. Habeas Corpus is still alive and well and still available for accused murderers, rapists, thieves, wife beaters, and buggering Congressmen. However, accused terrorists don't get this privilege. If you are worried that this will set a precedent that a future President might use to take total control of government, you're too late. Lincoln already set that precedent during the Civil War.

While we're PSing why do you worry about Muslims being called "ragheads", when you call some of my neighbors "goobers" and other slanders. Why is it that Progressives almost always feel they are
smarter and superior to the common folk, as when Che referred to native Mexicans as "a band of illiterate Indians" and further "The Black is indolent and a dreamer, spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; the European has a tradition of wok and savings". What's up with that? huh4:

As always, XOXOXOXO
LBLUNTX









</IMG>

[LBLUNTX]

Mea culpa! bowdown:

I owe you. Hieneken I can work with, though I would prefer a Becks.

Better yet, Crown Royal, straight, no chaser.

BECKS, du grosses schwein. Bitburger, Konigsbacher, or Kirner are truly awesome German beers. I wouldn't wash my feet with Becks, much less drink it. Not to mention that the old Heineken available in Holland in the brown bottles was superior to the green bottle stuff.


LBLUNTX
XOXOXOXO

[The Pirate]

to quote an old Seargent Major i worked with, "someone needs a check up from the neck up, cause we got stinkin thinkin, put some altitude in your attitiude."jester:

[PhantomPharter]

GUINNESS!!!!!beerchug: beerchug: beerchug: beerchug: beerchug:

[LBLUNTX]

GUINNESS!!!!!beerchug: beerchug: beerchug: beerchug: beerchug:

AMEN Brother!!
burnout:burnout:burnout:burnout:burnout:burnout:burnout:burnout:burnout:burnout:burnout:burnout:

[LBLUNTX]

Here's an interesting story about how the Franklin Roosevelt administration handled sabatours, foreign and domestic, during WWII.

http://www.sptimes.com/News/121701/news_pf/State/Gang_of_WWII_spies_fa.shtml


LBLUNTX

[reprob8]

Dearest aptly named Reprob8,
I thought we'd take this in bite sized bits, so here goes.


…"freedom of opinion and assembly" -- Agree as long as assembly is done peacefully, as written in our constitution, i.e.- no stinking violent revolutions allowed. Freedom of opinion is already being eroded in the Western world by politically correct speech limitations and "Thought Police" laws such as Hate Crime legislation. Take the case of James Byrd for example. He was horribly murdered in a Red State by some low lifes. Texas adjudicated the case, without hate crimes legislation, and only failed on one point, The killers death sentences should have been to be dragged to death behind a pickup truck being driven by a member of Mr. Byrds family. Hate Crime legislation is unnecessary as it is already against the law to harm people in all 50 states. Civil rights should be shared equally by all citizens!

No stinking violent revolutions? You may want to go back and review your history about this country, because it certainly wasn’t delivered on a shell like the subject in some Botticelli painting. What it raises at best is one of those philosophical questions about government. If as Jefferson, Paine, and Locke assert, that government derives its just powers by consent of the governed, then at what point does it become necessary for the governed to severe those ties, even if need be by violent revolution, including our own? Additionally, I have a hard time accepting the fact that you agree, since you’re already on the record as supporting Pinochet’s abuses against his own people; likewise, I read the same sentiment with respect to other statements you’ve made regarding revolutionary movements in Latin America.

Does your agreement also extend to protestors being beaten by police in Miami, Florida in November of 2003? Does it extend to protestors at Bush appearances being forcibly removed from the area, and being charged for committing such violent acts as wearing a T-shirt disapproving of his policies? Does it also extend to protestors being herded into “free speech zones” – how’s that for political correctness – a mile away from where the target of the protest is appearing? It happened in L.A., Philadelphia, and New York during the Democratic and Republican conventions. Does it include US Army intelligence keeping dossiers on anti-war protestors and groups? Does it include federal agents paying “courtesy” calls on anti-war protesters prior to the Republican National Convention in NY? Does it include equating those who disagree with administration policies as being traitors, and appeasers? The link below provides a more eloquent sentiment than I could ever hope to convey on this matter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeRpgPkBjA4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeRpgPkBjA4)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdEoJ57Peh8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdEoJ57Peh8)


This whole issue of political correctness you’re raising rings awfully hollow. First of all, don’t blame so-called thought police for what you call political correctness. Where we come we refer to it as euphemisms and “double-speak” and they were around long before the term political correctness became part of the lexicon; “free fire zone” “terminate with extreme prejudice” “revenue enhancements” “surgical strike”.

I will admit to a certain ambivalence about hate crime legislation. However, to call it political correctness misses the boat entirely. There can be no denying the fact that people are attacked for their ethnicity, color, religion, and sexual orientation. However to say that there is already legislation against causing harm to another misses the point by a wide margin. If a man suspects his wife is having an affair, and plans her murder, executes it, and then tries to cover up his crime, his likely to be charged with murder in the first degree. If man wants to collect on an insurance policy on his wife, and commits the same act as our first example, he too will probably be charged with murder in the first degree. But in some states, it’s a sure bet that special circumstances - death penalty, life without parole - may be applied, simply because of motive. It is a factor in not only determining what charges to bring against a person, but what sentence impose if convicted.





"free elections"-- Agree as long as a choice of more than one Party or Ideology are on the ballot and "one person, one vote" is enforced without prejudice.


Free elections are no more indicative of a thriving democracy, than eyes are proof positive that a person has sight. Fairness is also a necessary component. Electronic voting machines without a paper trail are unacceptable. Neither are impediments like party hacks challenging a voter, or putting less voting machines in a precinct where your opponent is heavily favored. Those tactics are no better than poll taxes and literacy tests. Candidate debates need be removed from a “bi-partisan” commission and put in the hands of a neutral party, with no candidate being informed as to what topics will be covered. Elections have to be publicly financed.

Again, you’ll have to reconcile that notion with the actions of a government that overthrows other governments that are democratically elected, just because the winning candidate is not to our liking. And by your words, you’ve shown no disagreement with those actions.

[reprob8]

"the separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers"-- Sounds amazingly like our country, how 'bout that.

Sounds amazingly like our country……………………..But not of late. Violations of the FISA act, because he now claims special authority for himself because of the war on terror; signing statements, though he’s not the first, claiming what portions of a law he feels bound to observe or obey; now by law, declaring that his office can decide who under their custody may petition under a writ of habeas corpus. These are not the actions of some one who believes in the separation of powers.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/24/bush_shuns_patriot_act_requirement/ (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/24/bush_shuns_patriot_act_requirement/)

http://www.abanet.org/media/releases/news072406.html (http://www.abanet.org/media/releases/news072406.html)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/15/AR2006021502003.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/15/AR2006021502003.html)

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html)



"separation of state and religion", Agree within the framers of the Constitution's original intent, not the Supreme Courts decision ~ 150 years later and your further idea that elected officials should be either atheistic or ignore their faith while in office, America knew Bush was a committed Christian before He was voted into office. If you voted against him, He is still your President even if you disagree with him, the same as Clinton and Carter (hock a lugi here) were my presidents, and I served under Carter, as Commander In Chief (hock a lugi here) honorably.

Talk about a non-sequitor. You’ve gone from separation of state to Bush being a committed Christian – as if he’s the only one – to saying he’s still your president and commander-in-chief to serving honorably under several.

I believe the subject at hand was the separation of state and religion, not whether a president was committed Christian. Your first statement only begs the question: what was the framers original intent? Do tell.

You need to understand something here…It doesn’t matter squat to me what faith a president, or public official adheres to, or doesn’t for that matter. Nor do I find problem with a public official who looks to some god of his or her understanding for guidance in executing the responsibilities of that office. But when you assert that somehow God speaks to you; that you believe yourself ordained to the office; that you are doing God’s will or that this country is fulfilling some promise from the almighty to mankind…You have gone too far. Furthermore, you need to understand that George W. Bush and those believe like he does are not the only committed Christians in this country. I’m still serving my apostasy, but I do remember an injunction from a certain figure to the effect that we should render unto Caesar those things that are Caesar, and onto God those things that are God’s. The danger here lies not in choosing between God and Caesar, but confusing one for the other.

The constitution is very explicit in declaring that there shall be no religious test as a qualification for holding office. It does require an oath and affirmation to the charter. If you can not execute the responsibilities of your office because of your religious beliefs; if you use your religious beliefs as the condition or foundation for setting public policy, then you have violated that oath.

Lastly, it’s hard to believe your assertion that you served “honorably” under Carter and Clinton while hocking a literary lugi at them. All it tells us is that you only respect those you’re partial to, all claims to honorable service notwithstanding.

Just the same, the question you need to answer is what is this original intent of which you speak???





"We value the traditions and institutions, the legacy of good governance, of those countries in which liberal, pluralist democracies have taken hold." -- Depends on your definition of Liberal.


“…depends on your definition of liberal.” Piffle.



P.S. In an earlier post you said habeas corpus had been wiped out. Your sources really suck. Habeas Corpus is still alive and well and still available for accused murderers, rapists, thieves, wife beaters, and buggering Congressmen. However, accused terrorists don't get this privilege. If you are worried that this will set a precedent that a future President might use to take total control of government, you're too late. Lincoln already set that precedent during the Civil War.

Article I, section 9 of the Constitution states:

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it

In Lincoln’s case, it was more than obvious that there was an open insurrection in progress. Where is the invasion or rebellion in the extant case vis-à-vis the war on terrorism?

My source happens to be S.3930 (http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/S-3930_passed.pdf#search='s.3930'), aka The Military Commissions Act of 2006. But in an unintentional way on your part, you are correct, about my source sucking. Your assertion sounds more like a regurgitation of an official statement from the White public information office. For one thing the issue of terrorist actions is not mentioned until near the end of the act. The act itself is directed at a certain class of individuals known as “unlawful enemy combatant”. And if you read Section 1, Subchapter I, § 948a, you will notice that an unlawful enemy combatant is anyone that a tribunal established by the President or Secretary of Defense so declares. Even though the bill purportedly provides all sorts of guarantees, such as right to counsel, etc., those rights don’t kick in until formal charges are brought against the suspect. Until that point, an alien combatant – notice how the bill now segues from “unlawful enemy combatant” to plain and “simple enemy combatant” – has no right under this act to bring a habeas corpus action before any court, justice, or judge. I still have to go and read where the this act alters other provisions under to the Detainee treatment Act of 2005, and Section 2241 of title 28 of the US Code.

Mind you, though the bill refers to alien combatants, granting some sort of exemption to US citizens, non-citizens do not appear to be exempt from its reach, on or off soil under the jurisdiction of the United States of America. Once more, I would suggest you go back and read Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution. Since it’s apparent that you may be in that class of constitutional adherents known as strict constructionists, it will be of interest to you to note that:
1. The clause, more likely than not, extends to persons and not just citizens.
2. The clause itself was apparently important enough to have been included in the original charter, prior to any inclusion of a Bill of Rights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DiFHXgwc2M (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DiFHXgwc2M)



While we're PSing why do you worry about Muslims being called "ragheads", when you call some of my neighbors "goobers" and other slanders. Why is it that Progressives almost always feel they are smarter and superior to the common folk, as when Che referred to native Mexicans as "a band of illiterate Indians" and further "The Black is indolent and a dreamer, spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; the European has a tradition of wok and savings". What's up with that?

You can choose to call another ethnic or religious group by any name you choose. It is still protected speech in my understanding. But the reason I made the reference to ragheads is that it was made, not by some yokel or goober on the street, but by Anne Coulter before an approving audience of the Conservative Political Action Committee, the lobbying arm of the American Conservative Union, that has also been addressed by Dick Cheney, and counts on such “favorites” as Rush Limbaugh, Oliver North, and Phyllis Schlafly. This the same Anne Coulter who told a Vietnam vet that he was the reason why we lost the war; the same Anne Coulter who would have had no problem if the planes used by the 9-11 highjackers had been flown into the NY Times building; and the same Anne Coulter who called for the forced conversion of Muslims to Christianity. I am currently working on a non-fiction version of how that fits in with their call for traditional moral values; the same group that somehow believes that they and only they are the only Christians on earth. Tell me if this doesn’t sound familiar, “You’re a Catholic? I’m a Christian.” So much for any notion you may entertain about “progressives” being the only ones who feel superior to the common folk.

Che’s comments were made when he was a young medical student traveling throughout Latin America. But all the same, racism is indeed a more pervasive stain throughout Latin America than it is here. Despite almost 200 years of independence, it is a region that is still divided by what is effectively a racial caste system; a small group of descendents of European class privilege at the top, followed by mestizos, then the descendents of indigenous peoples, with black descendents imported as slaves occupying the bottom. And ideology provides no immunity from its reach. First hand evidence shows on the exile community in south Florida views American blacks with equal contempt and disdain. Even black exiles from Cuba somehow feel a sense of superiority to American blacks. Nor is it unusual for the people of one country in Latin America to feel a sense of cultural superiority those of another Latin American country.

My apologies to Andy for taking so much space to make my points.

[JarHead]

to quote an old Seargent Major i worked with, "someone needs a check up from the neck up, cause we got stinkin thinkin, put some altitude in your attitiude."jester:

Perhaps 'SomeOne' has a severe case of 'high altitude / low outlook' syndrome?nosey:

Georgia - no canoe? (I did live there)
New member (May 2005) refrences F4-anything? (I taught the first pilots)dunce:

You, reprob8, & me should get together and look into this altitude/attitude problem. We might be able to provide some re-direction / help.

[LBLUNTX]

Perhaps 'SomeOne' has a severe case of 'high altitude / low outlook' syndrome?nosey:

Georgia - no canoe? (I did live there)
New member (May 2005) refrences F4-anything? (I taught the first pilots)dunce:

You, reprob8, & me should get together and look into this altitude/attitude problem. We might be able to provide some re-direction / help.

Please define "high altitude / low outlook' syndrome". Just in case it means someone who disagrees with you on political points, then you have a non sequitur, because about 1/3 of the country generally agrees with me and about 1/3 of the country generally agrees with Rebprob8 and you appear to believe whatever he believes. In my lifetime I have found that the writings of lovers of communist revolutionaries is generally suspect since all communist revolutions have been terrible failures to the people they were rescuing from whomever or whatever. Marxism is full of fine theory that never works out in practice. If it means my choice of beer, well boo hoo.

--Nav Bomb Tactics Trainer Specialist school -- Chanute AFB, IL -- Aug 1969 - Mar 1970
--F4D tube type analog WST -- Davis Monthan AFB, AZ -- Apr 1970 - Aug 1971
--F4E GP4B Digital computer -- George AFB, CA -- Aug 1971 - Feb 1973
--F4E GP4B Digital computer -- Luke AFB, AZ -- Feb 1973 - May 1974
--F4D Solid state analog computer -- Spangdahlem AB, Germany -- May 1974 - May 1976
--RF4C Mixture analog and GP4 computer -- Ramstein AB, Germany -- Dec 1977 - Dec 1979
--F4E GP4B Digital computer -- Hahn AB, Germany -- Dec 1979 - ~ Apr 1982? (then converted to
F-16)

Thats just the F4's.

So you were a Marine Corps IP. Changing careers from a pilot to a sim tech must be an interesting story, please do tell as I'm keen to hear it.

If you want to get together and swap some old lies, err scuze me, old simulator stories and do some brews, that would be fine, but don't expect to convert me to Socialism. alcoholic

Too many 'gators down here for canoeing and squealing like a pig ain't my thing. :biggrin:

LBLUNTX
XOXOXOXO
</IMG></IMG></IMG></IMG>

[The Pirate]

:winkie: scratchch

[LBLUNTX]

Dearest long winded Reprob8,

Sorry to have kept you waiting but I've had a sick LT1 that needed my attention along with other pressing issues. I believe you'll recognize your quotes.


" I’m still serving my apostasy, but I do remember an injunction from a certain figure to the effect that we should render unto Caesar those things that are Caesar, and onto God those things that are God’s. The danger here lies not in choosing between God and Caesar, but confusing one for the other".

Actually it was a question of taxation without representation. The Romans taxed all conquered peoples and the members of the Sanhedrin were greatly annoyed by this as they still had to fulfill the sacrifices mandated by the Jewish Law along with the Roman taxation which cut into their pocketbooks severely. It was also usefull to them to attempt to drive a wedge between this upstart Rabbi and the common folk who were also unhappy about Roman taxation. Sound somewhat familiar? Tea and all that.


"The constitution is very explicit in declaring that there shall be no religious test as a qualification for holding office. It does require an oath and affirmation to the charter. If you can not execute the responsibilities of your office because of your religious beliefs; if you use your religious beliefs as the condition or foundation for setting public policy, then you have violated that oath."

I don't follow your logic here.

"Lastly, it’s hard to believe your assertion that you served “honorably” under Carter and Clinton while hocking a literary lugi at them. All it tells us is that you only respect those you’re partial to, all claims to honorable service notwithstanding."

Actually I was referring to Carter, probably the worst President in the last century. Clinton was, in my opinion, in the top 50% of the last century.

"I believe the subject at hand was the separation of state and religion, not whether a president was committed Christian. Your first statement only begs the question: what was the framers original intent? Do tell.
Just the same, the question you need to answer is what is this original intent of which you speak???"

Quite simple actually, No nationally mandated church such as the Church of England. Having politicians run both the government and the peoples faith/churches gives way too much power for the political/governing class as has been demonstrated often in historical Europe and current middle
eastern countries. WHen governments and churches become one, the Church loses every time. Unless I miss my guess, the current Christian churches (including Roman Catholics) are sufficiently fractured to prevent them from taking over the government.


"Tell me if this doesn’t sound familiar, “You’re a Catholic? I’m a Christian.” So much for any notion you may entertain about “progressives” being the only ones who feel superior to the common folk."

Never heard it before. I do disagree with the Catholic church on certain dogmas but they are still christian and still agree on the essentials with most protestant denominations.


"Che’s comments were made when he was a young medical student traveling throughout Latin America. But all the same, racism is indeed a more pervasive stain throughout Latin America than it is here. Despite almost 200 years of independence, it is a region that is still divided by what is effectively a racial caste system; a small group of descendents of European class privilege at the top, followed by mestizos, then the descendents of indigenous peoples, with black descendents imported as slaves occupying the bottom. And ideology provides no immunity from its reach. First hand evidence shows on the exile community in south Florida views American blacks with equal contempt and disdain. Even black exiles from Cuba somehow feel a sense of superiority to American blacks. Nor is it unusual for the people of one country in Latin America to feel a sense of cultural superiority those of another Latin American country."

Still apologizing for communist monsters I see.

The rest of your post was just more opinions from the left which don't impress me. TTFN.


LBLUNTX
XOXOXOXOXO

[reprob8]

Quotes from your last post are in italics, followed by my response.

"The constitution is very explicit in declaring that there shall be no religious test as a qualification for holding office. It does require an oath and affirmation to the charter. If you can not execute the responsibilities of your office because of your religious beliefs; if you use your religious beliefs as the condition or foundation for setting public policy, then you have violated that oath."

I don't follow your logic here.

You are the one who implied that a president should be allowed to follow his faith while in office, irrespective of what the Constitution requires. Not only that, there’s almost an implied call for unquestioned loyalty if for no other reason than “he is still your president” (your words, not mine).

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Now where in that statement do you find an exception or an addendum for religious belief? Does it not strike you as odd that there is no call for allegiance to any sort of God or king who during those times ruled by what was known as divine right. Nor is there any mention of faith in Article II of the charter, but it does require that the president take care that the laws are faithfully executed.

Actually I was referring to Carter, probably the worst President in the last century. Clinton was, in my opinion, in the top 50% of the last century.

Carter the worst president of the last century? Where does that put Harding? Can you say Teapot Dome? I’m sure that George W. Bush has a solid lock on that appellation for the current century.

Quite simple actually, No nationally mandated church such as the Church of England. Having politicians run both the government and the peoples faith/churches gives way too much power for the political/governing class as has been demonstrated often in historical Europe and current middle
eastern countries. WHen governments and churches become one, the Church loses every time. Unless I miss my guess, the current Christian churches (including Roman Catholics) are sufficiently fractured to prevent them from taking over the government.

That was the framers’ original intent??? Who are these framers of whom you speak? Do you honestly think that the ratifying conventions of New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the rest of the ratifying states, were all of the same mind with respect to the First Amendment’s religious clauses? Do you honestly think that the people who drafted the charter would have been so stupid as to say religion when they in fact – as you would have us believe – meant to say the establishment of an state church?

In 1785 the Virginia legislature was set to pass a bill to levy a special tax that was to go towards support teachers of the Christian religion. Note here that said tax was to benefit no specific denomination, but for the benefit of all teachers of the Christian religion. If as you say the establishment clause was there simply to protect the country from the establishment of a national church, we would expect that a bill such as the one proposed in Virginia would have gained easy passage. Yet the bill was opposed by some of the very denominations that would have stood to gain from such a levy. This is the levy which led Madison to write his famous Memorial and Remonstrance (http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/memorial.htm) in opposition to that bill. This is a solid a repudiation of the notion that it’s constitutional as long as all religions are treated equally, as put forth by the likes of Robertson, Falwell, etc. This is same Madison who with Thomas Jefferson drafted Virginia’s Statute of Religious Freedom (http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/lynch/religious-freedom.html). This is the same Madison who was instrumental in writing the Bill of Rights, the free exercise and establishment clauses getting their foundation from that same Virginia statute. For more on Madison and Jefferson:

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm (http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm)

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qjeffson.htm (http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qjeffson.htm)

http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/church_&_state.htm (http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/church_&_state.htm)


It goes beyond just a nationally mandated church, such as the Anglican Church of England. It also goes beyond the issue of giving too much power to politicians in running both government and the church. What it goes to is that a marriage of church and state is considered an unholy and corrupting influence on both. As history has proven the minister will use the power and sanction of government to suppress or even exterminate those of a different belief or no belief at all. And the state will use its support of a particular religion to justify all manner of mischief and tyranny against its own people.

If those Christian churches are sufficiently fractured to prevent them from taking over government, it is because that wall of separation working. All you need is for one church, one religion, one denomination to gain official government sanction before we find ourselves on that slippery slope towards religious persecution, backed by the full faith and credit of the government, the fractured natured of the churches notwithstanding.

"Tell me if this doesn’t sound familiar, “You’re a Catholic? I’m a Christian.” So much for any notion you may entertain about “progressives” being the only ones who feel superior to the common folk."

Never heard it before. I do disagree with the Catholic church on certain dogmas but they are still christian and still agree on the essentials with most protestant denominations.

If you’ve never heard that before, you must be living in cave or flat out lying, especially given the region of the country in which you live. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve people declare themselves “Christian” in comparison to another denomination such as Catholic or Lutheran. And I’m quite sure that others on this board have heard the same reference.


"Che’s comments were made when he was a young medical student traveling throughout Latin America. But all the same, racism is indeed a more pervasive stain throughout Latin America than it is here. Despite almost 200 years of independence, it is a region that is still divided by what is effectively a racial caste system; a small group of descendents of European class privilege at the top, followed by mestizos, then the descendents of indigenous peoples, with black descendents imported as slaves occupying the bottom. And ideology provides no immunity from its reach. First hand evidence shows on the exile community in south Florida views American blacks with equal contempt and disdain. Even black exiles from Cuba somehow feel a sense of superiority to American blacks. Nor is it unusual for the people of one country in Latin America to feel a sense of cultural superiority those of another Latin American country."

Still apologizing for communist monsters I see.

Is racism germane to your point or not? If it’s repudiated, I’m still accused of defending a “communist monsters.” So why bother bringing it up in the first place. In your eyes Che’s a monster, his racial views not withstanding. Or did you make a point you can’t back out of. Racism, as I’ve already stated, is a stain on Latin American societies that is no respecter of political ideology. You think the Agusto Pinochet whom you defended in earlier post is not a bigot in his own right with respect to Judaism? Ask Jacobo Timmerman, a Jewish newspaper owner who was disappeared because he had the temerity to challenge the excesses of Pinochet and his junta. You think genocide was not a motivating factor in Guatemala’s “scorched earth” (known in the region as the Guatemalan Solution) policy of the early 1980s, which by conservative estimates wiped out over 400 indigenous villages and killed almost 100,000 Indians?

If you call Che a monster, what does that make Indonesia’s Suharto, who’s responsible for the wholesale slaughter of almost 500,000 people in East Timor. To my knowledge, Che never had an arch-bishop assassinated as he was conducting a mass; to my knowledge, Che never had four Catholic lay-workers raped and murdered; to my knowledge, Che never had people abducted in the middle of the night only to have their mutilated bodies left in the streets as a warning to others; at a rate of over 12,000 per year. I’m not about to elevate the man to sainthood, but in the continuum of crimes against humanity he comes nowhere close to some of the more ruthless heads of state whose crimes our government has aided and abetted.

The rest of your post was just more opinions from the left which don't impress me. TTFN.

i.e. your way of saying, “I don’t have a damn clue about how to respond.”:biggrin:

Lastly, in an earlier post you mentioned that “all communist revolutions have been terrible failures to the people they were rescuing from whomever or whatever.” One could pretty much say the same about Christianity, and they’ve been at it for 2,000 years.

[JarHead]

. . . . . . . .
"Tell me if this doesn’t sound familiar, “You’re a Catholic? I’m a Christian.”
. . . . . . . .
LBLUNTX
XOXOXOXOXO



. . . . .
been at it for 2,000 years.
. . . . .


Combatants,

We have all been at this for a very long (since humanity?) time now.
Please let me know who "wins."
I'll be long gone before this is settled. So, just leave a note on my tombstone.


ps - LBLUNTX re PILOTS - said I trained them, never said I was one.

[LBLUNTX]

Combatants,

We have all been at this for a very long (since humanity?) time now.
Please let me know who "wins."
I'll be long gone before this is settled. So, just leave a note on my tombstone.


ps - LBLUNTX re PILOTS - said I trained them, never said I was one.

Both quotes were Reprob8's.



LBLUNTX
XOXOXOXOXO